When flags divide instead of unite, FE must help rebuild belonging

No one can have missed the surge of national flags being flown from bridges and lamposts across the UK.

For some it represents national pride and unity. For others it has triggered feelings of uncertainty, fear, and exclusion – particularly among people of colour and those who have immigrated here. It’s led many to question whether they are truly accepted as part of British society.

The motives behind this raising of flags have at times been contradictory. Some argue that it is about “reclaiming the flag” and fostering a renewed sense of British identity and unity.

Others have used the flag to promote divisive narratives, claiming the UK is “full,” that immigration should stop, or have used inflammatory rhetoric that targets specific groups such as Muslims, refugees, and people of colour.

The exploitation of national symbols to stir fear and resentment creates an environment where belonging feels conditional and acceptance uncertain.

FE’s role

In the FE world, we’re privileged to influence young lives and shape inclusive communities. Colleges and training institutions are places where individuals from diverse backgrounds come together, often at a pivotal stage in their personal and professional development.

However, there is a hidden anxiety that many staff and students carry. Some feel they cannot express their concerns about racism, identity or belonging because they fear how colleagues or peers might react. This silence can lead to isolation and negatively impact both wellbeing and achievement.

A sense of belonging is linked to mental health, engagement and success. When young people feel valued and included, they’re more likely to thrive.

However, when they experience subtle or overt signals that they do not belong, whether it’s through national debates, media narratives or everyday interactions, it can erode relationships and damage confidence.

As educators, we have a responsibility to counter this by creating spaces where everyone feels recognised and respected.

As Maya Angelou said: “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel”.

Here are five ways we in FE can help:

Create safe spaces

FE institutions should establish dedicated spaces where individuals can speak openly about their experiences without fear of judgment or reprisal. These are not forums for debate or solutions, but spaces for listening, empathy and understanding. Such initiatives build psychological safety and send a strong message that the college values every person’s lived experience.

Showcase the beauty of diversity

Negative stories about people of colour often dominate public discourse, overshadowing the many positive contributions that such people make. Education providers should actively highlight the achievements, culture, and creativity of diverse groups. Representation matters – when students see their identities reflected positively, it reinforces pride and belonging.

Empower the silent majority to speak up

Many people who disagree with prejudice remain silent, fearing confrontation or backlash. In FE settings, leaders and staff must model courage by speaking out against racism, xenophobia and exclusionary behaviour.

Hold inclusive celebrations and events

Actions speak louder than words. Celebrating a range of cultural and religious events such as Diwali, Eid, Hanukkah, Christmas, Black History Month and Pride demonstrates that diversity is valued. These events bring people together, break down barriers, and allow everyone to share and celebrate their identity and heritage.

Educate and challenge misinformation

In a climate where misinformation spreads rapidly online, educators have a vital role in promoting critical thinking. Staff and students should be equipped to question biased narratives and recognise propaganda when they see it. Providing fact-based information and encouraging open discussions can counter divisive rhetoric and build resilience against hate-driven messages.

Promoting inclusion cannot just be slogan in prospectuses or mission statements – it must be visible in daily practice. Creating a sense of belonging requires bravery, empathy and consistent action from everyone in the sector.

FE has the power to model the kind of society we wish to see: where national pride doesn’t exclude, where diversity is celebrated and where belonging is not conditional. Right now, this message is more important than ever.

Workforce development needed to achieve white paper’s tertiary vision

A core strength of the government’s skills white paper is its recognition that post-16 education must function as a coherent tertiary system, bringing together FE, HE and lifelong learning.

The paper sets out a clear direction: strong teaching; effective leadership; genuine professionalism and skills; and a unified tertiary ecosystem, where learners move seamlessly between study, work and retraining throughout their lives, as the basis of national renewal.

It describes a future in which teachers and leaders are valued for the transformative work they do and in which professionalism sits at the heart of quality.

The most promising opportunities lie in how we make this tertiary vision real. It’s a vision that emphasises a strong workforce, flexibility through regional collaboration and local integration to address skills gaps, and a shared commitment to employer engagement, with evidence-based and data-led planning.

Coherence needs a shared framework

Yet for all its strengths, the white paper reveals there are two different stories to tell, divided by structures and regulators: one for FE and one for HE.

FE and HE are still framed around differing priorities – FE on technical excellence and local delivery, HE on research and global competitiveness – with no unified governance or funding model that spans both. The language of reform continues to separate the vocational from the academic, even as skills, research and innovation increasingly overlap.

We believe that a shared framework for teaching quality, workforce development and regulation – a framework that connects every part of the education landscape through common professional standards and values – can help bridge this gap.

Education through learners’ eyes

Building a connected tertiary environment starts with people, not systems alone. We need a shift in perspective.

Through the work that ETF does, I’ve seen how motivation, confidence and belonging to a professional community shape progress more powerfully than structures.

Together, we need to see education through the eyes of learners and how wellbeing and inclusion shape their choices: the 17-year-old exploring technical pathways, the adult retraining after redundancy, the teacher moving between college and industry. Their journeys cut across educational sectors – from school to FE, from FE to HE and from school to HE – yet the policy still treats them as disparate.

Workforce development: the binding thread

Every element of the framework – from technical excellence colleges to the introduction of V Levels to AI adoption – depends on the capability of the people who teach, lead and support learning. And of course, the sector also needs to address long-standing issues around both recruitment and retention. If the government’s aim is a coherent, high-quality tertiary system, then workforce development must be its binding thread.

ETF’s work already demonstrates what this looks like in practice: structured professional development, clear career pathways and a culture of collaboration between educators, employers and policymakers. And our evidence shows that investment in professional development improves learner outcomes, retention and institutional performance.

The emerging T Level teaching workforce is a good example. T Levels succeed when educators are supported to bridge classroom and industry practice – the essence of dual professionalism.

ETF’s programmes have shown how targeted development, employer engagement and peer learning can raise confidence and quality. Scaling that approach will be essential if we are to deliver on the white paper’s vision and give every learner access to world-class technical education. The introduction of V Levels will require similar support.

From ambition to achievement

ETF’s vision is for a respected, connected and expert FE and skills profession, one that drives productivity, inclusion and growth.

By embedding professionalism at the heart of reform, we will ensure this white paper delivers both structural and cultural change.

Through our partnerships and professional membership community, we will continue to work collaboratively to strengthen teaching, leadership and professionalism across the sector: because ultimately it is the people in the FE and skills sector – the teachers, trainers, leaders and support staff – who will turn our shared ambition into results.

Changing how we deliver teaching will ease FE’s workforce crisis

The 16-19 capacity issue will not be solved by funding alone; We need excellent teachers to deliver to these learners. We’ve treated FE’s staffing crunch purely as a hiring problem. It isn’t. It’s also a delivery problem that demands a different model.

I joined FE in 1993 and the same subjects still keep leaders awake: construction trades, digital, engineering, English and maths and specialist SEND.

Some areas are perennial shortages, while others spike with the labour market. New industries arrive before we can grow our own teachers. Meanwhile, colleges fight a constant battle to keep classes covered and quality consistent year after year.

A significant share of college staff are not on permanent, full-time contracts; even where posts are filled, replacement churn and variable quality swallow leadership time and budget. Add the 30 per cent pay gap with schools and it’s hard to see how “more of the same” recruitment solves the problem at the scale or speed needed.

The £800 million coming into FE is welcome, but it’s largely about serving more learners, not transforming the unit economics of delivery. The uncomfortable truth is we won’t hire our way out of this. We must change how learning is organised.

What we’ve learned from large-scale online delivery

Over the last few years, we’ve delivered national bootcamps fully online with high-quality, continuously updated resources combined with live online tutoring. It wasn’t painless, but it worked: strong learner feedback and a positive Ofsted outcome. The lessons learnt?

  • Specialist and scarce talent become national, not local. We’ve timetabled excellent tutors in the Hebrides with a class in Devon. Many of our tutors would never commute to a college site, but they will teach a day a week online, including evenings or weekends, some alongside their industry roles.
  • Quality improves because it’s observable, blended with high-quality resources. Every live session is recorded. Learners can revisit content; quality assurance (QA) teams can dip in any time; targeted coaching becomes normal, not remedial.
  • Timetabling flex grows. Online theory can fit to college timetables, be delivered to combined groups, or be undertaken at home to ease student transport, caring or work burdens.
  • Data gets granular. Every attendance, click and submitted task is trackable, giving leaders real-time visibility and intervention points.

A practical model: 30 per cent shared, 70 per cent local

This isn’t about turning colleges into remote providers. It’s about using online delivery where it’s better value and easier to staff, so we can protect and grow the on-site learning that only colleges can do.

What it could look like:

  1. Shared online theory (30 per cent) delivered through nationally curated resources and vetted online tutors, timetabled to your day.
  2. Local practical (70 per cent) kept on campus: workshops, employer projects, assessment, pastoral, enrichment.
  3. Elastic capacity. If numbers dip, scale the online element down; if demand surges, scale it up without scrambling for scarce staff.
  4. College-owned quality. You still set schemes of work, standards, assessment policy and intervention triggers; recordings and analytics make oversight easier, not harder.

Why it helps immediately:

  • Releases on-site staff time
  • Reduces agency and supply churn.
  • Supports part-time specialists who want to teach but can’t commit to campus or their local college timetables.
  • Creates a consistent national core of resources that are continuously improved and aligned to employer needs.

Blended models fail when they’re bolted on. They succeed when three things are designed in from the start – a single scheme of learning, clear roles and non-negotiable quality assurance.

And yes, pay matters and must improve. But even with better pay, FE will always compete with industry for scarce specialists. The fastest way to get consistent expertise in front of every learner is to redesign delivery so we start sharing our scarce talent safely, visibly and at quality across the system.

This isn’t going to happen overnight, but we could start now and the transformation could be rapid. Why not pick a number of components of a course where there are constant workforce challenges and work with us on a timetable and delivery piloting the approach?

If we keep treating FE’s workforce crisis as a recruitment problem, we’ll keep getting the same results. If we treat it as a delivery challenge, we have a chance to change the game.

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