A record-breaking number of applications to the Turing Scheme were rejected by the government this year following a spike in interest ahead of the programme’s expected closure.
Latest data reveals that bids from education providers to organise international trips for young people soared to 951 in 2025-26 – but just 454, or 48 per cent, were accepted.
In 2021-22, the programme’s first year, 91 per cent of 412 applications were granted. The proportion of successful bids fell to 61 per cent of 520 requests the next year, before hitting 77 per cent of 619 bids in 2023-24, and then 85 per cent of last year’s 755 applications.
The Turing Scheme was supposed to end last year but the government agreed to a one-year extension. However, the total funding pot was trimmed by nearly a third to £78 million as part of the Department for Education’s cost-cutting spree.
Figures published this week show the government even underspent this reduced budget by over £4 million despite record numbers of applications.
‘Shorter mobility’ for FE students
The data shows applications from further education providers rose to 318 this year, but half were rejected. It means just £24 million in Turing cash has been handed out to FE providers in 2025-26, a 28 per cent cut from the previous year.
DfE acknowledged the lower success rate of applications, but said it funded successful applications in full as well as appealed bids to ensure providers can deliver the projects they applied for.
The DfE also limited the maximum funding pot available per FE provider application to £205,000 and has almost halved daily living costs for students going abroad this year. DfE said it placed the limit to avoid stretching the available funding across many providers and increase the risk of providers not being able to deliver their intended placements.
It also said where providers applied for funding above the cap, the applications were scaled down to the cap.
This funding cut and low approval rate means around 11,000 FE learners and apprentices will go on a trip this year, a 6 per cent fall from last year.
Richard Lloyd, co-founder of Further Afield, an initiative that arranges trips with FE providers, said funding pressures were resulting in “shorter mobility” placements across the board. He said: “It can sometimes mean experiences feel more like short group trips rather than the longer, more independent exchanges traditionally associated with study abroad.”
Erasmus+ return?
Named after the mathematician and code-breaker Alan Turing, the DfE-funded initiative replaced Erasmus+ in March 2021 with a new focus on social mobility. The then education secretary Gavin Williamson also allowed trips to be made outside the EU.
Figures show FE providers continued to target more disadvantaged students despite dipping into a smaller funding pot. Two thirds of FE participants going on a Turing trip this year are from a disadvantaged background, compared with 59 per cent in 2024-25.
Schools have ramped up their social mobility efforts too, with around 82 per cent of all school placements being handed to students from deprived backgrounds, up from 56 per cent the previous year.
But universities bucked the trend with their share of disadvantaged students on Turing trips rising just 2 per cent to 52 per cent of all 18,826 participants.
No funding has been announced to continue the Turing Scheme next year. In May, skills minister Jacqui Smith said the government had begun negotiating to “work towards” rejoining Erasmus+.
Staff at 68 colleges will ballot on whether to strike over demands for a “serious” pay offer, action on workloads and national pay bargaining.
The ballot, which will run from October 13 to November 17, follows the Association of College’s non-binding recommended pay award of 4 per cent.
The University and College Union (UCU) calls this recommendation “disappointing” and alongside other education unions, has launched its “A New Deal for FE” campaign which demands a 10 per cent or £3,000 pay rise, whichever is higher.
Unions are also calling for pay parity with schoolteachers within three years, a minimum starting salary of £30,000, and a return to national bargaining.
But Association of Colleges chief executive David Hughes said the 4 per cent recommendation is “strong” and warned that colleges cannot meet the 10 per cent pay claim under current “funding constraints”.
UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “It is unacceptable that following years of pay degradation, college staff are expected to stomach further real-terms pay cuts, while at the same time dealing with ever-higher workloads.
“The prime minister said this week that Labour wants to put further education on an equal footing with higher education, but this will be impossible unless the government tackles the issues causing half of college teachers to leave the sector within three years.
“Our demands are reasonable. If they are not met, the sector will face serious disruption in the coming months’”.
Last week, the UCU said it wrote to 76 college principals to outline its demands ahead of confirming a formal ballot.
This total has decreased as active negotiations on pay and conditions are ongoing between UCU branches and college leaders, FE Week understands.
Hughes told FE Week: “The unions know that colleges cannot meet that 10 per cent pay claim given the funding constraints they are under.
“In our national negotiations, we clearly set out the financial position of colleges, alongside the ambition of every college leader to do the best they can on pay.
“Our 4 per cent recommendation is a strong one and I would hope that college staff would see the enormous strides colleges are taking to achieve that, even though we all know it is not enough to ensure that college pay is fair. The reality is that we need the government to invest more in colleges.
“We will continue to work hard to ensure that the strong backing from the prime minister this week in Liverpool leads to a fully-funded, long-term solution to address pay and workforce challenges across the sector.”
News of the ballot comes days after prime minister Sir Keir Starmer told the Labour conference he will make it a “defining mission of this Labour government” to no longer ignore further education.
This includes a promise to pump “nearly £800 million” extra funding into 16 to 19 education next year.
The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.
Subsidies to develop a set of flagship technical qualifications have been quietly ditched after ministers shifted resources as part of the spending review, FE Week has learned.
Higher technical qualifications (HTQs) – a suite of government-approved level 4 and 5 certificates launched in 2022 – offer learners one and two-year technical courses as a “true alternative” to the university degree route.
More than 280 qualifications, most of which already existed, carry the HTQ name, which signifies high quality, alignment with employer needs, and gives learners access to university student finance.
But ahead of the spending review, the Department for Education closed a grant programme to help colleges, universities and awarding bodies grow HTQ delivery.
The grants could be used for building refurbishments, equipment such as robots and virtual reality headsets, employer engagement schemes, staff upskilling and curriculum development.
News of the decision comes in the same week prime minister Sir Keir Starmer announced a new target for raising participation in higher technical courses.
Ambitions changed
The most recent data shows around 4,300 learners signed up to study HTQs in 2023-24, in subjects including applied computing, early years and animal welfare.
The DfE estimates about 850 signed up the previous year when HTQs were launched.
The qualifications are part of a wider set of reforms to English technical education prompted by the 2016 Sainsbury review, which recommended developing T Levels and apprenticeships which both align with employer-led occupational standards.
The government has positioned them as a “practical and advanced next step” for T Level students and sees them as part of its offer of modular shorter courses available through the upcoming lifelong learning entitlement.
According to the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA), which scrutinises government projects, the government had concluded ministers’ ambitions were “no longer in place” and £23 million earmarked for this financial year was redeployed to “support wider and ongoing work to drive up quality in provision”.
The whole-life cost of the grant programme, which was planned to last until 2027, was estimated at £176 million.
A further £300 million was spent on 21 institutes of technology (IoT) centres that specialise in delivering HTQs through regional collaborations of employers, colleges and universities.
Losing interest
While Skills England continues to add to its list of approved HTQs, the early withdrawal of funding to develop the courses was seen by some as evidence that government interest had waned.
Former Dudley College of Technology chief executive Lowell Williams, a director of Black Country and the Marches IoT until this summer, said the government took a “disappointing and disjointed” approach to HTQs.
He praised the concept of offering young people a study route to higher education and work but believed the qualifications failed to “break the mould”.
By Williams’ final year, he had concluded the government had “given up” on HTQs and the IoTs they are often taught in, choosing instead to focus on new technical excellence colleges which are “at best overlapping and at worse competing”.
A review of the HTQ approval process funded by Lord David Sainsbury’s Gatsby Charitable Foundation voiced concerns that the qualifications lacked brand awareness from learners and employers, and the Skills England approvals process was “complex” and sometimes too slow to keep pace with industry.
One organisation said: “We’re trying to move quickly to meet the demands of industry and it becomes cumbersome. It can take 18 months [and then] another year after approval before you can run it. So three years from the idea to getting students on it.”
Graham Hasting-Evans, chief executive of awarding body NOCN, said HTQs were not a “phenomenal success” due to limited employer demand.
FE Week understands the government still views higher technical education as a priority but the development and delivery of HTQs should now be “business as usual”.
Strikes have started at a London college group over “intolerable” plans to freeze sixth-form teacher salaries until they equalise with the rest of the group’s lecturers.
About 60 teachers at Capital City College (CCC) sixth-form campus in Angel – formerly known as City and Islington College – walked out on Tuesday, the first of six days of strike action planned to run until Friday, November 17.
The dispute centres around plans to freeze sixth-form teachers’ pay for two to three years until a “discrepancy” between their salaries and the rest of the group’s general FE teaching staff is removed.
While CCC is a general FE college, many of its Angel sixth-form teachers are on more generous legacy sixth-form conditions.
The number of strike days will escalate in the next two weeks.
Next week, teachers will walk out on Friday, then again on Saturday to coincide with a college open day.
Strikes will continue from Wednesday to Friday the following week. About 60 of the staff body of 81 are understood to be taking part in action.
National Education Union (NEU) representatives said staff shared a “widespread concern” about the “sustained attack” on their pay and conditions, arguing that top-of-scale teachers currently received £1,100 less per year than the national sixth-form rate.
Nick Lawson, an NEU representative and teacher at the campus, said the plans to freeze pay were “intolerable” to members, with more than 98 per cent voting in favour of strikes on a turnout of more than 80 per cent.
Teachers on sixth-form contracts, subject to national bargaining, can expect to earn between £32,178 and £49,725 this year.
A CCC spokesperson told FE Week that its management respected the right of teachers and the NEU to strike over the “historic pay issue”.
They added: “Staff pay remains a priority, but any increase must be equitable for all our staff and financially sustainable so we can continue investing in the resources and services we provide for our students.”
Sir Keir Starmer has been accused of shirking accountability after Downing Street admitted his “bold new target” for two-thirds of young people to enter higher-level learning has no deadline.
The prime minister this week used his party conference speech to “scrap” Tony Blair’s target of getting 50 per cent of young adults into higher education, declaring this goal was “not right for our time”.
Starmer announced a new aim that includes apprenticeships after stating further education would be a “defining mission of this Labour government”.
Downing Street later confirmed the PM’s aim was for two-thirds of young people to be “participating in higher-level learning – academic, technical or apprenticeships – by age 25, up from 50 per cent today”.
It added a “sub-target” will ensure “at least 10 per cent of young people pursue higher technical education or apprenticeships by age 25 by 2040, a near doubling of today’s figure”.
But FE Week has now been told the 2040 sub-target date does not apply to the main two-thirds goal.
It was reported that Blair’s target, announced in 1999, had a deadline of 2010, and it was reportedly achieved in 2019.
Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said not setting a deadline for Starmer’s target meant it was “not a target”.
“If there’s no date for people to work towards, then it’s just a vague aspiration,” he said. “That seems rather unwise, given that one common criticism of this government is that it has a tendency to make commitments but not see them through.
“For the prime minister to make a speech with a big new commitment in it and for that to fall apart the moment he gets back to London reminds me of an episode of Yes, Prime Minister.”
How far are we from the ‘target’?
Government data for participation in HE by age 25 is only available up to 2022-23, which relates to people who were 15 years old in 2012-13.
It shows 49 per cent of the 573,000-strong 2012-13 cohort entered some form of higher education, which covers all level 4+ qualifications including academic degrees and work-based learning such as apprenticeships.
This was an increase of 10.2 percentage points on the 2001-02 cohort.
Around 5 per cent of the 2012-13 cohort of 15-year-olds took a higher technical qualification or apprenticeship.
If Starmer’s sub target – 10 per cent of young adults pursuing higher technical education or apprenticeships – is met, this suggests the government is aiming to increase current academic higher education participation by around 13 percentage points to 57 per cent.
Tom Richmond, an education policy analyst and former adviser to DfE ministers, said Starmer’s target seemed “ambitious” but it was “frustrating” that it focused on participation instead of completions.
He said: “Given that there has only been a 10-percentage point increase in level 4+ participation over the past decade – almost all of which was driven by more students starting undergraduate degrees – an additional 17 percentage point increase from this point forward looks hugely ambitious.
“That the target only focuses on participation, not completions, is also frustrating as the apprenticeship dropout rate remains stubbornly high.”
Hillman added he would “caution against” having 2040 as any sort of target date for Starmer’s technical education and apprenticeships sub-target.
“There will be three general elections – at least – between now and then, so it would be a date guaranteed to mean no accountability. There are good reasons why educational institutions tend to plan on a five-to-seven-year time horizon,” he said.
It will be today’s 10-year-olds, currently in either year 5 or 6 in primary school, who will be aged 25 in 2040 and judged for whether the sub-target was reached.
We’ve been here before
Multiple ministers have distanced their governments from Blair’s 50 per cent target since 2010.
WonkHE pointed out that the coalition government’s business secretary Vince Cable told the House of Commons in 2010: “We must not perpetuate the idea, encouraged by the pursuit of a misguided 50 per cent participation target, that the only valued option for an 18-year-old is a three-year academic course at university. Vocational training, including apprenticeships, can be just as valuable as a degree, if not more so.”
PM David Cameron said in 2012: “By making apprenticeships a gold standard option for ambitious young people, we are sending a message that technical excellence is as highly valued as academic prowess.”
And education secretary Gavin Williamson said in 2020: “When Tony Blair uttered that 50 per cent target for university attendance, he cast aside the other 50 per cent. It was a target for the sake of a target, not with a purpose.
“As education secretary, I will stand for the forgotten 50 per cent. From now on, our mantra must be further education, further education, further education.”
‘A welcome reset’
Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said Starmer’s announcement was a “welcome and major reset of what aspiration should mean for young people”.
He added: “It could be transformative, for young people, for their families, for teachers and for employers. But delivering it will require a step change every bit as significant in how the skills system engages employers: we need those employers already involved to ramp up what they do, and many of those employers who are not yet involved to get involved for the first time. Otherwise it is just empty words.”
Mary Curnock Cook, education expert and former CEO of UCAS, said that together with maintenance grants, the lifelong learning entitlement and the “shift” to higher education including apprenticeships rather than just “university”, Starmer’s target signalled a fuller embrace of the recommendations of the Augar Review from 2019.
“If there is a settlement for universities in the forthcoming skills white paper, it will surely come with some level 4 and 5 strings attached,” she added.
“Perhaps we’ll finally see the foundations of a properly integrated tertiary education system where people can access a frictionless journey using multiple providers, levels, and credit, learning in the flow of life and work.”
Plans for new “V Level” qualifications to sit alongside A-levels and T Levels are being drawn up, FE Week can reveal.
Multiple sources confirmed ministers are poised to set out plans for a new suite of vocational qualifications in the upcoming white paper on post-16 education and skills.
It follows nearly a decade of heated debates over vocational and technical options for school leavers, which saw the introduction of “gold-standard” T Levels in 2020 and the phased removal of applied general qualifications (AGQs), like BTECs, to direct students towards T Levels.
Ministers from the previous Conservative government and current Labour government have been lobbied heavily by colleges to maintain a third route for students that combines practical skills with academic learning.
Campaigners from the Protect Student Choice campaign, spearheaded by the Sixth Form Colleges Association, warned scrapping AGQs would create a “qualifications gap” for tens of thousands of students for whom a T Level either wasn’t suitable or available.
Popular AGQs like BTECs in subjects such as health and social care, applied science and IT are due to be scrapped in 2026, with “highly regarded” AGQs in business and engineering set to follow in 2027.
There were over 277,000 students studying an AGQ last year compared to 41,500 T Level students. Protect Student Choice said removing those AGQ courses “risks reversing the recent progress made in widening access to higher education and could lead to an increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET)”.
Minister hints
Earlier this year, the government’s independent curriculum and assessment review, chaired by Becky Francis, said it would consider “what level 3 qualifications may need to exist alongside T Levels to ensure a simpler, high-quality offer that serves the needs of all learners”.
The review’s interim report said it was “clear” that T Levels “are not suitable as the only technical/vocational pathway” due to “many factors, including the high bar individual providers may choose to set for entry, the design of the programme, and the relatively low number of young people at age 16 who are confident about their likely career destination”.
Francis’s final report is due to publish in the coming weeks, and is expected to inform upcoming white papers on schools and post-16 education.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith hinted at an announcement during the Labour Party conference this week.
Asked by FE Week if defunding plans were set in stone for 2026 and 2027, she said: “I’ve been completely clear that I think T Levels have got an important role to play. A-levels have got an important role to play. We have the need then for a third route in the middle.
“We’ll have more to say about that, and I think that will provide the sort of choice for those wanting to protect something they’ve got at the moment.”
Multiple sources told FE Week that V Levels would form the “third route” but details on the size of the qualifications, content, assessment and funding are yet to emerge.
The Department for Education declined requests for comment.
V-A-T plan
According to a government source, V Levels will be pitched as “sector-specific” qualifications next to T Levels, which are “occupationally-specific”.
They added: “But what we don’t want to see is a subsidiary route. We want everything to be of the same sort of quality provision, even if the assessment strategy is different, even if the content is different.”
Level 3 reform has been one of the most contested areas of education policy since the 2016 Sainsbury Review called for a streamlined system of A-levels and technical qualifications.
T Levels were introduced by the last government in 2020 and continued to be championed by Labour ministers. Developing and rolling out the qualifications to date has cost around £1.8 billion, but T Levels have been criticised due to high numbers of dropouts and over-optimistic student forecasts.
Another source told FE Week: “Schools, colleges and teachers are desperate for some certainty on post-16 level 3 options. There is some coherence to an A-level, T Level and V Level menu, but we’ll have to see what the V Level offer will be; how it differs from a T Level and how it will be better than the current offer of level 3 alternatives.”
On the V, A and T options, one college leader quipped: “More VAT in FE, just what we didn’t want.”
Viral claims that Euan Blair’s apprenticeship provider will receive a £100 billion contract to create the government’s new digital ID app have been debunked.
Social media users were sent into a frenzy this week over rumours that Multiverse, England’s largest revenue-generating apprenticeship provider, had been selected to develop an app for the government’s proposed digital ID scheme.
The misinformation was shared online, creating conspiracies that Euan Blair, son of former prime minister Tony Blair, had been awarded the contract due to his family connections.
The flurry of online chatter came after Tony Blair’s organisation, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, backed the idea for a digital ID that proves the identity, age and residency for all UK citizens and legal residents.
Commenters began to buzz online about Multiverse’s connection to the proposed scheme, garnering over a million views and tens of thousands of reposts.
“No wonder Tony Blair wants Digital IDs… when his son is the owner of the company that’ll be paid £100 billion to develop and monitor them,” one X user said.
X user post spreading rumours of Multiverse/digital ID scheme
The training provider shot down the rumours.
“Just to reassure, we are remaining a training provider, not an app provider, even for £100 billion…” a Multiverse spokesperson quipped to FE Week.
Multiverse mainly delivers tech-related apprenticeships from levels 3 to 6.
FE Week revealed last week that Multiverse overtook Kaplan as the country’s largest revenue-generating apprenticeship provider for the first time, earning £58.9 million from apprenticeship training between April 2023 and March 2024.
Fact-checking website Full Fact published a report earlier this week debunking the digital ID myths.
The proposed digital ID scheme is being run by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) and is due to undergo public consultation later this year.
When an FE commissioner’s report in April laid bare the extent of the governance failures at Weston College, its chair, Andrew Leighton-Price, was “shocked” by most of its findings.
The report revealed how £2.5 million of concealed payments had been made to its principal, Paul Phillips, between 2017 and 2023, with some of its governors being unaware of the extent of his pay package.
When confronted with the report’s findings, Leighton-Price, who was Weston’s chair from 2019 to 2024 and previously worked in IT and accounting, said he believed governance “probably hasn’t kept up with the demands of the modern FE college”.
Many might agree with him.
Ex-Weston College chair Andrew Leighton-Price
Governing boards are expected to hold their executive teams to account for the educational performance and financial health of their college. But lately, evidence of governance failures is prompting calls for more to be done to professionalise the sector.
Since the Weston scandal erupted, colleges have received increased correspondence from the FE commissioner and the Department for Education (DfE), hammering home the importance of good governance.
When Burnley College, which claimed to be “number one” in the country for 16-19 achievement, was found by Ofsted to have “misled” by inflating its data this year, the watchdog noted how its governors had “limited experience of the further education and skills sector”.
“For too long, those responsible for leading and governing Burnley College did not question exceptionally high achievement rates or ensure that internal policies and processes were robust enough to manage the risk of inaccurate achievement data,” it said.
Limited expectations
But some believe there are limits to what can be expected from unpaid volunteers, and that the DfE should make it easier for colleges to pay their chairs.
Shelagh Legrave
A post-16 white paper expected from the government will introduce more accountability through new “regional improvement teams”. It is unclear where they will sit alongside Ofsted, DfE financial oversight, the apprenticeship accountability framework, local skills improvement plans and college accountability statements.
The theory goes that colleges offering renumeration could recruit better-qualified chair applicants who could be held more accountable for the decisions their boards make.
FE commissioner Shelagh Legrave is in favour of renumerating chairs. Speaking in a personal capacity, she said chairing can involve a “significant contribution of time”, particularly if that college is “large” or “in difficulty”.
“Excellent governance is a key component of an outstanding student experience and delivery of a college’s mission. Chairs give voluntarily substantial amounts of time to college boards. I am in favour of allowing colleges to pay their chairs an honorarium.”
Which colleges are paying chairs
As exempt charities, colleges must seek permission from the Charity Commission if they want to pay their chairs.
But the commission will only consider allowing a college to do so under certain conditions: if the college is undergoing “significant change”, such as a merger involving additional workload; if they are unable to recruit an unpaid chair and are seen as failing; or if the role is considered highly demanding because of the college’s “size and complexity” and recruitment attempts have failed.
At least 14 colleges and college groups have paid their chairs since 2016, our research revealed. Of 166 colleges and college groups that responded to our freedom of information request, nine previously paid their chair (including eight since 2021) while five are currently doing so.
Other colleges have sought permission to pay their chairs but have been refused.
In 2023-24, the Charity Commission declined one application, “advised” two and approved four. Last year, it declined two, advised two and approved three.
‘Painful’ process
Governance expert Ian Valvona, who has chaired multiple colleges, pointed out that the application process involves “quite a lot of paperwork”, and the commission does not “nod them through”.
Ian Valvona
Some colleges pay consultants to “make the argument for them”.
“You can get these cases through, but you have to really invest in it,” he added.
Paul Aristides, partner at executive search firm Anderson Quigley, is aware that “a number of colleges have considered or are considering paying their chairs for the first time but have not taken this forward with the Charity Commission”.
One director of governance told FE Week that their college group had agreed to renumeration, but the “painful” application process, which involves answering around 30 questions, is “designed for you not to get through the process” which feels “terribly unfair”.
“Finally, you get to the end if you haven’t lost the will to live and get this automatic response that somebody will get back to you in 12 weeks.”
The director believes it is “shocking” that, as organisations with multi-million pound turnovers, colleges are “placed in the hands of unpaid volunteers to oversee”.
“My chair does an awful lot. It just kills me that we are not paying these people for this amazing work they are doing.”
Valvona believes that with FE colleges becoming “more complex” in the last 15 years, as “large, complicated businesses, you want someone as chair who isn’t in that community volunteerism space, who is held to account for the work they put in.”
City of Portsmouth College chair Rob Nitsch
But not everyone agrees. Rob Nitsch, chair of City of Portsmouth College, is “very wary” of a “paid-for approach”, having “seen this turn relationships to the transactional and away from the vocational”.
He believes this is “not the time to be advocating for financial resource for governors”.
“Rather, I think there should be more work on the governor offer to make it more attractive, to increase the sense of reward and to make more of the civic responsibility that goes with it.”
Similarly, Hull College’s chair Rob Lawson does not believe that “paying people – from a seemingly ever-decreasing pot – would necessarily raise standards or increase the pool of potential chairs”.
Other sectors
The higher education sector is also facing calls to pay chairs. A 2023 paper for The Committee of University Chairs found that “more questions are being raised about the long-term suitability of the volunteer governance model for higher education institutions”.
In 2019, seven universities were paying their governing body chairs between£15,000 and £25,000 per year. Two also paid committee chairs up to £7,500, a report for the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) found.
The University of Derby, which also operates FE provision, currently pays its chair £13,000 a year, because the “time commitment” and “complexity” of FE and HE business was “significant and worthy of remuneration”.
Outside of education, paying governors (or trustees) is more commonplace. All NHS trusts and many housing associations pay their governors, with chairs earning between around £20,000 and £40,000 a year.
Hull College chair Rob Lawson
The last time the government reviewed FE governance, in 2013, then-skills minister Matt Hancock decided against paying college governors. His review claimed that if the NHS remuneration strategy was introduced to FE, this could cost a college nearly £200,000 a year (assuming that 13-15 business governors were paid per college) which “could place a huge financial burden on many colleges”.
FE Week understands that DfE officials edged closer to getting ministers to agree to pay chairs just before Covid. But there now appears to be little appetite among cash-strapped ministers for it.
“The DfE has not been particularly supportive of remunerated chairs or board members in FE,” said Aristides.
Although he believes there is an “ever-growing case for chairs to be paid” given the “increase in accountability, complexity and time commitment” of these roles, Aristides concedes that it is a “divisive” topic and “a look that jars with a sector often struggling financially”.
Similarly, one chair to whom FE Week spoke said there was a “stigma attached” to paying a chair and colleges do not want to “feel like an outlier in the sector”. “But if you want to get people who roll their sleeves up and lean into an organisation, and not just sit back with ‘strategy awaydays’ and delegating write-ups to their CEO, then you need to pay them,” they added.
Payments in challenging circumstances
Colleges placed in intervention are often expected to appoint and pay a new, DfE-approved chair, who is typically someone with departmental connections.
But not all such chairmanships end happily.
In 2019, after Brooklands College was stung by an apprenticeship subcontracting scandal that left it reeling with a £25 million debt to the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the FE commissioner parachuted in Andrew Baird, a national leader of governance and chair of Orbital South Colleges, to aid its recovery mission.
Baird was paid £15,000 a year to help the college draw up plans to bring it out of the red. But the payments stopped in November 2022 when he resigned from both his chair roles, after sharing a meme about Rishi Sunak in a WhatsApp group that some considered racist.
Sometimes, complex challenges emerge that chairs (whether paid or not) struggle to deal with.
United Colleges Group was given approval to remunerate its chair, Tony Johnston, £10,000 a year between October 2020 and July 2024, citing part of the reason as being “property development at the College of North West London [CNWL]”.
The group initially made plans to sell off its campuses in Willesden and Wembley and build a new college in Wembley Park shortly after it formed in a merger between CNWL and City of Westminster College in 2017.
But the plans, which involved demolishing the Willesden campus to build over 1,600 homes, did not get planning approval until December 2024. When FE Week called last week, the campus was still accepting enrolments for students this year. We were told the new site would not be completed until at least 2029.
“The design, planning and approval process for a project of this scale is necessarily complex and lengthy, with the construction phase now scheduled to begin in quarter three of academic year 2025/26,” the group said in a statement.
The group was rated as ‘requires improvement’ during the entire period their chair was being paid, although it was upgraded to ‘good’ in December 2024
When Croydon College was under intervention after being found ‘inadequate’ in 2023, it was “mandated” a chair – former DfE director Valvona – who was paid £350 a day on the basis of working one day a week.
He led a turnaround strategy that saw the college move to ‘good’ in October 2024. But the college decided not to seek approval to continue paying their chair, despite having to go out to recruitment twice before appointing current chair Val Shawcross.
Similarly, Hull College renumerated Lesley Davies, its DfE-appointed chair of goverors, £28,416 from January 2021 to August 2022 when it was under intervention, but its current chair, Rob Lawson, is not renumerated.
Valvona believes that, if a college is coming out of government intervention and no longer pays a chair, this “sends a signal to the person coming in, which is, ‘we’re not really expecting you to operate in the same way as your predecessor’”.
Giving something back?
Ex-West Nottinghamshire College chair Sean Lyons
West Nottinghamshire College was in dire need of a governance overhaul in January 2019 after being rocked by an expenses scandal and forced to accept a £2.1 million ESFA bailout.
The college paid its chair, experienced business executive Sean Lyons, £60,000 over four years to work on a turnaround plan.
Lyons has just received an honorary doctorate from Nottingham Trent University for the work he did with the college, and for work he has undertaken as group chair of Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust and Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Trust.
He said he would not have accepted the college role had it not been remunerated.
“You’re more likely to attract the right experience if you are prepared to [pay], because these things don’t go without personal risk and reputation risk.”
He believes that, as well as remunerating the corporation chair, it should be “entirely reasonable” to pay the chairs of sub-committees, including the audit, finance and performance committees.
He would expect kickback from “mandarins” to this idea, anticipating “a whole cascade of knock-on effects”, but believes it is “naïve” to think that “public service should mean doing everything pro bono”.
“I hate the phrase, ‘giving something back’. It’s not what motivates me. What drives me is problems that need to be solved.”
How much pay?
FE Week’s FOI revealed chairs post-Covid being paid between £10,000 and £25,000 a year, with the top amount paid by EKC Group to their chair, management consultant Charles Buchanon and MidKent College to its former chair Martin Cook.
LTE Group of education and skills providers (which includes The Manchester College and UCEN Manchester) last year paid its 11 governors £51,453 and eight co-optees £21,548, not including expenses, although it is unclear how much each was paid individually.
In comparison, Skills England remunerates its board members up to £15,000 a year for a time commitment of 20 days a year.
Scottish colleges can pay their chairs up to a maximum amount set by Scottish ministers of £27,560.
Lyons sees the amount he was paid (£12,000 a year) as “a pittance”, and “pitiful in comparison to the turnover of most colleges”. But it was important for him out of “principle, more than anything else”.
In comparison, his other employer, Hull NHS Trust, spent £212,000 on remunerating its non-executive directors in 2022-23.
Lyons is “pretty sure” he could pick up other remunerated chair roles. “So why would I consider a chair job in a further education college with all the risks around that, without remuneration?”
Chair recruitment challenges
Dame sally dicketts
Valvona believes that chair remuneration “generates a more competitive market”, attracting “different ages and diverse backgrounds”.
South Essex College explained that it has been paying its chair (former Activate Learning CEO Dame Sally Dicketts) £20,000 a year since September 2024, after “an unremunerated role hindered recruitment in the past”.
And, following the failure of South Hampshire College Group’s recruitment campaign last year, the FE commissioner agreed to “support” SHCG’s payment request.
Last month it started paying former government director of skills Stephen Marston £15,050 a year for a three-year term.
Its CEO Andrew Kaye said Marston’s appointment means that SHCG is now “very well-placed” to respond to the government’s industrial strategy, Skills England’s recommendations and “any implications arising from a new post-16 education and skills strategy”.
SHCG also put the payments down to “recognition of the size and scale of the role for a merged college group”.
Loughborough College has been paying its chair since 2021-22 and officially merged with SMB Group this year, forming Loughborough College Group.
Current chair Stephen Smith is paid £12,000 a year due to “the need to steer the organisation through the anticipated merger process, and historic difficulties in recruiting a chair,” the college said.
Valvona believes that paying chairs means that, when “failure” does happen, “the government can hold people to account because they are paid”. It also becomes “easier to ask [them] to stand down”.
But governance professional Perry Perrot, who is external verifier for the Institute of Directors’ governance qualifications, warned that “payment alone does not guarantee quality or integrity”. He believes “there is a risk of creating a race to the bottom, where remuneration becomes subjective and potentially inflated”.
“Boards should have the flexibility to offer controlled and transparent rewards where retention of high-quality leadership is essential, but this must be underpinned by robust safeguards.”
These safeguards should include “clear KPIs, annual 360-degree reviews, term limits and oversight by an independent audit committee”.
A few years ago, I read a short but incisive opinion piece in this publication by Jill Whittaker (executive chair of HIT Training) that left me asking: Why does our sector still accept achievement rate over pass rate as the norm?
Every year, the Department for Education (DfE) releases its apprenticeship achievement rate tables, and the sector reacts like it is results day for grown‑ups. The “winners” get applause, the “losers” get a little cosier with their quality team, and Ofsted sharpens its inspection pencil.
But here is the awkward truth: achievement rate is not the flawless measure of quality that we pretend it is.
For years, this single composite figure has been treated as our gold standard. It appears in performance tables, drives inspection narratives and shapes public perception. Governors scrutinise it, providers defend it, and Ofsted uses it as a primary judgment tool (whatever they say!).
It fails, however, to isolate the question that matters most to parents, learners, and employers alike: How good is the teaching, training and assessment the apprentice receives?
Flaw in the metric
Achievement rate blends two things – retention and pass rate – into one number. That means it is influenced not only by the quality of delivery, but also by whether apprentices remain on the programme until the end.
Retention is shaped by a host of factors outside a provider’s control, including redundancy, relocation, caring responsibilities, ill health, or shifts in business priorities.
A provider can deliver outstanding training and offer excellent pastoral support, then still see its achievement rate dragged down by circumstances entirely beyond its control and unrelated to quality.
Why pass rate is fairer
Pass rate – the proportion of apprentices who reach their end-point assessment and pass – is a far clearer and fairer indicator of quality. It focuses on what happens when apprentices are themselves engaged, supported and given the opportunity to demonstrate their competence.
A high pass rate points to:
Effective curriculum planning
Skilled teachers, trainers and assessors
Robust preparation for end-point assessment
Strong employer engagement
It reflects what providers can directly influence, which is the learning experience and the outcomes it produces.
Retention still matters, but it is not the headline
Of course, we want apprentices to stay the course. But retention is a multi-stakeholder challenge, shaped as much by employer commitment, job security and challenging and escalating economic conditions as by training quality. Folding it into the headline measure risks penalising providers who take on the most challenging and often the most rewarding work.
The unintended consequence is that providers may feel pressured to protect the metric rather than the mission. That can mean avoiding high-risk sectors, steering employers away from demanding standards, or recruiting only “safe-bet” apprentices.
None of this serves the wider purpose of apprenticeships, which is to open doors and develop skills across the local and national economies.
A better signal to the sector
Making pass rate the primary measure would send a clear message that what matters most is the quality of training, learning and assessment for those who complete. Achievement rate, retention, progression and destinations should obviously still be tracked, but we must stop pretending that a single composite number can capture the full story of apprenticeship quality.
Apprenticeships are about opportunity, transformation and the belief that skills training can change lives and strengthen industries. If we continue to judge providers primarily on achievement rate, we risk punishing those who serve the apprentices and employers who need us most.
Pass rate is not perfect, but it is the clearest, fairest and most direct measure of what apprenticeship providers do best, which is enabling apprentices to succeed when given the chance. We know what great delivery looks like; now let’s make sure the measure matches the mission.
It is time to put quality front and centre, and for Ofsted to lead that change.