We turned GCSE English resitters into novelists

Tracks is a CPD (continuing professional development) initiative that was launched at Barking & Dagenham College (BDC) in September 2023. The idea was to take a step away from a more traditional, potentially didactic CPD model, and introduce more autonomy and freedom for practitioners to develop their pedagogical practice through action research in a way unique to them and their learners. 

Tracks invites teachers to focus in on one area of their practice and carry out a small-scale action research project to develop their practice through inquiry. Teachers have complete autonomy and are able to focus their efforts on any aspect of their practice they feel is most beneficial to them. The only requirement is that their project is focused on pedagogy and that by the end of this, they are able to record the impact that it has had on their practice, and on learners. 

Teaching staff at BDC are split into ten Tracks cohorts who meet once a month to discuss their progress and barriers, and set themselves targets for the month ahead. Each Tracks group is facilitated by a member of the Teaching & Learning team. Facilitators provide support and guidance while also making connections between teachers where projects overlap, to create a more collective approach. 

The findings

Tracks completed its first full cycle at the end of 2023-24 with 112 action research projects completed. Each project was initiated by staff individually and tailored by the practitioner to drive development and innovation. 

Action research projects ranged from teachers developing their practice through the use of AI, experimentation with audio recorded feedback, embedding a ‘compassionate pedagogy’ with high-needs learners and community photography projects in which learners projected their photography coursework onto local landmarks and housing estates in their London borough. One project even saw 12 learners write and publish their own novels in just one week. With the support of external organisation White Water Writers, these GCSE English resit learners’ books are now proudly displayed in our English department and library.

The students felt motivated and encouraged after taking part. We had a book launch day which learners’ families attended and felt incredibly proud of their achievements. 

Although most staff embraced the freedom and autonomy that Tracks provides some staff did find the autonomy somewhat overwhelming, finding it difficult to decide on a particular action research focus to fit their own practice. So we created opportunities for teachers to share their projects to the wider college community, including in weekly all-staff Teams calls and in various CPD events, to celebrate the work that was being done and model what Tracks projects could focus on. This became self-sustaining, as through sharing their work many teachers found encouragement and received feedback that grew their projects further. 

Feedback from staff about Tracks as a CPD model and a concept has been overwhelmingly positive. Staff have reported feeling inspired by the freedom and autonomy inherent to Tracks and have made connections, both within BDC and externally, that would not have been made otherwise. 

CPD impact

Tracks has had a transformative effect on CPD which is prioritised more than ever. Our monthly CPD events are embedded in the college calendar and curriculum areas cannot timetable classes to coincide with these time slots. Active engagement in CPD through action research is now woven into the fabric of what it means to be a teacher at BDC and development is synonymous with practice. 

Furthermore, BDC is now much more integrated into the community of FE colleges who value action research as a viable professional development model. Closer links have been established with the ARPCE (Association for Research in Post-Compulsory Education) and the Research College Group (RCG). Through this, Tracks is extending beyond BDS. Practitioners from multiple colleges nationwide have signed up to take part in an external Tracks group, launching this month.

We want to continue growing Tracks, and promote action research as a CPD model which empowers staff to take ownership of their practice in a supportive and collaborative environment.

This article was co-authored with Dr Michael Smith, faculty director of apprenticeships & quality, Barking & Dagenham College

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 482

Jo Shirley

Professional Development Co-Director, EducationScape

Start date: January 2025

Previous Job: Senior Professional Development and Learning Manager, Skills and Education Group

Interesting fact: Jo is an adventurous soul who thrives on exploration. She’s crawled through Vietnam’s Cu Chi Tunnels before zipping through Ho Chi Minh City. She’s also journeyed across Sri Lanka, climbing Sigiriya Rock and riding “the world’s most beautiful train route” from Kandy to Ella.

Karen Plowman

Professional Development Co-Director, EducationScape

Start date: January 2025

Previous Job: Head of Professional Development and Learning, Skills and Education Group

Interesting fact: Karen has a flair for the stage, from her pantomime days in her youth to a surprise moment of fame on a cruise when a performance was unknowingly streamed across the entire ship.

David Phoenix

Vice Chancellor, The Open University

Start date: July 2025

Previous Job: VC and CEO, London South Bank University Group

Interesting fact: When not focused on helping create educational opportunities, David still maintains his research as a molecular engineer looking at the design and delivery of new drugs.

Now it’s time for ITPs to step up on careers advice

For the last decade, schools and colleges have worked to implement the Gatsby Benchmarks, a framework which provides structured, high-quality careers guidance to help young people make informed decisions, enhancing learners’ understanding of opportunities like apprenticeships and higher education. I think it’s fair to say that careers guidance in schools and colleges has been transformed as a result.

Independent training providers (ITPs) need to follow suit, following updates to the original benchmarks which include specific guidance for ITPs. As a head of careers with a vast background in the education sector, including working as a secondary teacher, I welcome this expansion of the Gatsby Benchmarks to ITPs. Providers need to support young people navigating pathways such as apprenticeships and vocational training by offering comprehensive, impartial and effective careers guidance.

This shift offers a significant opportunity for ITPs to elevate their role beyond training delivery, aligning their careers advice with the high standards established in schools and colleges. The updated Gatsby Benchmarks provide ITPs with a clear roadmap for delivering effective careers advice.

While some providers are already successfully using the benchmarks; some may find the idea of adopting them daunting. We have contributed significantly to the process of reviewing and updating the benchmarks by participating in Gatsby’s expert practitioner group, and we are proud to champion the implementation of the updated framework.

I think any careers professional would agree that CEIAG (careers education, information, advice and guidance) isn’t without it’s challenges, whether that’s parental engagement, resource constraints, or aligning to Ofsted requirements. But the benchmarks are there to give careers professionals confidence in what they are doing and something they can strive towards.

The benchmarks include eight standards that ITPs should meet. Key requirements include:

  • A well-resourced careers programme led by a dedicated head of careers or career leader. This role involves close collaboration with senior management and the board to guarantee all learners receive effective guidance.
  • Providing accurate, up-to-date labour market information. Learners must understand job market trends and career options to make informed decisions.
  • Tailoring advice to each learner’s unique needs. We must offer our learners personalised support that considers individual interests, aspirations, and qualifications.
  • Embedding career-related learning into the curriculum to further strengthen the link between studies and career opportunities. By discussing potential career paths related to their qualifications and the skills needed in the job market, learners can connect their education to their future goals.
  • Engagement with employers. Work placements, industry talks, and networking events help bridge the gap between education and employment. Learners gain real-world exposure to diverse work environments through apprenticeships, work shadowing or project-based learning. And providing insights into further study options ensures they can make well-rounded decisions.
  • Effective one-to-one guidance. Appropriately qualified careers advisers should be available to help learners explore options suited to their individual needs. 

Meeting the Gatsby Benchmarks should no longer be optional. While some ITPs may face challenges such as limited resources or staff training needs, the framework offers a clear path forward. Our involvement demonstrates that progress is achievable.

By working towards the benchmarks, ITPs can enhance their provision and provide meaningful careers guidance with lasting impacts on learners. Gatsby’s new Good Career Guidance: the Next Ten Years report, which sets out the updated benchmarks, has been integral for us to develop our policy, strategy and action plan – all with the explicit backing of our senior leadership team.

We need to equip staff with the skills to deliver high-quality guidance and provide ongoing professional development to stay updated with sector changes. Building strong relationships with local and national businesses is also crucial for offering valuable career insights and experience of workplaces. 

 ITPs should begin by reading the report and assessing their current careers provision using tools like the Careers and Enterprise Company’s Compass, which helps identify areas for improvement.

Tracking the impact of careers provision is vital. Providers can measure outcomes through learner feedback, progression data, and recognised frameworks such as the Quality in Careers Standard and Matrix. Engaging learners in regular career planning sessions, workshops, and online resources further enhances outcomes.

Some providers may find the benchmarks daunting to adopt, but it is the right thing to do to support our learners to achieve their goals – not only benefiting them as individuals but also to strengthen your role in the educational ecosystem.

Only 1% of fraud or financial irregularity probes are published 

Just two out of nearly 200 government investigation reports on FE providers have been published over the past seven years, FE Week can reveal.

Figures obtained under the freedom of information act show that between 2017 and 2024, the Education and Skills Funding Agency recovered £49 million in public funding from colleges and training providers following 193 investigations into financial fraud or irregularities.

Experts have condemned the lack of transparency from the ESFA’s counter fraud and investigations team, which deals with allegations of financial misconduct and errors with education funding. 

The agency’s policy over this period stated it would publish these reports “in all but the most exceptional circumstances” because it is in the “public interest”, but it has since been watered down.

Little is known about investigations that the team carries out into FE providers beyond headline figures published in the ESFA’s annual accounts.

Since 2017, the agency has only published only two investigation reports detailing the findings and outcomes – for the College of West Anglia in 2018 and Bournville College in 2019.

Paul Bridge, head of further education at the University and College Union, told FE Week that failing to publish investigation reports means the ESFA is “essentially providing anonymity” to at-fault colleges and training providers.

“There are far too many examples of dodgy financial behaviour from further education bosses, which puts staff and students at risk, and the ESFA now needs to publish the outcomes of its investigations so these bosses can be held to account.”

‘Fair and transparent’

For at least ten years, the ESFA – an arm of the Department for Education set to close in March – has had a policy promising to be “fair and transparent” by publishing reports detailing findings of financial investigations “where it is appropriate to do so”.

But reports from several high-profile investigations are yet to see the light of day, including those into Weston, Brooklands and Strode colleges, as well as independent training providers such as 3aaa and four companies owned by Angela Middleton.

The most recently published report was into issues at Bournville College in Birmingham, published in July 2019.

Anne Murdoch, a senior advisor at the Association of School and College Leaders union, said publishing reports in a timely fashion would allow the sector to “learn from any mistakes that have been made”.

She added: “ESFA investigations encompass everything from incidences of major fraud to minor errors in relation to complex and regularly changing conditions of funding.

“If the outcomes of these investigations are not being published, it is difficult to fully understand the reasons why significant sums of money are being clawed back.”

In recent months spokespeople for the Department for Education have provided different reasons for failing to publish investigation reports.

Last year a spokesperson claimed that most investigations did not need to be published as they were “routine”.

But in November, the department told FE Week’s sister title Schools Week that publication of investigations were often delayed by an “overly protracted” legal process, that gives those criticised in reports the right to respond before publication.

Outcomes not findings

In December 2023, the ESFA updated its policy on publishing investigation outcomes after being berated by the public accounts committee (PAC) for failing to be “sufficiently transparent about the results of inquiries into concerns”.

The government has now promised to publish investigation reports within two months of their conclusion.

But it also quietly changed its policy to only publish investigation “outcomes” which are significantly shorter and less detailed.

PAC chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown has now raised “concern that the [publication] changes hinder transparency and do not align with the view of the committee” from its 2019 report.

He demanded an explanation from DfE permanent secretary Susan Acland-Hood in a letter published on Thursday.

Acland-Hood has been asked to set out how the department “considered transparency against other factors, such as timeliness, when changing [its] guidance to ensure evidence-based decision”.

He also wants assurances on how officials will “ensure sufficient information is available to the sector to understand gaps in practice and learn lessons with just investigation outcomes published”.

The DfE previously said its commitment was still met by publishing outcome reports, adding that doing so “enables the investigation team to publish the pertinent information from these reports without an overly protracted” legal process, such as allowing those criticised to provide a response.

This rule, known as the Maxwellisation process, after a case brought by the late publisher Robert Maxwell against the government, has “historically led to significant delay in publishing investigation outcomes”, the DfE added

The change also enables the government investigation team to “spend more time on its core function of investigating fraud and financial irregularity across the academy trust and further education sectors”.

Taking a stand against social media disinformation

As our lives become ever more online, social media platforms can be an invaluable way for people to connect with others, but these can also be spaces where information sharing goes unchecked and, increasingly, where disinformation can be consumed, believed and passed on.

Our own Prime minister hit back at X’s chief executive Elon Musk this week, saying ‘those that are spreading lies and misinformation…are not interested in victims’

We have known for years that social media employs algorithms to serve us tailored content based on our habits, beliefs and profiles. This can deliver us content that is helpful to us. But it is also open to increasing the creation, targeting and reach of fake news and disinformation. The dawn of artificial intelligence (AI) has only served to speed this process up, and it feels like we are at a crossroads at which we each need to proactively consider what we do in these spaces and choose our course carefully.

As education providers, we hold a crucial responsibility to promote constructive dialogue and truth, to embrace and enable communities to come together, and to ensure we support equality, diversity and inclusivity in everything we do. We each need to recognise the importance of ensuring our learners, staff, and broader community engage in digital spaces that foster respectful collaboration and learning.

WM College now turns its focus to other platforms that better align with its values. The college is committed to maintaining reliable and transparent communication with its community through these channels. 

Our decision to step away from Twitter/X reflects our ongoing commitment to our principles of integrity, diversity, and social responsibility. We encourage all our partners, fellow educational institutions, learners, supporters, and friends to consider the role they play in creating and supporting responsible digital spaces.

But this is just one step.

We’re looking at how we can formally embed the spotting and checking of fake news into our curriculums

As colleges, we operate as hubs in our local communities, helping to challenge isolation and loneliness, bringing our communities together through social cohesion, and providing a physical and online space where people can learn, socialise, share – and challenge – views. We, and other adult learning providers across the UK, are in the perfect position to help people to develop the critical thinking skills that will support them to challenge and interrogate what they see, hear and read.

At WM College, our tutors are already having conversations with learners about how they can spot and check fake news, and we are now looking at how we can formally embed this in our curriculums, student and staff inductions, and community outreach

However, to tackle this challenge properly, institutions need more dedicated funding from government to offer widely accessible courses on misinformation. The more we educate our society on this issue, the better equipped we are to support unity, embrace diversity, and drive social and economic progress.

While this helps those already through our door, it is subject to a bigger problem. Research shows there is an education gap in misinformation and disinformation acceptance. The more education an individual has undertaken, the more likely they are to mistrust and interrogate the information they consume. However, access to education in the UK still lacks equality. As a nation, we are failing to reach those who are most distant from employment and community engagement.

We know adult learning has the ability to get people back into work, to increase aspirations and career progression, to tackle loneliness and improve health and wellbeing, but we now know it is also a critical touchpoint that increases skills and conversations to counter disinformation.

As well as reviewing our own digital presences, we need to find more ways to provide points of access and educational opportunities, together with a fair funding system to ensure all those who would benefit from education have the opportunity to do so.

This is a complex problem that we cannot solve overnight. But by recognising the important role we play and the actions we can take to arm and deploy adult colleges in the fight against disinformation, we can be an effective part of the arsenal against activity that can undermine all that we – as educators – are trying to achieve in building a cohesive society.

Swamped TRA capacity questioned ahead of FE expansion

The expansion of the teacher misconduct agency’s power to issue lifetime bans to include teachers in the FE sector has been called into question amid longstanding “failures” to address stale cases going back up to eight years.

Hundreds of thousands of post-16 teachers and assessors will fall under the scope of misconduct investigations through the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) for the first time under laws being introduced through the children’s wellbeing and schools bill.

FE leaders have welcomed the move to help colleges and providers with the “most complex” cases, but sceptics warn the TRA cannot handle the extra powers as it struggles to manage its current caseload, leaving teachers “in limbo” for two years on average.

An investigation by FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week last year revealed that Covid backlogs caused two teachers to be left in the lurch for eight years, suffering “psychological damage” and a “fear of public humiliation”, as they waited for their misconduct cases to be concluded. 

The TRA also recently admitted to breaching a headteacher’s human rights by taking six years on her case.

The agency’s latest accounts show that 31 per cent of its 1,042 active cases were first referred more than two years ago.

The TRA said that it had injected more funding to recruit staff and spent £4 million more on legal services to shave waiting times down from 113 weeks on average in 2022-23 to 102 weeks in 2023-24. It still failed to hit its target to conclude cases within 52 weeks from receiving the referral.

Andrew Faux, of Lawyers for Teachers, whose caseload includes cases dating back five years, told FE Week: “Given their given failure to deal with some very stale cases, it’s surprising that they’re choosing to expand their remit at this moment.”

“I’m sceptical about the capacity of the organisation,” he added. “It’s going to be a bit of a mess, isn’t it?”

The agency has also been bogged down with rising numbers of parents making complaints. Last year it received 1,684 teacher misconduct referrals, mostly from the public. The agency subsequently dismissed 1,059 of the referrals.

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders union, called for a “better mechanism” for handling parents’ complaints and clearly distinguishing between cases for the TRA to investigate, and those that should go through a college’s own complaints procedures.

Faux added: “They should target better and concentrate on serious misconduct the public would expect to be acted on, and not waste time on more trivial allegations, because they’re not going to get more money, I don’t imagine.”

What does the TRA do?

The TRA is an executive agency of Department for Education that investigates cases of serious teacher misconduct and issues sanctions, including lifetime bans known as prohibition orders.

Once the TRA receives a referral, a professional conduct panel carries out public hearings on whether there has been unacceptable professional conduct, such as sexual harassment, failure to protect pupils’ safety, fraud or violent behaviour. They then recommend whether to issue a prohibition order.

The prohibition order bans individuals from carrying out teaching work, usually for life. Their name would also appear on the “prohibited list” for employers, local authorities and teacher supply agencies to be able to check.

Outcomes of the TRA’s misconduct panels are made public, even when no prohibition order is made.

FE teachers haven’t been regulated since 2012, when they were under the remit of the Institute for Learning (IfL) and their compulsory requirement to register as an IfL member was repealed. Independent reviewers at the time called for an “appropriate government body” to take on the responsibility of keeping a register of FE misconduct.

What does the schools bill propose?

The Department for Education revealed two years ago that it planned to extend TRA powers to post-16 education and training “when a suitable legislative opportunity becomes available”.

The changes seek to protect and safeguard all students under the age of 19 by the teacher misconduct regime.

About 200,000 teachers in FE colleges, independent training providers, specialist SEND colleges and online providers are to fall in its scope.

The draft law also seeks to extend powers to cover individuals who commit serious misconduct “when not employed as a teacher, but who have at any time carried out teaching work” as the current legislation only allows investigations into current teachers. 

Clare Howard, chief executive of Natspec, a membership association for specialist providers to students with learning difficulties and disabilities, said she agreed with the move to include specialist college teachers “in principle” but her concern would be about “the timeliness of such investigations”.

“It will need considerably more resources if it is to be able to take on cases from the FE sector as well – and deal with them in a timely fashion,” she added.

The Association of Colleges’ senior policy manager, David Holloway, told FE Week that college HR teams might welcome external support, “especially with the most complex cases”.

He added: “Whilst the bill is clear that colleges will fall within the scope of existing TRA processes, it is unclear how this expansion of scope will be managed, so we hope that DfE will engage with colleges to make sure that the detail is right for what is, after all, a very different sector.”

The Department for Education was contacted for comment.

Administrators called in after DfE and MCAs end provider’s contracts

A training provider has gone bust after the government and several mayoral authorities terminated their adult education contracts – leaving unemployed learners in the lurch without certificates.

Some adults who trained at Free To Learn (F2L) after a referral by JobCentres have been waiting for more than a year for proof of their qualification achievement and now fear the worst.

The company, which also owns a separate apprenticeship and FE loans provider called British Academy of Jewellery that appears to not have been affected by the collapse, had more than 100 staff and has secured about £20 million in public funding for Adult Education Budget (AEB) courses since 2019.

F2L’s insolvency, posted on Companies House last month, follows an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgment in which inspectors found some teachers “coach” students to pass assessments.

Inspectors also sounded the alarm after finding “too many” learners who completed a pre-employment course to get into the security industry “do not receive the required licence for working in the sector, despite this being their reason for joining the course”.

There were 235 adult learners at the time of the inspection. Several adults who recently completed their security guard course at F2L told FE Week that communication about expected certificates dried up last month.

F2L was one of fewer than 60 private providers to land a national AEB contract with the Department for Education in 2023’s controversial tender. The contract, worth £1.5 million, was granted a one-year extension for 2024-25 before being terminated in October.

The company also held AEB contracts with the West Midlands and South Yorkshire combined authorities. Both funders have now ended their agreements.

The British Academy of Jewellery (BAJ), a subsidiary of F2L, is a registered apprenticeship provider that also advertises diplomas, and a degree in jewellery design and manufacturing.

Over the past two academic years the BAJ received £2.4 million in advanced learner loans.

Certificates ‘being dealt with’

The company’s ultimate owner, Free To Learn Group Ltd, which is controlled by Damian Gherscovic, and the BAJ, remain solvent.

Chief operating officer Gabriel Gherscovic told FE Week that F2L’s bankruptcy would “definitely not” affect BAJ’s operations or publicly funded contracts.

However, he declined to comment on the cause of the bankruptcy.

Gherscovic said he was “not aware” how many students were waiting for certificates, or how long some had been waiting.

“I’m not dealing with operations, but I’m perfectly aware that it’s being dealt with. It’s taking time, but it’s being dealt with,” he added. 

The businessman said the company was in “a normal process” of winding down and suggested that learners would receive their certificates “in the correct manner”.

In a separate email, company spokesperson Sahad Azad said a single “dedicated staff member” is still working on processing certificates “with care and urgency”.

Learners waiting

Online reviews of F2L suggest that issues emerged with learners not receiving contracts as early as 2021.

Speaking to FE Week, Elena Georgiou, 42, said she took an AEB funded security guard course in Hackney, which started in September and should have lasted five weeks but “dragged on” until November.

Her class has only received first aid certificates and has not heard from the company since December 20 – three days after its bankruptcy notice was published.

She said: “I’m absolutely fuming – we all need to apply for jobs and we’re still waiting – it’s definitely affected me financially.”

Brian Bellot, 52, said he was left “disheartened” after a south London JobCentre referred him to what he believed was a forklifting course at the company’s Hackney office in 2023.

But when he arrived, he claimed he was told he would first need to study three courses with “no relevance” to forklift operating, such as level 2 customer services, for which he has never received a certificate.

He told FE Week: “It was disappointing that I did something I didn’t want to do and didn’t get the certificates to say I actually achieved it.”

Matt Bromley said his son, who has special needs, completed an online Construction Skills Certification Scheme course with F2L in 2023 but waited nearly a year before he was booked on a test.

He said: “I don’t think he’d ever have heard from them again. They never contacted us. I was contacting them and making complaints.”

His son, who he has asked to remain anonymous, was eventually booked on to a test after his father complained to the JobCentre that referred him to the course.

Who is F2L?

The company was set up in 2010 and grew its turnover – which includes BAJ’s finances – to more than £11 million by 2022-23. 

F2L bought BAJ, formerly known as Holts Academy of Jewellery, in 2016.

Its income appears to have come from a combination of FE college subcontracting, before it secured direct contracts in 2019.

F2L went on to earn at least £20.6 million from the DfE, the Greater London Authority and several other mayoral combined authorities for the next five year to deliver adult education courses.

A spokesperson for Buckinghamshire College Group said it had had a “long-standing” subcontracting relationship with F2L – worth £1.4 million last academic year – but began winding this down “in early 2024”.

The spokesperson added: “Whilst Free To Learn has now gone into administration this does not affect the administering of the final certificates to learners, which Free To Learn is still working through.”

The DfE declined to comment on whether BAJ’s skills contracts could be at risk, given that it is run by the same owner of F2L.

The Department for Work and Pensions, which manages JobCentres, was contacted for comment.

Possible extension for national skills bootcamp contracts

Training providers that hold national skills bootcamp contracts could be in line for an extension.

The previous government committed half a billion pounds to subsidise the short courses between 2022 and 2025, with funding set to run out in March.

Labour ministers previously announced that there would be no further procurements for national delivery. They plan to fund the programme directly through mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) and local areas in the long term.

However, skills minister Jacqui Smith has now hinted that some national contracts may continue beyond their current end date.

Lord Clement-Jones submitted a parliamentary question before Christmas to ask whether the government had considered “giving short-term contract extensions for high-performing skills bootcamps providers that can demonstrate their ability to meet milestones and deliver outcomes by 31 March 2025”.

Smith said in response to the Liberal Democrat peer: “We will provide further information on contract extensions and variations in due course.

“We will encourage providers to work with their local MCA or local enterprise partnership to find out more about how they can work with them to deliver adult skills training.”

The Department for Education confirmed to FE Week that it would soon write to providers with national contracts to set out further information, but it could not offer a timeframe for final decisions.

It is understood that it is unlikely that all national contracts will be extended, and officials will instead decide each one on a case-by-case basis.

Funding to continue bootcamps through both local and national contracts is likely to be a decision for spending review discussions between the Treasury and DfE.

But providers will be desperate for an urgent decision on national contract extensions to avoid a planning nightmare as they begin to wind down their current allocation.

The Skills Network secured one of the largest national bootcamp contracts – totalling almost £7 million over two years to deliver in areas such as digital, cyber security and project management.

The company’s chief executive Mark Dawe said: “We get fantastic feedback from our learners, and recently Ofsted recognised that many get positive outcomes. An extension for existing contract holders would be a sensible move, but we need to know the details as soon as possible to be able to plan now what resources will be funded for the next 12 months.”

Skills bootcamps last up to 16 weeks and combine training, work experience and are supposed to include a guaranteed job interview.

Providers are paid in three “milestone” instalments based on learners’ performance and the job interview. The final payment is conditional on whether positive outcomes, such as a new job, have been achieved.

The DfE’s director of apprenticeships, Kate Ridley-Moy, told providers in November that there is “definitely a future” for skills bootcamps. One option on the table, she said, is to allow the courses to be fundable through Labour’s upcoming growth and skills levy.

DfE hones in on dodgy directors in ‘high risk’ provider policy update

Provider directors, shadow directors or governors deemed by the government to have acted “dishonestly” or in “breach of ethical standards” could see their funding terminated through a beefed up performance management policy.

The Department for Education has refreshed its ‘Funding higher-risk organisations and subcontractors’ rules to include an enhanced list of offences and breaches that it can use to take action against colleges, independent training providers and employers with Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) contracts.

‘Inadequate’ Ofsted ratings, financial instability and contractual non-compliance remain in the policy, which was last updated in 2022, as reasons for the department to consider a provider high risk.

However, the new policy, nearly 1,500 words longer than the old one, now lists additional grounds for penalties based on the actions of “connected persons” to the provider.

This not only includes anyone with significant control of the provider, but now any director, trustee, governor or other person with “representation, decision, influence, management or control including through a blind trust, partner organisation or parent organisation”.

A company with a connected person who is subject to an ongoing investigation or has been subject to action from a previous investigation will be considered a high-risk provider.

 Simon Ashworth, deputy chief executive and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the updated policy “strengthens the DfE’s position on ensuring providers consider the circumstances of individuals they work closely with”.

He added: “This serves as an important reminder for providers to carefully evaluate their partnerships and conduct through due diligence to ensure that associated individuals are not only credible but are also not associated with any concerning past activities.”

Newly listed grounds for identifying high-risk providers also include any connected person found to have committed “professional misconduct”, tax-related misconduct, labour market misconduct, such as offences related to modern slavery, or who poses a threat to national security.

The refreshed policy adds that a provider will be considered high risk if any connected person has a prohibition order against them from the Teaching Regulation Agency unless “compelling” evidence convinces DfE public funds are not at risk.

Legislation is currently going through parliament to extend the remit of the Teaching Regulation Agency, which has powers to issue lifetime bans from teaching in cases of serious misconduct, to the further education sector.

If the DfE deems a connected person to have “engaged in professional misconduct which brings into question the providers’ or the connected person’s integrity”, the provider that the person is connected with will be considered high risk.

The policy defines “professional misconduct” as “dishonesty, impropriety, or a serious breach of ethical or professional standards.”

Connected consequences

Actions the DfE can take once a provider has been identified as high risk are largely unchanged from the previous version of the policy, however who is in scope has been clarified.

For example, provision delivered through contracts with devolved authorities and providers that only deliver skills bootcamps are not in scope. But independent training providers, colleges, employer providers, and their subcontractors that deliver post-16 education and training, including apprenticeships, are in scope.

Through the policy, a provider identified as high-risk can be refused funding contracts, excluded from allocations, have payments restricted or have one or all contracts terminated.

Before that, providers have the right to make their case against any action proposed against them, unless the offence warrants an immediate termination set out in the relevant funding contracts.

In coming to its decision, the policy states that the department will consider “the level of risk associated with the provision of funding to the provider” and “information that the department has from its own knowledge or intelligence from records it maintains”.

Appeals will not be accepted, but the department will hear complaints about process.