DfE sets out apprenticeship intervention rules for new Ofsted regime

The Department for Education will not rely on specific Ofsted grades to place poorly-performing apprenticeship training providers in intervention for the next 12 months.

Training providers found to offer poor quality training to apprentices currently face a range of sanctions, including contract termination, if inspectors judge them to be ‘inadequate’.

Apprenticeship bosses have been waiting to know what the new intervention triggers will be under Ofsted’s new inspection regime, which begins next week, and does away with single overall headline judgments ‘inadequate’, ‘requires improvement’, ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’. 

New report cards will instead grade provision along a new five-point scale ranging from ‘exceptional’ to ‘urgent improvement’.

And where there was previously one grade for apprenticeships, there will be a grade each for: curriculum, teaching and training; achievement; and participation and development. 

Under the government’s current apprenticeship accountability framework training providers judged ‘inadequate’ for apprenticeships or overall effectiveness can lead to “contractual action”. Ofsted grades are one of several measures taken into consideration.

DfE confirmed this afternoon it will not use Ofsted grades in the first 12 months of “transition” between the old and new inspection model. It will instead decide whether or not to take action on a case-by-case basis. 

It said today: “We understand the sector’s concerns about the framework’s complexity and timing. We will evaluate each case according to its own circumstances and take a proportionate approach, particularly during the first 12 months of transition.

“Ofsted judgments are just one part of the apprenticeship accountability framework. We will continue to take a holistic view of provider performance, using multiple data sources with the learner experience central to our decisions.”

The first further education and skills providers to undergo a new-style inspection have been notified this week, ahead of inspections commencing next week.

It is not yet known whether DfE’s case-by-case approach will also apply to DfE’s other accountability regimes. Colleges are currently placed in FE Commissioner intervention if they are judged ‘inadequate’.

A revised apprenticeship accountability framework is due to be published by November 28. 

White paper fails to put employers at the centre of our FE universe

I have read the skills white paper from cover to cover, revisited it, discussed it, commented on it. Each time it feels less like a coherent, single document and more like a collection of loose ideas at different stages of maturity, all trying hard to be seen to say the “right sort of thing”.

It lacks a North Star: a fixed point guiding where we are going that would bind the ideas and create a unifying purpose. Without this, drifting into the doldrums feels like a very real risk. 

Members of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers span the skills system. Best known for our independent training providers (ITPs), we have a growing number of FE colleges, universities, assessment organisations and employers among our ranks. This breadth gives us a rounded and grounded view of how the system does and could work.

So, what do we think should be guiding the North Star for the skills system? The institutions that deliver it all – the ITPs, colleges and universities? Frontline staff, perhaps, the people who make the magic happen? Or the learners we exist to support? 

All are vital.  

But none are as important as the stakeholders for whom the system should be built: employers. 

There are three reasons for this:

  1. Employers are the end user and the ultimate gatekeeper. If it doesn’t work for them, it doesn’t work at all. We can train people endlessly, but if employers don’t value or use those skills, that effort is a waste of time and money. 
  2. Employers, when involved and harnessed properly, simplify and improve the system because they have to live with its results. 
  3. Engaged and equipped employers would amplify and multiply government inputs, creating a virtuous cycle of skills, confidence and growth, making precious taxpayer pounds go much further.

The white paper does not ‘get’ this. There are some warm words about meeting employers’ needs, but at a superficial level. There is no exploration of how and why employers act and respond in the way they do and how that might be influenced. 

The white paper gives the impression that the government sees employers as a means to its own skills needs, rather than government being there to serve employers’ needs. 

Even if you think this is the right way to view the skills system, it is not an effective way to get employers on your side!

This government’s blind spot about employers is beginning to cause problems. Good ideas – foundation apprenticeships, assessment reform – struggle to gain traction and their implementation consumes precious resources, including time and goodwill. When employers are put front and centre instead, this changes dramatically for the better.  

That means a more structured, engaging and confident approach to consultation with employers. So far – across not just employers, but also providers, awarding organisations and other stakeholders in the system – the government has really struggled with consultation. It starts, but does not follow through. 

What employers and other stakeholders want is proper consultation, which means true co-creation. We want to work through messy problems and trade-offs together, all the way through to implementation and impact.  

There is a risk that the government looks at its hit-and-miss involvement of employers to date, for example through route panels and trailblazers (the groups of employers and other experts who provide strategic oversight for specific sectors within the apprenticeship system) and draws the conclusion that there should be less engagement with them. 

This would be precisely the wrong conclusion. It needs MORE engagement with employers, including a refreshed and strengthened mechanism for employer involvement in Skills England, in programme and assessment design and in policy formulation.

A live example of this at the moment is around reform of apprenticeship assessment, where two of just five ‘exemplar’ reformed assessment reforms have run into the buffers (and the other three have emerged only torturously), precisely because employers are pushing back – hard – on what to them are obvious problems that they could have told government upfront.  There is a risk that this experience could be repeated in the creation of new apprenticeship units.

So I want to see a new coda to the white paper in which the government commits to genuine partnership with employers, providers, and assessment organisations, with employer wants and needs as the North Star.

Not only will this maximise the chances of us getting the skills system we so badly need, it will also happen more quickly and with much less of the friction we are beginning to experience.

EPA reform: changes inevitable, but not unfamiliar

By Sacha Finkle, Director of Delivery at NCFE

What I’ve learned is that we’re resilient, adaptable, and flexible. That gives me confidence that this time will be no different.

The latest apprenticeship reforms are significant. We’ve spent the last decade working with employers and apprentices to help them understand the benefits of independent end-point assessment (EPA). Independent EPA, developed following the 2012 Richard Review, has been a key part of apprenticeship assessment. Since its introduction, there has been a shift in perception and apprenticeships have become more valued, and their profile has increased.

The current system is costly, complex and in many cases has a negative impact on timely achievement for an apprentice waiting for end point assessment. We welcome the reforms in the hope they will solve these challenges.

Accountability and trust

In 2020, Ofqual introduced Centre Assessment Standard Scrutiny (CASS). This was to support the improvement of controls that awarding organisations have over centres – part of its overall strategy to ensure assessments consistently and accurately reflect the learner’s skills and knowledge.

The introduction of CASS was a response to perceived risks within delegated assessments to training providers, schools, and colleges, which could undermine standards and public confidence. Awarding organisations formalised controls to align with Ofqual’s conditions, where centres mark assessments to improve accountability and trust.

This balanced the need for flexible delivery with associated risks, ensuring learners’ awards accurately reflect their skills and knowledge in the subject and performance in assessments.

The right approach?

Yet have we found ourselves in a position where we’ve addressed one problem in two different ways?

Independent assessment contributed to raising the reputation of apprenticeships, but have we moved the issues from providers to end-point assessment organisations (EPAOs)? Are we confident that all apprenticeship assessment is comparable?

Why do EPAOs measure themselves on success rates when true success is with the provider and apprentice?

Could a CASS approach help?

Within a good quality CASS strategy, all assessors are quality assured internally, then again by External Quality Assurers (EQAs). This provides greater governance, consistency, and utilises multiple individuals in the approval process.

Good quality EPAOs have Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) processes, but this isn’t consistent across all and not as robust as what’s required within a CASS strategy.

Independent assessment has challenges. The approach can present an unfair view based on a short assessment, particularly within an observation of practice. This has risks when working in environments such as schools or care settings.

Where there is environmental unpredictability, this can lead to ‘staged’ assessments, where apprentices work with the most compliant group in the easiest scenarios. Does this show that employers have already decided on competency? Does it allow the apprentice to fully demonstrate their abilities?

Something else to consider is whether the policy environment has created unfair assessments for apprentices. For example, increased complexities when other, comparable qualifications such as T Levels don’t require costly independent assessment in the same way.

Independence is valued by employers, but would employers also value a CASS strategy if they fully understood the ecosystem around centre assessment and how quality and standards are maintained? Particularly if this approach provides reduced costs and complexities.

Demonstrating behaviours

Reforms have thrown up contention with ‘behaviours’ being moved to employers for approval. I’m confident in this approach. Once an apprentice reaches the end of their apprenticeship, they’ve been employed for at least 8 months.

Would employers retain staff who aren’t demonstrating the right behaviours? While I expect varying standards and can understand concerns, we need to recognise that behaviours in the current system are rarely assessed in silo.

Holistic assessment is commonly used, where behaviours are assessed alongside skills. In the new approach, behaviours will still be seen by the assessor, just not formally assessed. In many cases, you can determine that if an apprentice holds a skill, they’ll also hold the associated behaviour.

For example, an observation of practice for an early years educator includes behaviours such as care, compassion, honesty, trust, and integrity. These will be displayed across an entire apprenticeship, and it’s simply the employer who has final confirmation.

There’s a question about the burden for employers. I’d understand this if they were being asked for something beyond what’s already required. If we look at it another way, why don’t we incorporate these discussions within formal review cycles where the employer, apprentice, and provider discuss them together?

Change is coming, so what do we need to do?

To prepare for the move to the reformed apprenticeship standards, EPAOs will be working closely with providers to support them through the transition.

NCFE, for example, is offering a tiered assessment approach which will allow providers and employers to carefully move to centre assessment, if that’s what they choose.

Change is inevitable, and while it can be scary, I do think it’s for the right reasons. Ultimately, if more apprenticeships result in employment, and apprentices and employers benefit from developing the right skills and behaviours, these latest EPA reforms will be seen as a success.

For more information on how we’re supporting organisations like yours in navigating these changes with confidence, book a one-to-one consultation with a member of our team today.

Francis review prompts DfE shake-up of English and maths accountability measures

College performance measures for English and maths will be changed so the government can monitor how much time students have in learning before they are entered for resit exams.

The Department for Education (DfE) has confirmed it will “revise” the reinstated 16 to 18 English and maths progress measure and qualification achievement rates in its response to the curriculum and assessment review, led by Becky Francis, published today.

Francis’s review concluded, and DfE agreed, that students should continue to be required to study towards grade 4 GCSE passes in English and maths if they don’t reach that level when they leave school.

But she found that “providers reported certain aspects of performance and accountability arrangements may be inadvertently contributing to the practice and culture of repeated resits, including pressure to enter learners for exams prematurely.”

Most of Francis’s proposals for 16 to 19 education, such as V Levels, English and maths GCSE stepping-stone qualifications and two new level 2 pathways, were accepted in the government’s post-16 education and skills white paper, which was published two weeks ago.

The white paper, published last month, also appeared to criticise colleges for entering unprepared learners for resit exams.

“Too many students are entered into resit exams in the November after their GCSE entry the previous summer, without sufficient additional teaching to enable them to succeed,” it said.

The 16 to 18 English and maths progress measure, part of a range of accountability measures for schools and colleges, shows the difference between students’ English and maths results at age 16 with their results at the end of their 16-18 study. It was paused following the pandemic, but will be brought back this year as planned.

Responding to Francis’s findings, DfE said: “We agree with the review’s recommendation that we should immediately take steps to strengthen the condition of funding and accountability system.

“We have reinstated the 16 to 18 English and maths progress measure this academic year, for 2024 to 2025 data.

“We will revise this measure, and qualification achievement rates, to ensure they reinforce the need for sufficient time to be given to students to consolidate learning prior to entry.”

Officials will “begin full engagement with the sector on these changes and the timeline for their implementation.”

DfE added it will continue to monitor the impact of this year’s condition of funding requirements to deliver a minimum of 100 hours of face-to-face teaching for each of English and maths for eligible students, increases in numbers of students in scope of the policy, and clearer guidance on which students would typically be suitable for entry into the November exam series.

The response also agreed with the review’s recommendation to explore how to better incentivise “effective practice” across the sector.

It confirmed the government is enlisting the Education Endowment Foundation, which is run by Francis, to examine what works to ensure strong outcomes for 16-19 year olds.

Enriched at college

DfE also confirmed it will work with college leaders to extend planned guidance on a “high-quality” enrichment offer in schools to colleges.

The enrichment framework, which the government previously committed to publishing by the end of the year, will now be extended to further education settings, and along the same timeline.

Francis criticised the current “non-qualification” offer for 16-19 year olds as being “inconsistent” and current guidance from DfE as “ambiguous” and “unhelpful.”

In its response, DfE said it was: “already developing guidance for schools to deliver a high-quality enrichment framework.

“Working with college leaders, we will extend this framework to further education settings. This will improve the consistency of students’ enrichment experience across the country by promoting highly effective practice.”

DfE said “beyond enrichment” it also wants to improve the transfer of information between schools, colleges and higher education providers. 

This follows the government’s commitment, as stated in the post-16 white paper, to tackle rising NEET numbers underpinned by “better data” to track attendance and destinations.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “I am pleased to see the recognition of the value of enrichment and extra-curricular activity. Every young person deserves access to sport, arts, civic engagement, social action and life skills and we want to see that entitlement properly funded and embedded in 16-19 study programmes. 

“Colleges already do a great deal in this space, often with limited resources, and this commitment must be matched by investment.”

Refining T Levels

The government promised to continue to “refine” content, assessment and industry placement requirements for T Levels after the review recommended the “assessment burden” of the qualifications should be reduced.

“We have been refining the approach on content, assessment and industry placements to make T Levels more accessible and manageable at scale while retaining their quality and rigour,” DfE said. “As recommended by the review this work will continue.”

In March, DfE streamlined the core content and reduced assessment volume in the digital, construction and education and early years T Levels.

The DfE response added the government will work with Skills England, employers, Ofqual, awarding organisations, schools, colleges, and universities to increase T Level student numbers.

It also agreed with Francis’ review that there is a “strong rationale” for V Levels to create a mixed programme of study, but stressed that where large qualifications are required, “these should be T Levels”.

“We agree with the review that there may be a need for large qualifications in areas where there are not T Levels at present, and we launched a new marketing T Level in September,” DfE said.

Functional skills maths isn’t functional, and everyone knows it

I was not surprised to hear that the curriculum and assessment review’s final report said it heard “overwhelmingly” from providers that, for most learners, functional skills qualifications (FSQs) “do not currently serve as an appropriate pathway” to level 2.

This criticism must prompt a redesign to create something more relevant, flexible and genuinely functional.

The recent skills white paper also left the question of what to do about FSQ maths for 16 to 18-year-old apprentices unresolved.

The government could have extended the removal of the pass requirement at level 2, which was announced for apprentices aged 19 and over at the start of the year.

At Remit Training, we believe a better solution lies in reviewing and improving the narrow FSQ maths curriculum, which many employers say does not provide what they need. 

Too many employers and providers are now reluctant to take on 16 to 18-year-olds as young apprentices because they need their FSQ maths. These young people should be given an opportunity, supported by a suitable programme. Delays in addressing this issue is likely to raise the stubbornly high number of NEET young people even further.

Having completed over 10,000 hours of statutory schooling without achieving a grade 4 in GCSE maths, those young people who do secure an apprenticeship opportunity can then be blocked from course completion by some of the more challenging elements of the curriculum.

FSQ level 2 was designed to offer a practical alternative to the more academic GCSE. Instead, employers complain it has become an exam that tests abstract maths concepts rather than the kind of problem-solving, estimation and data handling that underpin real jobs.

In most jobs, people don’t encounter triangular prisms

Consider one recent test question: “A water trough is shaped like a triangular prism with a base of 6cm, a height of 4cm and a length of 2m. Calculate the volume of the trough in cubic centimetres.”

In most jobs, people don’t encounter triangular prisms. If they need to know the volume of a container, it is almost always a standard shape and measurements are often taken or estimated with digital tools.

With industry management software, electronic measuring tools and scheduling systems, the detailed manual calculations required in exams are rarely, if ever, performed in real life. What workers need is the ability to interpret results, check data and apply numerical reasoning to real-world situations such as stock levels, budgets or dosage calculations.

We propose that a modern-day FSQ for all ages should involve realistic, everyday and workplace contexts (e.g. shopping, travel, sales, measurements); practical numeracy (handling money, basic percentages) requiring calculations that people do; basic estimation and checking work; and problem-solving in authentic workplace scenarios.

Remit Training’s four-point plan for maths FSQ therefore calls for the following changes:

1. Increase real-world application: Content should mirror the maths used every day in entry-level roles: pay slips, time management, budgeting, discounts, measurements and data entry. It should embed realistic workplace scenarios, such as interpreting production data or comparing supplier costs, to make assessments both engaging and meaningful.

2. Streamline content: Abstract topics like algebraic manipulation and geometric volumes of prisms could be pared back in favour of practical numeracy and problem-solving. The emphasis should shift from theory-heavy calculations to the ability to estimate, check and reason with numbers in context.

3. Introduce optional pathways: A modular FSQ framework could allow learners to focus on the maths most relevant to their vocational pathway; for example, financial literacy for business administration, or measurement and conversion for catering and construction. This personalisation would make learning more purposeful and boost confidence among learners with weaker maths backgrounds.

4. Rethink assessment: Currently, exams are carried out under the clock, with stacked questions which creates pressure. This should be changed or revert to practical assessments or portfolio-based modules, built progressively through workplace tasks, which would better capture learners’ ability to apply maths in real contexts.

For apprentices and their employers, a reimagined FSQ maths – which is practical, contextualised and employer-informed – could live up to its name and help young people who were failed by the school system. 

Curriculum review: ‘Strengthen’ resit accountability and reduce T Level assessment burden

The government should “strengthen accountability” for post-16 English and maths teaching and slash the volume of T Level assessments, according to the long-awaited curriculum and assessment review.

Professor Becky Francis’s review, commissioned last year by the incoming Labour government, also urges ministers to consider making “certain elements” of non-qualification activity, like enrichment and work experience, mandatory for 16 to 19-year-olds. 

Most of Francis’s proposals for 16 to 19 education, such as V Levels, English and maths GCSE stepping-stone qualifications and two new level 2 pathways, have already been accepted in the government’s post-16 education and skills white paper, which was published two weeks ago.

But recommendations to “strengthen” English and maths accountability for post-16 providers, reducing assessment burdens in T Levels and promoting a consistent non-qualification experience in 16-19 study programmes were not covered in the white paper. The Department for Education has been approached for a response to these recommendations.

Francis was tasked with updating the national curriculum for primary and secondary pupils as well as reviewing 16-19 study pathways. Her final report will be published tomorrow (November 5).

Headline pre-16 recommendations from the review include scrapping the EBacc accountability measure, introducing year 8 “diagnostic” tests in English and maths and cutting GCSE exam time by at least 10 per cent. See below for a full list of assessment and accountability recommendations. 

Francis, who returns to her role as chief executive of the Education Endowment Foundation this week, said: “The curriculum and assessment review has been an opportunity to bring our curriculum up to date, and to build on what is presently working well while fixing what isn’t.”

English and maths: Functional skills ‘inappropriate’

Francis said the post-16 sector should not be expected to fix low English and maths attainment alone and was highly critical of functional skills qualifications (FSQs). 

The review found that 80 per cent of learners with low prior attainment at key stage 2 fail to reach level 2 by age 16, calling this a “systemic issue” that begins much earlier.

For those retaking GCSEs in FE, the review warns that the current approach “does not allow sufficient opportunity to revisit more fundamental gaps in knowledge”.

The report said the review panel found “some positive uses of functional skills qualifications to help re-engage learners with studying maths and English.”

For the majority of learners however, “we heard overwhelmingly from providers that FSQs do not currently service as an appropriate pathway for them to reach level 2” because of “unfamiliar” work-related content, high-stakes pass or fail grading and a lack of recognition among parents, employers and universities. 

Calls to scrap the requirement for students without a grade 4 in GCSE English and maths to continue studying towards those grades in their post-16 education were roundly rejected. 

“We consider that the importance for life chances of securing maths and English means that [the requirement] should remain. The urgent challenge is to improve efficacy so that more young people are supported to make progress and fewer of them reach 16-19 study without having secured level 2,” the report said.

It recommends the government “strengthens the accountability system” for English and maths and “explores” ways to incentivise effective practice amongst 16-19 providers.

Francis recommends new level 1 “stepped” qualifications, lasting one year, for students at 16-19 who achieve a grade 1 or 2 in GCSE English and maths at 16.

These qualifications should be assessed in a modular way, which would let learners “bank” their progress, and they would be graded to the equivalent to a “strong” GCSE grade 3 to put them in a better position to resit the next year.

The Department for Education said it would consult on these new qualifications in 2026. 

T Level assessment ‘too heavy’

While reaffirming support for T Levels as “gold-standard technical qualifications”, the review warns the current assessment model is unsustainable as student numbers grow.

“Providers reported challenges about the volume of assessment required, particularly as more T Levels are being offered and the number of learners taking them increases,” the report said, stressing it was “especially acute” in assessing the occupational specialism component.

The occupational specialism is designed to be completed in the second year of T Levels after completing the core component.

In March, DfE streamlined the core content and reduced assessment volume in the digital, construction and education and early years T Levels.

“The government should continue to review and amend assessment practice across all T Level routes,” the report responded.

It also recommended the government work closely with awarding organisations to reduce the assessment burden of T Levels in the context of scale up.

Francis also urged Skills England to increase employer engagement with T Levels, including a “robust and creative approach” to incentivising industry placements.

Mandatory enrichment

The review panel also praised the “wide” range of enrichment, employment and pastoral activities that colleges and schools offer, including volunteering, life skills and student-led social action.

The report said that DfE’s expectations were “deliberately broad” allowing for flexibility, but providers told the panel that the current level of ambiguity is “unhelpful”, which leads to inconsistencies and varieties in student experiences.

The review therefore recommended DfE strengthen their guidance to “promote effective practice” in non-qualification activity and consider whether some parts should be made mandatory to improve consistency.

Francis added: “Our recommendations have sought to ensure that high standards extend to all young people irrespective of background, and that barriers to opportunity are removed.

“My hope is that the recommendations contained in this report will take us a step closer towards ensuring that every young person has access to an excellent education by building a world-class curriculum and assessment system for all.”

Here are the review’s overall recommendations and those relating to accountability and assessment from primary school to post-16.

Overarching recommendations

  • Introduce an oracy framework to support practice and to complement the existing frameworks for reading and writing
  • Review and updates all programmes of study and, where appropriate, the corresponding GCSE subject content to include stronger representation of the diversity that makes up our modern society, allowing more children to see themselves in the curriculum
  • Develop the national curriculum as a digital product that can support teachers to navigate content easily and to see and make connections across key stages and disciplines
  • Develop a programme of work to provide evidence-led guidance on curriculum and pedagogical adaptation (as well as exemplification) for children and young people with SEND, including those in specialist provision, who experience various barriers to accessing the curriculum
  • Involve teachers in the testing and design of programmes of study as part of the drafting process. This must take into consideration the curriculum time that is available, ensuring the national curriculum is ambitious but teachable within a typical school timetable

Principles

  • The refreshed national curriculum must be an aspirational, engaging and demanding offer that reflects the high expectations and excellence our young people deserve, irrespective of background
  • The refreshed national curriculum should retain a knowledge-rich approach, ensuring skills are developed in conjunction with knowledge in ways that are appropriate for each subject discipline
  • The national curriculum should be constructed so that it supports children and young people to master core concepts, ensuring sufficient space for them to build their knowledge and deepen their understanding
  • Curriculum coherence should be an organising principle for curriculum drafters and support the selection and prioritisation of content. Where appropriate, vertical core concepts on which subjects have been constructed should be clearly presented, and horizontal coherence should be ensured
  • Foundation subject content should specify the essential substantive knowledge and skills which should be taught to enable children and young people to meet expectations at the end of each key stage
  • The refreshed national curriculum should ensure the professional autonomy of teachers is maintained, making sure that greater specificity does not substantially restrict teachers’ flexibility to choose lesson content and how to teach it
  • The national curriculum is for all our children and young people. As such, it should reflect our diverse society and the contributions of people of all backgrounds to our knowledge and culture

Accountability

  • Remove the EBacc performance measures and the associated EBacc entry and attainment headline accountability measures
  • Retain Progress 8 (and Attainment 8) with no changes to its structure or subject composition, but rename the current EBacc bucket to ‘Academic Breadth’ bucket
  • Continue to develop initiatives related to similar schools, with a particular emphasis on supporting inclusive approaches within accountability measures

Key stage 1 assessment

  • Ensure that the STA works with the DfE to find ways to encourage take-up of optional Key Stage 1 assessments
  • Ensure that the STA works with DfE to explore approaches for assessing progress for the small minority of pupils with certain SEND needs that make the phonics screening Check inaccessible. This assessment should be administered in the school setting

Key stage 2 assessment

  • Ensure that the STA works with DfE to explore if access arrangements can be refined for pupils with certain SEND that make the multiplication tables check inaccessible. This assessment should continue to be administered in a school setting
  • Develop an improved teacher assessment framework to provide teachers with clarity and include a greater focus on writing fluency
  • Review external moderation processes and look to strengthen peer moderation between schools, with the aim of embedding good practice to improve moderation in years where schools are not selected for external moderation and improving consistency between external judgments
  • Replace the current grammar, punctuation and spelling (GPS) test with an amended test, which retains some elements of the current GPS test but with new tasks to better assess composition and application of grammar and punctuation
  • Once the new test is established in schools, the DfE may wish to consider whether the role of the test in accountability remain as stands, or whether any changes, such as including the new test in headline measures, should be explored

Key stage 3 assessment

  • Introduce diagnostic assessment for key components of maths and English to be taken during year 8 to support teachers to address students’ needs and ensure that they are well prepared to progress into key stage 4
  • Commission the design and trialling of the test, with a view to making it mandatory if the pilots demonstrate that this is an effective approach

Key stage 4 assessment

Volume

  • Work with Ofqual, seeking to reduce overall exam time by at least 10 per cent, focusing on assessment design choices to deliver this reduction, and going further than this where possible. This should be considered on a subject-by-subject basis, ensuring minimal impact on reliability, fairness and teaching and learning
  • Work with Ofqual to introduce a design principle that considers of the volume of exam assessment as a priority. The DfE and Ofqual should explore a range of options within each subject to seek to minimise exam length whilst ensuring minimal negative impact on reliability, fairness, teaching and learning and system resilience
  • Ensure that in implementing the above recommendations, each subject retains at least two assessment components

Method of assessment

  • Continues to employ the principle that non-exam assessment should be used only when it is the only valid way to assess essential elements of a subject
  • Ensure that assessment approaches continue to be derived from the nature and structure of subject content, ensuring that what is assessed reflects what is most important for students to learn and do. Changes to the balance of assessment should only be made where this reflects changes to the content
  • Ensure that the DfE and Ofqual work closely with the wider education sector to explore how core aspects of subject content can be retained and assessed whilst managing and mitigating the risk of generative AI
  • Ensure that the DfE and Ofqual continue to consider the full range of options for assessment methods, including non-exam assessment, where it would be necessary to mitigate the risks posed by generative AI
  • Ensure that the DfE and Ofqual continue to work together to explore potential for innovation in on-screen assessment in GCSE, AS and A Level qualifications, particularly where this could further support accessibility for students with SEND and where this could reduce exam volume in the future. We recommend they continue to review the evidence and carefully consider risks and benefits
  • Ensure that Ofqual, awarding organisations and the DfE work together to consider how awarding organisations can build accessibility into the design of new specifications for GCSEs, AS and A-levels
  • Ensure that, when updating the maths and science GCSEs, subject experts evaluate each formula and equation to determine whether students should be required to memorise and recall it, or whether assessment should focus on their ability to apply it when provided

16 to 19 education

  • Introduce a revised third pathway at level 3 to sit alongside the academic and technical pathways. This pathway should be based on new qualifications, which we recommend calling V Levels
  • Consider learners who have SEND or face other barriers to education to ensure that the qualifications are inclusive by design
  • Continue to work closely with awarding organisations to reduce the assessment burden of T Level assessment in the context of scale up
  • Ensure that the content for T Levels remains up to date and that the amount of content can be delivered within the time available, and that it should seek opportunities to review and reduce content where necessary
  • Introduce two separate pathways at level 2 (an occupational pathway and a pathway to level 3), each serving different purposes and designed specifically to meet these purposes and improve student outcomes
  • Strengthen guidance for 16-19 study programmes to promote effective practice in delivering non-qualification activity and to clarify expectations about the types of activities that should be core to the enrichment offer. The focus should be on applied knowledge and transferable skills that will enable learners to step confidently into adulthood. 
  • Consider whether certain elements of non-qualification activity should be made mandatory so that learners’ access to opportunities is more consistent. 

16 to 19 English and maths

  • Strengthen the accountability system and explores opportunities to better incentivise effective practice across 16-19 providers
  • Introduce new level 1 stepped qualifications for maths and English language at 16-19, to enable learners to make progress towards achieving level 2 in these GCSEs during 16-19 study. The Review Panel recommends these qualifications are:
    – One-year, level 1 qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds with prior attainment of a grade 1 or 2 at GCSE.
    – Designed to focus teaching on mastery of the fundamentals, addressing knowledge gaps from earlier key stages in steps and enabling learners to build confidence in all areas of the GCSE up to the equivalent of grade 3.
    – Assessed in a modular way to allow learners to build up and ‘bank’ their progress, giving accreditation for modules learners have passed.
    – Graded up to the equivalent of a strong GCSE grade 3, thereby putting learners who have achieved this level 1 qualification in a strong position to resit the GCSE the following year and thereby achieve level 2 during 16-19 study.

Future curriculum reviews

  • Limit the intervals between holistic curriculum reviews to approximately a decade
  • Supplement holistic reviews with a rolling programme of light-touch minimalist updates (conducted by the DfE with support from its agencies) of the national curriculum and its programmes of study
  • These should have the threefold aim of ensuring the national curriculum remains up to date, addressing any specific issues arising and ensuring that the volume of content remains appropriate and deliverable
  • Ensure that future reviews set clear objectives at the outset, adopt a rigorous evidence-led approach and undertake public consultation
  • Ensure that future reviews strike an appropriate balance between external expert input and central coordination and that it evaluates the likely impact of any proposed changes, including considering the capacity and workload of professionals and educational institutions

‘£379m’ in college capital cash will return to Treasury via ‘penalising’ VAT rules

Colleges are set to return £379 million in recently pledged capital funding back to the Treasury due to its “penalising” VAT policy, a group of colleges has argued.

The figure is an estimate of the amount of VAT FE colleges will pay on the £2.275 billion the government pledged to spend on the sector over the next five years in last month’s post-16 education and skills white paper.

The Large College Group, an informal partnership of England’s seven largest colleges, has also commissioned a report by the London School of Economics (LSE) Consulting that details the “uneven playing field” they face.

One college in the partnership, LTE Group, estimates that its annual VAT bill of about £5 million would fund an extra 400 places for 16-18 students, an additional pay rise of 3.5 per cent for teachers, or purchase 8,770 laptops to “close the digital divide”.

LTE Group CEO John Thornhill said VAT is a “striking example” of the inequality colleges face compared to schools and academies, which are both exempt from the tax.

He added: “We urge the chancellor to use the budget to reverse this unfair and damaging policy and unlock badly-needed funding to turbocharge the UK’s future growth.”

Large College Group member Activate Learning estimates that its £3.5 million VAT bill from last year could have paid for the maintenance costs of all eight of its campuses, or carbon neutral upgrades to its City of Oxford college and University Centre campus.

New City College said its £800,000 bill on a recently completed £5 million teaching block could have provided three fully equipped science labs rather than standard classrooms.

The LSE Consulting report argues VAT rules are “penalising” colleges, despite their role as “key enablers” of social mobility and contribution to the UK’s relatively high rates of degree-educated adults.

Granting an exemption to VAT rules in line with schools, academies and local authorities would “immediately” improve margins and cash flow for the sector, the report says.

It estimates that the seven colleges would see an uplift on their income of 1.55 to 2.96 per cent, giving almost all of them an extra six to eleven days of operating coverage.

Releasing additional capital funding through VAT exemptions could result in 1.1 to 4.4 per cent additional investment each year, the report also argues.

The Association of Colleges estimates college VAT bills cost the sector around £200-£250 million each year.

Currently, Section 33 of the VAT Act 1994 allows local authorities and other such public bodies to reclaim VAT from non-business activities.

However, complex rules that allow colleges discounts on VAT for some construction projects and fuel and power costs are also subject to an ongoing legal dispute between the Colchester Institute and HMRC.

The LSE Consulting report suggests the government could create a “sector specific refund mechanism” limited to FE colleges and sixth form colleges through “similar arrangements” to those created for academies in 2011.

It says the case for an exemption is not only “fiscal fairness” but a “necessary policy correction” to support the sector.

It adds: “FE Colleges disproportionately serve students from low-income families, first-generation university-goers, and immigrant backgrounds.

“These are precisely the groups most in need of tailored support to remain in  education beyond the age of 16.

“The current VAT regime, however, penalises the very institutions that work most intensively with those at risk of educational exclusion—undermining not only the principle of fiscal equity, but also broader goals of social mobility and inclusive growth.”

Speculating on why the Treasury has “historically resisted” VAT refund schemes, the report suggests officials could be concerned that “others delivering services of public benefit may also press for equivalent treatment”.

A government spokesperson said: “FE colleges are exempt from paying VAT on education supplies, and therefore cannot recover any VAT.”

“As the Prime Minister outlined earlier this year, Further Education is key to achieving our mission to grow the economy, that’s why we’ve invested £7.5bn in education for ages 16-19 last academic year and are providing a further £590m for colleges this financial year.”

They added that a further £590 million will be invested in colleges and other 16-19 providers this year, on top of the £7.5 billion for 16-19 education in 2024-25.

Limited understanding: OfS grants degree powers to wrong LTE Group

The Office for Students has reissued an order to grant the LTE Group degree awarding powers after it incorrectly authorised an online retailer with a similar name.

The higher education regulator made the blunder earlier this summer and granted degree awarding powers to LTE Group Limited, a Manchester-based e-commerce company. 

The powers were meant to go to UCEN Manchester, a higher education provider part of the LTE Group, which said it has not been affected by the mix-up since the July order that is due to take effect on January 1, 2026.

The Office for Students (OfS) admitted the “drafting error” to Parliament’s joint committee on statutory instruments in August and requested a correction slip to change the name on the order or issue a new order.

“The order should have authorised ‘LTE Group’ (a registered higher education provider) to grant awards, not ‘LTE Group Limited’ (a separate and unrelated entity which is not a registered higher education provider),” the letter to the committee said.

In September, the OfS issued a new order to the correct LTE Group and has since reviewed and strengthened its internal drafting processes to avoid another slip up.

An OfS spokesperson said: “There was a drafting error on the order, which we are now looking to rectify.

“The order is not due to take effect until January so currently has no practical effect. We will resolve the error as soon as possible and we have also reviewed our processes to avoid this mistake being repeated in future.”

Michael Walsh, Dean of UCEN Manchester, told FE Week: “The degree awarding powers (DAPs) order is not due to come into effect until January 1, 2026, so we have been unaffected by the Office for Students’ drafting error. They have now issued a new DAPs Order (made on September 17, 2025) referring to the correct LTE Group and we have continued to work on developing our own degrees in the interim.”

UCEN Manchester offers close to 100 courses across 12 subject areas, ranging from access to higher education diplomas to Bachelors of Arts.

Walsh added: “We are grateful for the OfS’ prompt work to address this matter, and are looking forward to validating our own courses across UCEN Manchester’s creative and technical higher education provision. This is a significant landmark in our journey that indicates the quality of our courses and demonstrates our future ambitions.”

Providers must join official register to offer new ‘apprenticeship units’

Training providers will need to register with the government to deliver new “apprenticeship units” through the reformed growth and skills levy, it has been confirmed.

Officials also expect the content of each unit will be drawn from existing apprenticeships instead of brand new or other non-apprenticeship-related courses.

Kate Ridley-Pepper, director of work-based skills in the Department for Work and Pensions, revealed the extra details today at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ autumn conference.

She said this design approach will ensure that government and employers know that all apprenticeship units have “the rigour to be really high-quality products”.

However, there is uncertainty about whether apprenticeship units will be assessed.

Registration requirement

Last month’s post-16 education and skills white paper confirmed that the current apprenticeship levy will fund a selection of short courses when it is turned into the growth and skills levy from April 2026.

The short courses will be known as apprenticeship “units” and be offered initially to employers in “critical skills areas” such as engineering, digital and artificial intelligence.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith yesterday revealed during an FE Week webinar that the units’ duration will be as short as one week and up to a few months.

Ridley-Pepper confirmed this approach today before outlining which providers will be eligible to offer apprenticeship units.

“I’m sure you’ll be keen to know how you offer apprenticeship units, and I can confirm that you will need to be approved by the department in order to deliver and claim funding for apprenticeship unit delivery. 

“Details of how that will work will be published near the time and shared, but I can assure you that we will try and make sure the process is simple and efficient with no duplication.”

Ridley-Pepper said the plan is to use the existing apprenticeship provider and assessment register (APAR) instead of developing a separate register.

Providers already on APAR will not need to re-register.

The skills director added that the government is also thinking about ways to ensure providers not currently on APAR can get onto the register to deliver apprenticeship units.

“That is our working assumption, we will try and ensure there isn’t a duplicative second process,” she explained.

“But we are also aware that there might be some people who are not currently delivering apprenticeships, who might be interested in units. So we’re keen to do a bit more work to figure out exactly whether there will be exceptions or differences. But wherever possible, we will try and make sure that there is one register that is the register that we use, and if you’re delivering apprenticeships, you are able to deliver apprenticeship units.”

There are 1,454 providers on APAR. 

Other providers are currently only allowed to join the register if they can show they are a “provider nominated by an employer that has shown evidence of a gap in the apprenticeship provision offer” or a “provider in an area we want to grow or where we identify a capacity issue”.

Apprenticeship unit content

Ridley-Pepper also confirmed that apprenticeship units will be “built from employer designed occupational standards using quality assured knowledge and skills”, adding that the “intention there is to complement existing apprenticeships and to offer employers the greater choice in how they invest in their skills in their workforce, which they have been calling for for some time”.

She said the government is planning to lift existing content from apprenticeship standards, such as a mandatory qualification, to use as apprenticeship units.

“One of the things that employers have said to us is that, particularly for older members of their workforce looking to upskill, there are elements from existing apprenticeships which they really want their workforce to benefit from, but at the moment, the only way to do that is by enrolling someone on a full apprenticeship. 

“What would be more valuable for them would be to access particular units from apprenticeships, and that not only would that save them time and be more efficient, it will also be a better use of funding that’s available. 

“So those initial apprenticeship units, the intention is that the content for that will be drawn from existing apprenticeships, and that way, we know that they have the quality, the rigor, the demand from employers to be really sort of high-quality products.”

She gave an example of an employer that does not want to enrol someone on a full plumbing apprenticeship, but they want to train their worker on the heat source pump module that exists within the apprenticeship.

Assessment concern

There is however concern that providers will be able to deliver apprenticeship unit training without an element of independent assessment.

Asked about this today, Ridley-Pepper said: “So I think that will very much depend what the particular unit is and how long it is, whether, in the existing apprenticeship, there is an assessment associated with it.”