Chaos and contradictions: Francis review response round-up

Alternative qualifications? Four maths papers? Prescribed texts in English? The curriculum and assessment review could change the course of the GCSE resit policy.

The call for evidence left no doubt that college English and maths are in the crosshairs. Of the 44 thesis-worthy questions put to the public, 30 touched on resits due to overlaps between GCSE, 16-19 and affected subgroups. Failure to check that the questions were mutually exclusive led to significant repetition in the responses I’ve seen, ensuring nobody in DfE can possibly have time to read them.

In a frenzy, education organisations either published their full submissions or signposted existing recommendations. Don’t worry if you missed them. I’ve read them all (send help.)

Content in both GCSEs is universally declared “excessive”. Most proposals then suggest even more filler while being coy about what to cut, although I enjoyed the awarding body OCR’s honesty nominating “the more demanding content” for the chop in maths. In English, Pearson decried “excessive content” but joined others in wanting more; a return of spoken-language and broader non-literary texts.

OCR and the English Association want TV taught in English. TV? Neither the cultural capital and benefit to literacy of a novel, nor the relevance and relatability of TikTok; purely nostalgia for the days of wheeling in a TV trolley and having a quiet lesson.

The EA also claims that “the opportunities for reading contemporary and socially diverse texts have shrunk significantly,” but with no set texts in Language since 2015, blaming the GCSE is deflection. AQA soberly reports that despite a more diverse offer in their literature GCSE for schools, only 7 per cent of students were taught texts by women. I suspect the same pattern in resit English Language choices. There’s an unresolved tension between the EA’s desire for “more autonomy for teachers” and their case for a prescribed curriculum.

Almost everyone agreed on trimming the number of maths exam papers. After all, OCR’s Paper one is a highly accurate predictor of final grade. “It should be possible to change from the current three papers to two,” say MEI, before unveiling a four-paper GCSE, with different combinations of the four equating to different tiers. Poor exams officers.

Hedging bets, MEI alternately proposes “two distinct maths GCSEs”; one limited to grades one to four and the other taken by “half the cohort” (the richer half, we assume), graded five to nine. This overcomplicated proxy for tiering would create a ‘forgotten half’, unable to even aspire to a ‘strong pass’.

Then, because the scattergun was apparently still loaded, MEI suggests a third GCSE for resitters. In fact, everyone from the Royal Society to NCFE calls for off-brand resit qualifications.

English exams come under fire from all sides

The lone socially-just proposal for maths from White Rose Education suggests a “dual GCSE” of Applied and Theory as a parallel to English Language and Literature, with both taken by all students at 16. Then the single-tier, single-paper applied becomes, like Language, the resit route. The model protects parity with the non-disadvantaged students who are more likely to achieve it at 16 (avoiding a two-tier system), but allows for a slimmer curriculum, more deliverable post-16. It also facilitates those inspiring leaps across multiple grades that we see in English.

English exams come under fire from all sides. Assessed writing needs to involve “planning, drafting, and editing” (AQA), “drafting, crafting, editing” (Pearson), and “work drafted and redrafted” (EA). Aside from it being perfectly possible to demonstrate editing and drafting in exam conditions, we more urgently need to equip young people with the ability to accurately structure a sentence, or to adopt an appropriate tone, confidently and independently. I’m not sure the imagined dawdling cycle of “drafting across many iterations” (OCR) actually exists in professional writing outside of universities and the civil service. This, like wheeling in the TV, is a pull-back to booking a computer room for six weeks instead of teaching, and middle-class-favouring coursework.

Ironically, we need to look to White Rose’s model for the simplest solution for English resits. Let’s stop pretending the distinction between fiction and non-fiction justifies two papers in Language and move to a single paper. Pearson rightly calls out “undue repetition”. If English and maths post-16 required just one exam each, it would ease the delivery and exam demands on colleges.

Economically-disadvantaged students are blamelessly 19 months behind at 16, but gain ground by 19. They deserve a shot at the same exam. If the review doesn’t deliver that, it has failed.

Sir Ian Bauckham confirmed as permanent Ofqual chief

Sir Ian Bauckham has been confirmed as the permanent chief regulator of exams watchdog Ofqual, the education secretary has announced.

Parliament’s education select committee agreed in December that Bauckham, who has served a interim chief regulator at Ofqual since last January and was the government’s preferred candidate to lead it permanently, should be given the top job.

On Friday, the education secretary announced Bauckham had been formally appointed to the five-year role, after the privy council has confirmed his appointment.

This followed a recruitment process “conducted in line with the requirements set by the commissioner for public appointments”, said the DfE.

The education select committee said in December it hoped Bauckham would serve the full five years in the top role and help “restore much-needed stability” to Ofqual, following a churn of chief regulators in recent years.

Bauckham said he was “honoured” to take on the permanent role, after “dedicating [his] career to improving education and opportunities for young people”.

Bauckham ‘exceptionally suited’ to role

“Qualifications are the currency of education,” he said in a statement on Friday.

“Ofqual, as guardian of standards, will protect their value and integrity to ensure they remain trusted by students, teachers, universities and employers alike. 

“Only through rigorous assessment and stable qualifications can we measure education performance and highlight areas where we can improve opportunities for all students.”

Knighted in January 2023 for his services to education, Bauckham has been a member of the Ofqual board since 2018.

He served as chair from January 2021 until January last year, when he became the interim chief regulator.

Previously, he was CEO of the Tenax Schools Academy Trust, a position he stepped down from last January to assume his role at Ofqual.

Bauckham has also been chair of Oak National Academy, an arm’s length body of the DfE, since 2020.

As chief regulator, Bauckham will be responsible for ensuring Ofqual meets its statutory objectives and duties, including upholding standards and “fostering confidence” in qualifications and assessments. 

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said “with his vast expertise in education, Sir Ian is exceptionally suited to lead Ofqual in maintaining a system that provides all young people with high-quality, rigorous qualifications and training, equipping them with the skills needed to succeed”.

This is the turning point for higher technical education

There are tentative signs this is the year that higher technical education (HTE) is finally turning the corner and beginning its long-overdue growth. Recent conversations have strengthened my hope that this is the case. Employers, educators, and policymakers are increasingly recognising the vital role of HTE in filling the ‘missing middle’—the gap in skilled workers qualified at Levels 4 and 5.

Challenging the status quo

For decades, the national psyche has been fixated on a linear progression: A-levels to degree. This narrow focus has left HTE students in a no-man’s land, their contributions undervalued and their pathways underdeveloped. Employers often echo this systemic bias.

One large employer tried to reassure me that higher technical graduates could apply for their degree apprenticeship programme using accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL) to bridge the gap. While flexible on paper, this approach overlooks the barriers it creates, especially for underrepresented groups like women.  A Hewlett Packard study some years ago indicated that while men would apply for a role while meeting just 60 per cent of the criteria, women tended to wait until they met 100 per cent.

So why should we assume that potential candidates would jump on a recruitment offer based on attracting sixth form leavers for a degree apprenticeship?  Many would not see this as a suitable top up route for them unless mid-point entry was specifically mentioned by the employer as an option.

Such attitudes need rethinking. If we are serious about addressing the skills shortages in key sectors and getting our population into meaningful employment, employers must move beyond token efforts and create dedicated spaces for HTE graduates to thrive.

A changing narrative

Encouragingly, the tide is beginning to turn. The Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE) now has initiatives promoting technician-level qualifications in response to industry needs. Similarly, an employer I spoke with recently opened our conversation by outlining plans to overhaul recruitment strategies and onboard more people with vocational and technical backgrounds.

There is also a shift among students. Rising concerns over university debt and uncertainty about degree outcomes are prompting more young people to explore alternative routes. For example, taking an HNC in computing while living at home and working part-time offers a low-risk, high-rewards pathway. If students decide after a year that their passion lies elsewhere—say in engineering—they can bank their HNC and pivot, with computing skills bolstering their future career.

IoT role

The country’s 21 institutes of technology are at the forefront of delivering HTE to bridge the gap between industry needs and education. Backed by £290 million of government investment, our mission is to empower students with cutting-edge facilities and skills in higher technical skills to drive economic growth.

Here in Greater Manchester, we’re striving to lead by example. Under the leadership of our mayor Andy Burnham, the city is positioning itself as a hub for technical education. The Greater Manchester Institute of Technology (GMIoT) is at the forefront of this movement. Our lead partner, the University of Salford, has made a bold investment, launching a new suite of higher technical qualifications. A new state of the art building being built on campus will act as a hub for the GMIoT partnership and a place of learning for those GMIoT students studying at the university.  Applications are steadily growing. Decisive action is crucial for shifting perceptions and demonstrating the value of HTE.

Building Momentum

FE colleges and private training providers across the region are also stepping up, expanding their level three offers with BTECs, T Levels and trade qualifications. What sets GMIoT apart is our strong employer partnerships. Nothing reassures parents and students more than seeing employers standing shoulder to shoulder with educators at open evenings, endorsing these pathways as viable and valuable. Transforming perceptions of technical education is a long journey, but progress is underway. Institutes of technology are a vital part of the education ecosystem, bridging the gap between traditional academic routes and industry needs. With consistent messaging, bold investments, and strong partnerships, we can ensure that HTE becomes a mainstream choice—not just an alternative.

Apprenticeships serve the public – so devolve them

The British public love apprenticeships. But nationally, the number and proportion of young apprentices are declining. Far too few apprentices– only about 20 per cent – are in ‘skill shortage’ occupations. And far too many are older adults sponsored by their existing employers who want to use up their levy.

Many of these problems are the result of the unique and dysfunctional design of our levy system.  Unlike in other countries, ours is paid by just a few firms and organisations. It also provides the entire apprenticeship budget, since the Treasury does not top it up in any way. Levy-payers are strongly incentivised to use ‘their’ levy up and have become increasingly successful in doing so – hence the huge rise in apprenticeships for older, often quite senior employees.

 The levy badly needs reform.  But in my recent paper for the Social Market Foundation, I argue that the problem with our system isn’t just the levy. It is also the centralisation of spending and administration in Whitehall.

This is particularly bad for small employers.  They are rarely involved in standard-setting, do not understand how the system works, often struggle to find a training provider and have no stable and local port of call from which to get advice. All this on top of a system which leaves less and less apprenticeship money unspent by levy-payers and available for SMEs – who are the backbone of the economy and the source of future growth.

It’s time for us to follow the example of every ‘top’ apprenticeship country and make local authorities and organisations central to delivery. In Switzerland, the cantons (member states) play the major role: in Germany it’s the chambers of commerce, which have a statutory position. Here, it should be the mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) which are already receiving devolved adult education budgets (AEBs).

Ben Rowland, the chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, argued in these pages that my suggestion was a terrible idea that would take us back ten years. He doubted that I had even ‘bothered to actually ask employers what they want’. On this point: not guilty. I talk very frequently to employers of every type. I’ve experienced, first hand, what it’s like to be a small employer taking on their first apprentice. And in my time as a government adviser, I was lobbied on apprenticeship by a good many employers. That has taught me that different employers want different things!

My proposals concentrate on making apprenticeships work better for small businesses and young people, as the current system manifestly doesn’t. But there is a broader point as well. Apprenticeship isn’t just about an individual company sorting out its immediate training needs. If it were, there would be no reason for governments around the world to support it as they do. A country has a strong interest in making sure that future skill needs are met, and in helping localities to encourage local growth and new industries, including via apprenticeship support. A good apprenticeship system has public benefits: it is not just about today’s employers.

Encouraging apprenticeships in key local sectors is almost impossible unless there are local powers and budgets. But this country has become uniquely centralised. Governments talk devolution, but getting any genuine increase in local autonomy is painful and slow. Witness the current bill abolishing the Institute of Apprenticeship and Technical Education as an independent entity, and delivering all of IfATE’s powers back into the hands of the Secretary of State.

The inevitable query is whether MCAs are up to the task. They will be new to it, without the many decades of stability that underlie the best European systems.  But the critical question isn’t whether they will do everything perfectly. It is whether they will do better than the current system. They are certainly showing every sign of doing so with the AEB. MCA teams know their areas, and their providers. They will be far less subject to the constant changing of ministers, each with their special preoccupations –  and the impossibly short timelines for delivery that come with them. It’s time to devolve.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 486

Shahban Aziz

Managing Director, Textile Centre of Excellence

Start date: January 2025

Previous Job: Senior Funding Manager, Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education

Interesting fact: Shahban is passionate about charity work and improving social mobility. He is a trustee at Young Citizens and founder of the Jerusalem Community Fridge.

Mark Emerson

Vice Principal (Curriculum Innovation and Business Transformation), Colchester Institute

Start date: February 2025

Previous Job: Assistant Principal (Information and Digital Transformation), Chelmsford College

Interesting fact: Mark has played, and been sent off, at Wembley in the FA Cup (Unfortunately it was Wembley FC in the first qualifying round!).

Ofsted: You spoke, we listened, now scrutinise our plans

The work of Ofsted is important. It gives learners confidence they are receiving high-quality education, reassures employers their workforce is being trained well, and highlights for providers what is working and what needs to improve.  

This week we launched a consultation on a new way of inspecting and reporting on all types of education provider, including FE providers.  

Last year during Ofsted’s largest ever consultation, the Big Listen, we heard from thousands of parents, school and college leaders, providers, teachers and trainers, nursery staff and of course, learners, including apprentices. In response, we made changes to how we inspect to reduce the burden of inspection on providers.  

There were positives that emerged. You told us the nominee on FE and skills inspections has brought significant improvements to the process and feel of inspection, so we are extending that to schools and early years settings too.  

This new consultation aims to take the reforms enacted after the Big Listen even further. After spending months talking to government, sector organisations and representatives, learners, employers and providers, I’m confident this new way balances the interests of learners and apprentices, and education and training professionals.  

Inspection will continue to be built upon dialogue 

You told us you want a more nuanced view of a provider’s strengths and areas of improvement. So, instead of an overall effectiveness grade we’re proposing a five-point grading scale, allowing inspectors to celebrate successes and pinpoint necessary action to avoid standards declining. Our new report cards will display each grade accompanied by a narrative to describe what we saw on inspection. 

You will also see how we have proposed some new evaluation areas. All providers will be judged on leadership, inclusion and safeguarding. Then each type of provision offered – such as education programmes for young people, apprenticeships, high needs and adult learning programmes – will receive judgements for curriculum, developing teaching and training, achievement, and participation and development. Finally, colleges and other specialist designated institutions will be evaluated on how they are contributing to meeting the skills need.  

By separating out these different areas of provision, rather than aggregating them under a few headline grades, we can reduce the inspection pressure on providers. Removing the overall effectiveness grade – and the spotlight it shone on the provider as a whole – allows inspectors to tell a more detailed story about what it’s like to be learner or apprentice in that provision.  

Our chief inspector, Sir Martyn Oliver, has said several times that if providers get it right for the most disadvantaged learners, they will get it right for all of them. So one area we want inspection to focus on is inclusion. This means looking at how well providers are supporting their most vulnerable learners and those with SEND. We already know that FE providers are generally very inclusive, so we hope this new focus will allow you to showcase that great work. 

During the Big Listen, FE providers were also very clear they wanted inspection to recognise the varied contexts they operate in. They wanted a tailored inspection approach that differentiated between large FE colleges and small apprenticeship providers. We are confident our proposals allow for such differentiation – while still maintaining a common framework that enables comparisons between providers. 

There was concern that school sixth forms and 16-19 provision in FE and skills settings will be treated differently. This is absolutely not our intention. We’ve crafted the schools and FE and skills toolkits to ensure parity wherever possible.  

Obviously, there will be overlap between how we evaluate school sixth forms and sixth form colleges. Where appropriate, we will use the same standards to inspect both. But there are differences, for example where 16-19 provision is only one part of a provider’s offer (typically a school sixth form) versus whether it accounts for the work of the entire institution. Separate toolkits allow us to account for such differences.  

The toolkits set out the standards inspectors will be looking at and how grades are determined. The FE and skills toolkit will not only act as an obvious focal point for inspectors and leaders during an inspection, it can also be used as a useful tool by leaders between inspections, to track their own improvement journey. 

Inspection will continue to be built upon professional dialogue. Inspectors always seek out what is typical so they can reach a consensus with leaders about where things are working well, what is on track but remains a work in progress, and what still needs attention.  

In the Big Listen you told us we need to also consider notice periods and the composition of inspection teams. Please be assured that we are looking into these and will engage with relevant membership bodies and providers over the coming months.  

I would really encourage you to read our proposals and give us your honest thoughts. Over the coming weeks we will be testing them across a broad range of providers to understand how they work in practice. We will listen to everyone’s view and consider all feedback we receive before finalising the reforms for the autumn term.  

Legal win fails to spark Catholic sixth form academy bids  

None of England’s Catholic sixth form colleges have applied to become academies – despite a church campaign that forced a legal change two years ago.

Nearly all secular sixth form colleges have been able to academise and enjoy the luxury of not paying VAT since the then-chancellor George Osborne changed tax rules in 2015.

But for a group of 13 Catholic-run sixth form colleges, it took another eight years before the law was amended to allow them to academise while maintaining protections in areas of curriculum, acts of worship and governance.

Since 2023, however, Catholic sixth form college principals have faced calls from bishops to join mega multi-academy trusts based on diocese boundaries and designed for schools.

The Catholic college leaders – responsible for educating about 30,000 students across England – appear unwilling to give up their independence by joining the church-run MATs.

Catholic Education Service director Paul Barber, who personally called for the Department for Education to close the “legal anomaly” that excluded Catholic colleges, admitted: “Due to the block on Catholic sixth form colleges becoming academies, diocesan strategies were developed without their inclusion.”

One option now being proposed is for Catholic sixth forms to form their own MAT which would be better suited to the “specialised” 16-to-19 education they offer.

‘A more flexible approach’

The Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA), which represents the Catholic sixth form colleges, is calling on some dioceses – regional branches of the church responsible for education – to “adopt a more flexible approach” to colleges and recognise the unique “scale and complexity”.

Although Catholic sixth forms and their leaders have a high level of autonomy via the standalone governance structure of a college, diocesan bishops have ultimate control through the appointment of governors. Diocesan trustees also usually own the college building and grounds.

Those with knowledge of the Catholic education system told FE Week the 2023 rule change was too recent to expect any colleges to have launched conversion plans.

Labour’s withdrawal of a £25,000 academy conversion grant, and proposed tightening of rules on academy accountability, also suggests the party is less open to academy conversion than the previous government. 

Dioceses’ mega MAT plan

Most Catholic dioceses in England are pursuing trust growth plans that aim to move their remaining local authority-maintained schools into bishop-backed trusts.

But these mega-merger plans, launched in 2022 following the publication of a Conservative government white paper, were designed without Catholic sixth form colleges in mind.

A SFCA spokesperson said college leaders had “little appetite” for these rapidly progressing plans which dioceses had found “difficult to amend”.

They added: “We’d like to see some dioceses adopt a more flexible approach to conversion that reflects the scale and complexity of sixth form colleges and the unique role they play in the local education landscape.”

But the Catholic Education Service, which advises and represents diocesan education services, told FE Week its MAT merger plans were already “being reviewed” to ensure sixth form colleges are “part of the wider family of Catholic schools rather than standalone institutions”.

Barber said: “As with all schools and colleges seeking to become academies, the Catholic sector is developing its strategies to respond to the recent changes to the support packages that were previously available.”

Protect unique status

Catholic sixth form colleges have similar levels of autonomy to standalone sixth form and FE colleges.

The 13 colleges appear to be thriving academically and financially, despite facing the same challenges navigating complex funding rules and shrinking budgets that have pushed many colleges into joining large groups or converting to academy status.

As a result, leaders such as Martin Twist, principal of St Charles Catholic Sixth Form College in Ladbroke Grove, west London, said his college was seeking an academy model that is “right for us”.

He added: “Academies are probably the right option for most institutions – but not at any cost.

“It’s about protecting our culture, organisation and staff, and making sure what we do is the right thing for our students.

“The main thing for me is all parties are open to dialogue and open to academisation, but because of the additional structural requirements of working across government, individual dioceses and canon law, and the Catholic Education Service, it’s just going to take more time to work through those challenges.”

MAT for sixth forms

Twist said some leaders had floated the idea of a national or regional Catholic sixth form college MAT that would build on strong existing relationships.

He told FE Week: “We work in close partnership with each other through the Association of Catholic Sixth Form Colleges, we understand each other and are all committed to the distinctive nature of Catholic Sixth Form colleges.”

“We all do the same thing, we understand each other.”

Most Catholic sixth forms are situated in London and the north west of England.

But FE Week understands that a specialist sixth form MAT crossing several dioceses would be difficult to deliver as bishops have a high degree of independence in how they choose to run their diocese, including education.

A cross-diocese MAT would present complications around who appoints trustees and holds responsibility for buildings.

DfE to relax functional skills rules for apprentices

English and maths functional skills rules will be relaxed for adult apprentices, FE Week understands.

The government is expected to soften controversial exit requirements following years of lobbying from the sector.

Under current rules, apprentices must achieve level 1 English and maths functional skills qualifications if they are on a level 2 apprenticeship and did not pass the subjects at GCSE. Similarly, if a learner is on a level 3 or higher apprenticeship, they must achieve functional skills at level 2 to complete their training.

Following the shake-up – expected imminently – it is understood the rules will become optional for apprentices aged 19 and older. Adults without an English or maths GCSE pass can still opt to take the tests but will be able to do so without needing to pass as an exit requirement.

The rules are unlikely to change for 16 to 18 year olds.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We recognise that employers want more flexibility on apprenticeships, and we are looking into what improvements can be made to break down barriers to opportunity and help more skilled workers drive growth.”

Full details are expected to be published shortly.

Reformed functional skills qualifications were launched in 2019 with revised content and assessment requirements. The aim was to give the qualifications greater credibility with employers.

Functional skills pass rates currently sit at around 75 per cent, down from 84 per cent before the pandemic and before the reformed qualifications were introduced.

No other qualification, such as A-levels and T Levels, have English and maths as an exit requirement. However, 16 to 18-year-old students without a pass in the subjects must work towards them as a condition of their place being funded.

Only around half of apprentices successfully complete their apprenticeship each year and functional skills qualifications exit requirements are constantly flagged among the biggest barriers for apprentice dropouts.

In December, research by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers found three-quarters of apprenticeship vacancy adverts blocked applicants who had not already achieved a grade 4 pass in GCSE English and maths.

Former Labour shadow skills minister Toby Perkins committed to reviewing functional skills exit requirements while in opposition in March 2023.

Labour’s current DfE ministerial team has hinted it would reform functional skills since last year’s election victory.

Ofsted report cards: We’ll face more pressure, not less, say FE staff

Four in five further education leaders and teachers fear Ofsted’s new report cards will heap more pressure on the sector, a snap FE Week readers’ poll has suggested.

The inspectorate unveiled proposals this week to replace current inspection reports with a new system it deems will “provide a more nuanced view of a provider’s strengths and areas for improvement” from 2025-26.

While FE colleges and providers will no longer be subjected to overall headline grades, they will be judged on a colour-coded five-point grading scale from “exemplary” to “causing concern” across up to 20 areas – compared to a maximum of 10 under the current system.

Inspectors will place a bigger focus on staff wellbeing, workload, inclusion and achievement rate data.

Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver said: “We hope this more balanced, fairer approach will reduce the pressure on professionals working in education, as well as giving them a much clearer understanding of what we will be considering on inspection.”

But early critics have warned the increase in graded areas for FE providers will inevitably create a “greater risk of error” which is likely to lead to more complaints.

An FE Week survey of 250 sector leaders and teachers found 80 per cent think the reforms will actually increase pressure placed upon them by Ofsted, while just 15 per cent feel there will be a positive change.

One anonymous comment said: “All it achieves is one-word judgments in many more categories. The plan does not reduce pressure on anyone and the public will still find it difficult (if not more so) to understand. Feels like we are going backwards with all this.”

Ofsted’s reforms follow a “Big Listen” exercise that was prompted by a coroner’s ruling in 2023 that an inspection of Caversham Primary School in Reading “contributed” to the suicide of its headteacher, Ruth Perry.

Darren Hankey, principal of Hartlepool College, said: “I’m not sure what happened in the Big Listen, but it seems as though no listening took place and we’ve now potentially got a system which is more complex, less reliable and less valid than the one it replaced.

“The new system will do exactly what Ofsted says it doesn’t want to happen – add to leaders’ and staff workloads. At a time when we have staff recruitment and retention issues; this is just not on.”

Ofsted proposes to judge FE providers on seven headline areas: leadership, inclusion, safeguarding, curriculum, developing teaching and training, achievement, and participation and development.

The latter four areas will also receive one of the judgments for each of the following types of provision offered: education programmes for young people, provision for learners with high needs, apprenticeships and adult learning programmes.

Colleges will also continue to be judged on whether their contribution to meeting skills needs is ‘limited’, ‘reasonable’, or ‘strong’.

So for an FE college offering courses to young people, adults, apprentices and learners with high needs, this would see the number of grades they receive double from 10 to 20.

As well as headline grades for each area, Ofsted will publish short descriptions summarising their findings.

Half of the respondents to FE Week’s survey disputed Ofsted’s view that this approach would provide more nuanced information and put learners first.

Forty-five per cent said the proposals were “bad” for FE and skills, while 39 per cent said the reforms won’t make a difference.

One anonymous inspection nominee in an independent training provider said the plans were “a good idea in principle but too complicated with far too many categories”.

Gemma Baker, a senior policy lead for the Association of Colleges who is also an Ofsted inspector, said: “We do have concerns that the proposals will double the number of judgments made in a single inspection. This inevitably creates a greater risk of error which will make the post-inspection and complaints processes even more important.

“We are also concerned that the school and FE categories have diverged more in a way that could obscure proper judgments about 16-to-19 education quality.”

Hankey said the “biggest elephant in the room” regarding Ofsted was its “lack of reliability and validity”.

He added a “simpler approach” would be to report on what a college “does well, what a college needs to improve and, if serious concerns are found, stick around to help the college get better”.