Colleges are pleading for cash to shift from “crisis intervention” to preventative strategies to help students facing mental health breakdowns.
A survey of 70 colleges found 81 per cent reported a slight or significant increase in disclosed mental health issues among learners aged 16 to 18 in the last year, which follows 90 per cent reporting a rise the previous year.
And the Association of Colleges (AoC) added that severe behaviours, such as suicide attempts, remained “alarmingly prevelant”.
Mental health has become the primary cause for student absence in colleges, particularly for learners forced to resit GCSE English and maths, according to research by the membership body.
Today’s report found colleges are relying on emergency services for crisis intervention, with a third recording more than 10 mental health-related A&E referrals in the past year.
And the AoC highlighted the Big Mental Health Report from charity Mind, which calculates that poor mental health costs £300 billion a year in England alone, which is double the NHS annual budget – with children and young people’s mental health services accounting for more than £1 billion of NHS annual spend.
College leaders are now calling for more support to focus on prevention strategies to ease this huge cost.
One effective strategy is social prescribing, according to the report, which is a “largely unfunded” enrichment initiative that involves structured programmes such as volunteering, student representation, and social and physical activities.
“A growing number of colleges are adopting a proactive and intentional stance to the use of enrichment to address mental health and wellbeing, implementing a social prescribing model to relieve pressure on college services by preventing issues developing to a point where crisis intervention is needed,” the report said.
Jen Hope, AoC mental health lead and area director for the Midlands, added: “As this report shows, it is vital that policymakers prioritise investment in preventative mental health strategies if we are to comprehensively and sustainably support student and staff wellbeing.
“There is now clear evidence that early interventions are cost-effective. Every £1 million spent on child and adolescent mental health services returns an estimated £4.25 million in combined benefits to individuals and in savings to the government.”
Kimberley Cash, deputy group principal of Salford City College Group, said investment in mental health services for young people was “urgently needed”.
“Without it, we risk losing too many bright, ambitious young people to these invisible battles,” she added.
The AoC study revealed 68 per cent of colleges had reported more students aged 19 or older with disclosed mental health conditions, while last year 86 per cent said their numbers were rising.
Meanwhile 59 per cent of colleges reported rises in numbers of students they believed had undisclosed mental health difficulties.
The AoC said the volume of demand placed on college mental health services remained “significant”.
‘Heartbreaking to see students battling suicidal thoughts’
The report also highlighted “alarmingly prevalent” rates of suicide attempts – 75 per cent of colleges reported five or more suicide attempts, the same figure as last year.
Cash said: “I have witnessed firsthand the complex mental health struggles that young people can face.
“It’s heartbreaking to see students, full of potential, battling anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.”
One fifth (22 per cent) of colleges recorded at least one death by suicide by students, compared to 30 per cent experiencing the tragedy when asked last year.
Staff absences
Staff wellbeing was also a concern highlighted in the report after 85 per cent of colleges said poor mental health amongst workers directly contributed to sickness and absence rates.
As a consequence, over half (52 per cent) said it was negatively affecting student experience.
Nearly one fifth (18 per cent) said staff were experiencing secondary trauma from the emotional toll of supporting students with complex mental health needs.
“These numbers underline the ongoing pressures faced by staff and the urgent need for supportive systems to address the factors impacting staff wellbeing,” the report added.
Young people who did not pass GCSE English and maths must continue to study the subjects if they take a new foundation apprenticeship – but they will not be required to sit or pass the tests.
Apprenticeship funding rules for 2025-26, published today, included a section for foundation apprenticeships, which are due to be rolled out this autumn.
The government is yet to publish a list of foundation apprenticeship programmes, but the new rules detail funding eligibility.
Foundation apprentices must be aged 16 to 21 at the start of their training, or 22 to 24 if they either hold an education, health and care (EHC) plan, are in care of their local authority, or have been in prison.
Officials said they will fund a foundation apprentice at the same or lower level than a qualification they already hold, but only “if the foundation apprenticeship will allow the individual to acquire significant new knowledge, skills and behaviours, the provider can show that the content of the training is materially different from any prior qualification or previous apprenticeship and that the minimum duration can still be met once prior learning has been recognised”.
Critically, there will be no functional skills exit requirement for foundation apprentices. But, like the condition of funding rule for 16 to 18 year olds on study programmes, apprentices will be forced to continue to study the subjects.
In levels 2 to 7 apprenticeships, apprentices aged 16 to 18 must pass English and maths functional skills exams if they have not already obtained a level 2 (GCSE) pass. This requirement was made optional for apprentices aged 19 and older in February.
Simon Ashworth, Association of Employment and Learning Providers deputy CEO, said: “Confirmation that 16 to 18 year olds taking on new foundation apprenticeships won’t face a mandatory English and maths exit requirement is another positive signal that the government is listening and looking to test out an alternative approach.
“It means more young people will be able to start an apprenticeship and build confidence in the workplace while receiving the support they need to improve their skills.”
The foundation apprenticeship rules state that where the apprentice holds neither level 1 nor level 2 in English or maths, then the apprentice “must start and continue to study for at least a level 1 English and / or maths”.
Where the apprentices already holds an approved level 1 qualification, then the apprentice must start and continue to study for a level 2 English and / or maths.
The apprentice is not required to take the assessments prior to completing their foundation apprenticeship in both scenarios, but where providers “deem it appropriate”, the tests can be taken.
Plans for foundation apprentices aged 16 to 18 must include a minimum of 55 guided learning hours per subject.
Today’s funding rules also outlined how the £2,000 employer incentives for foundation apprenticeships, first announced during March’s Spring statement, will be paid.
The DfE will pay £667 if the apprentice is still on their foundation apprenticeship 90 days after their start date, followed by another £667 if they are still on programme 242 days into their training.
A “progression payment” of £666 will then be paid if the apprentice, upon completion of their foundation apprenticeship, starts a full apprenticeship within six months of their completion date and they remain with the same employer.
The progression payment will be made 90 days after the apprentice’s start date of their new apprenticeship.
Nearly 6,000 FE teachers have been paid a chunky government bonus – worth a combined £34.1 million – designed to stop them quitting their jobs.
Introduced by the previous Conservative government, the ‘targeted retention scheme incentive for FE teachers’ offered up to £6,000 tax-free cash for teachers of subjects where there are “critical skills priorities” and high teacher vacancy rates.
Controversially, the scheme excluded teachers working for independent training providers.
Data published today revealed the take-up and payment amounts for the first year of the retention scheme.
There were 7,790 applications in total, although just over one in five were rejected for being ineligible. Applications closed on March 31 but 76 were still awaiting a decision, meaning 5,984 were successful.
There were seven subject areas chosen for the scheme in 2024-25; building and construction, chemistry, computing and digital, early years, engineering and manufacturing, maths and physics.
Most payments, 29 per cent, went to building and construction teachers, followed by maths (23 per cent) then engineering and manufacturing (20 per cent).
But the amount each teacher received differed depending on the proportion of disadvantaged 16 to 19 year olds studying at their college, and their weekly teaching hours.
To get the maximum £6,000 payment, an eligible teacher would need to teach for at least 12 hours per week at a college where 50 per cent or more 16 to 19 year olds were disadvantaged.
The vast majority, 91 per cent, of payments went to teachers in further education colleges. Just 5 per cent went to teachers in schools and academies, and 4 per cent went to sixth form colleges.
This week’s figures show the average amount claimed was £5,700, suggesting over just over £34 million was paid out in total.
It’s too early to estimate how many of the 5,984 would have left had it not been for the incentive payments, but a 2023 Institute for Fiscal Studies report found FE teachers were much more likely to quit than other public sector professions.
The figures come as the Association of Colleges and National Joint Forum of trade unions meet to negotiate the 2025-26 pay award recommendations for FE workers, and follows a £50 million injection for staff pay this academic year, which will be paid to colleges next month based on 16-19 student numbers.
Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and Colleges Union (UCU), said the incentive scheme neglects “critical subjects” and the growing pay gap between school and college teachers.
“Many teachers across further education continue to struggle to make ends meet because of such low pay, therefore a meaningful increase is vital,” she added.
“This incentive is not enough to close the pay gap between school and college teachers and will result in educators delivering critical subjects like English, social work and nursing receiving no uplift whatsoever.”
The Department for Education confirmed to FE Week that another round of applications will open this autumn but would not confirm whether eligibility criteria would change.
Jerry White, principal and chief executive of City College Norwich and chair of the Association of Colleges workforce strategy group, said the scheme is “good” for recipients but doesn’t solve systemic FE pay issues.
“Additional funding for the FE workforce is welcome. Clearly thousands of colleagues have been able to claim that money and that’s no doubt been good for them,” he told FE Week.
“Ultimately, these initiatives are helpful but they are a sticking plaster. What would make a bigger difference would be if I could go out with jobs with that extra five grand on the salary for everyone, but we can’t because the funding isn’t good enough.”
Negotiations between sector employers and staff unions have become more complicated following reports the School Teachers’ Pay Review Body has recommended a pay rise of “close to 4 per cent”, higher than the 2.8 per cent previously floated by ministers. A pay recommendation for colleges would need to be higher than the award offered to schools to stop the pay gap growing further.
Colleges and providers will see a 3.78 per cent funding increase to their 16-19 base funding rate for 2025-26, but they are also facing an “unprecedented” demographic boom with DfE-imposed limits on how much growth it will fund.
Grady added: “The government must come back with the funding to properly boost pay across the board to ensure our members are paid the same as schoolteachers, to help end the recruitment crisis and allow colleges to support students to reach their full potential.”
The Department for Education has introduced minimum off-the-job training (OTJ) hours for each apprenticeship standard for the first time.
Funding rules for 2025-26, published this afternoon, stated that OTJ hours-by-standard were necessary due to the shortening of the minimum apprenticeship duration from 12 to eight months, as well as “the introduction of new products and feedback from the sector”.
Until now, training providers have had to calculate how much OTJ training each apprentice requires depending on the length of their apprenticeship – but must be a minimum of 20 per cent of their working hours.
A list (click here to download) detailing new minimum hours for all 713 existing apprenticeship standards has now been released. They will apply to new starts from August.
The DfE said: “We are removing the delivery link between OTJ training and time on programme. This means that providers will be free to deliver the OTJT hours over whatever timeframe they choose (subject to meeting the minimum duration requirement). If the duration on programme increases or decreases, there will no longer be an impact on the minimum OTJT requirement.”
The minimum hours range from 1,531 for the level 7 chartered legal executive litigator and advocate apprenticeship, which has a typical duration of five and a half years, to 278 hours for 12-month apprenticeships like the level 2 urban driver.
The DfE said it considered a “range of information when setting the figure including current durations, both the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) typical duration and actual time on programme, and the volume of planned and actual hours being reported in the individualised learner record by providers”.
Rules added that 2025-26 is a “transition year in which we will continue to collect delivery information and work with partners to assess if the volumes are reflective of actual delivery”.
The published minimum hours figure can only be reduced if there is evidence of relevant prior learning from the apprentice’s initial assessment.
The “resulting programme”, with a corresponding price reduction, “must not fall below 187 hours of evidenced delivery or eight months in actual duration”, DfE said.
Funds are at risk of recovery if providers do not comply with the new minimum hours policy.
“These changes will reduce bureaucracy around the OTJT calculation and provide increased flexibility in the delivery of off-the-job training,” DfE said.
With England’s prisons bursting at the seams and inspectors repeatedly slamming education behind bars for failing to cut reoffending, one jail is bucking the trend. Jessica Hill reports from HMP Highpoint, where prisoners are learning skills that lead to real jobs – and real change
I never imagined that I would be driving a 25-tonne dumper truck across muddy, bumpy terrain inside a category C prison, with only a single-skin fence between me and the green fields of freedom beyond.
I am at HMP Highpoint in Suffolk to witness a unique initiative training prisoners in construction and rail infrastructure skills, with “guaranteed jobs” on release. What sets this programme apart is that the prisoners get to operate the same vehicles, machinery and infrastructure – including rail tracks, signalling systems and overhead lines – as exist in the world beyond those fences.
The partnership between the prison, City & Guilds, probation services and industry provides wraparound support for prisoners after release, tackling one of the biggest barriers to reducing reoffending: employment.
But it is a huge gamble.
The day before my visit, Manchester Arena bomb plotter Hashem Abedi was making headlines for attacking three prison officers at HMP Frankland while on kitchen duties, bringing into sharp focus the risks involved in providing liberties to criminals.
For Steve Phillips, Highpoint’s head of education, skills and work, giving unskilled prisoners access to heavy machinery is high stakes: “What you are about to see scares the living daylights out of me,” he says.
Most of the prison’s 1,300 residents are serving time for violent or drug-related offences. Like all English prisons, space is tight. A new wing is being built that will make Highpoint the biggest jail in north-west Europe.
Injury claims by staff totalled £1.6 million between 2019 and 2023.
“Staff get assaulted every day in jails,” Phillips says. “You take the worst people in society and put them all under one roof, then expect them to just – like a light switch – be good. For some, that’s really difficult.”
But the trainers on this course paint a different picture. Chris Kent, a trainer from L Lynch Plant Hire, gets “goosebumps” when asked if he enjoys his job.
“I genuinely love being here. This isn’t just work, it’s about actually changing people’s lives and putting something back into an industry that for me has been wonderful.”
A construction vehicles being driven by a prisoner at HMP Highpoint prison
Tools of the trade
We overlook a patch of land that was once a disused sports field, now a working site where prisoners learn to operate dumpers, rollers and excavators.
Security is tight. A trench surrounds the training area, and a remote kill-switch is fitted to every vehicle. It hasn’t been needed yet.
City & Guilds Training executive director Alex Pond believes that is because this course is so sought-after. “These guys will give their right arm to get on this course,” he says. “They know that, if they mess up, then they’re done.”
George*, a participant, says his “inner child lit up” when he saw a poster for the course. “I mean, who doesn’t want to drive a dump truck?”
Kent invites me to give his six-wheel-drive digger a spin. It can go up to 35 miles an hour and has lots of buttons that I dare not press. I manage to drive it in a loop without running over any onlooking, bemused inmates.
The course awards a CPCS licence and has a waiting list of 100, though only 30 can participate at any one time. Eligibility depends on behaviour, English and maths skills, and being within six months of release.
James*, an orderly who now supports the training after completing it himself, says the incentive is powerful. It’s a “mechanism to make prisoners behave on the wing”.
The training pays £25 a week, making it one of the best-paid jobs available. For George, it’s not just about money. Prison life is monotonous, he says, and this course allows him to be out all day, not locked in after lunch.
“Treating the men as learners, not prisoners,” says Kent, helps to build confidence. George agrees: “It really helps with my self-esteem.”
A former military contractor with the demeanour of someone who previously led a privileged life, George never considered construction before. His conviction has closed off his previous career, and he is “daunted” by the prospect of “having to admit” his criminal record to prospective employers.
The course enables him to overcome that hurdle. “This is a whole new chapter for me. It’s wonderful. At the age of 45, I can start afresh, almost.”
One of the construction vehicles being driven by a prisoner at HMP Highpoint prison
Wraparound support
Kent says earning enough to support a family is key to staying out of trouble. Ex-prisoners can earn £18 an hour driving trucks straight out of the gate.
James, with three months left on an 18-month sentence, now feels he can support his eight children. The course has given him “something to look forward to”, he says.
Aron White, Highpoint’s employment lead, says consistent support post-release is vital. “Instead of leaving them at the gate, we’re trying to go through the gate with them.”
Having someone on the outside who is contactable day or night is “the main reason why this scheme is so successful”. But the early release of prisoners to ease overcrowding often brings extra restrictions that make employment harder.
Approved premises (APs) require up to five daily check-ins and 7pm curfews, and many prisoners are sent far from home.
“That can make it quite complex,” says Sam Hill, prison engagement coordinator at City & Guilds Training. Her team supports prisoners through these hurdles.
One learner that the City & Guilds team worked with was previously released from prison with nothing but a tent to sleep in – and was subsequently recalled.
Another was late signing in with his AP because his train broke down on the way to a training course. The City & Guilds team intervened to prevent him being recalled to prison for something “completely out of his hands”, explains project manager Holly Brown.
Her team also stump up the money for train tickets sometimes, so lack of funds does not become a “barrier to employment”.
A digger being used for training at HMP Highpoint prison
Getting on track
I drive over to the south side of HMP Highpoint, where an overhead line, an electrical signalling system and 40 metres of rail track provide prisoners not just from Highpoint but across the country with rail infrastructure training. I almost expect a train to come hurtling towards me as we approach the tracks.
Highpoint is not the first prison to have installed a rail track, but “nothing to this scale” has been done before, says Phillips.
Alex Pond greets learners on the Personal Track Safety (PTS) course in a converted laundry room. He knows their struggles; he was taught to read and write by his wife at 21 before founding rail training firm Intertrain, which he later sold to City & Guilds.
“My point is, there is no ceiling,” he tells them.
This provision would not exist without Pond’s persistence. He secured a meeting in 2021 with then-skills minister Alex Burghart to agree that the City & Guild’s boot camps contract (currently worth £26 million) could be used inside a prison.
Then he and Brown went “through the doors of 30 to 40 different prisons” trying to initiate partnership work, with little interest from any except Highpoint. Pond puts this down to a “systemic problem with red tape” ” in UK prisons.
They raised £1 million from the City & Guilds Foundation, Aureos and the Clothworker’s Company among others.
Phillips credits his boss, the governor Nigel Smith, for being “bold and brave” enough to agree to all this. He is the prison’s longest serving governor, having been in post since 2012, but has “no top cover” on the initiative. “If it goes wrong, it sits with him.”
Smith says other governors would follow suit “if they could”, but they lack space and capacity.
Getting access inside a prison is rare for journalists, and Smith is wary of what I might publish. He is allowing me to visit, he says, because “City & Guilds deserve it”.
He adds: “Because of the investment they put in, we’re saving people’s lives as well as turning them around. This needs to be celebrated.”
A 2023 inspection found little to celebrate in Highpoint’s education provision, but that was before the construction option launched. And staff shortages highlighted then have now eased. “When you’re short-staffed in education, you can’t open everything all the time,” says Phillips.
Cleanliness is still a point of pride. Smith avoids one wing during our tour, where unrest over dirty conditions is brewing. The lack of available prison space nationally is disrupting stability at Highpoint because prisoners are more frequently moved in and out. “If we’re not careful, all the hard work we do here can be eroded just by that churn of prisoner,” says Smith. The new wing at Highpoint will accommodate over 700 more prisoners.
men working on the rail tracks at HMP Highpoint prison
Full steam ahead
Since August 2022, 153 prisoners have completed the rail course. Of those released, 82 per cent have found employment – over four times the national average of 19 per cent. The construction course has an 80 per cent employment rate.
An overhead line course has now started, with signalling to follow.
The rail courses are putting the men on the right track, with salaries upon leaving prison starting at £30,000 a year and climbing to £80,000.
Trainer Sheldon praises the sector’s openness. “The rail industry would rather have someone who’s been in the system and works hard, than somebody who is not putting in the effort.”
Darren*, with 20 years’ construction experience, hopes rail work will help him to stay sober. He narrowly failed the PTS test and has waited three years for a second chance.
The rail skills academy also brings in prisoners from other jails as far afield as HMP Ranby in Nottinghamshire and HMP The Mount in Hertfordshire. They stay in Highpoint’s “hotel”, made up of prefabricated pods. With their own toilets, showers and cooking facilities, the pods are a step up from regular cells.
Michael* commuted in from another prison in Suffolk, HMP Hollesley Bay, at 5am to do the course. He started work two days after release. His prison course was more comprehensive than many paid ones.
“Walking on the ballasts is a skill in itself,” he says. “If you’ve never actually done it and you go out on the tracks for the first time, it’s a gamble.”
Phillips believes the employment outcomes and reduced offending which the training provides should incentivise other prisons to get on board. He is “disappointed” that only a handful have so far sent their prisoners to Highpoint for training.
Pond hopes to develop other centres of excellence in other prisons, perhaps in utilities or green building skills. He is also exploring commercial rail panel production at the prison to fund future training.
The overhead lines being used for training up prisoners at HMP Highpoint
Future training
Phillips shows me the prison’s vocational training centre, where the provider People Plus –contracted through the Prison Education Framework – is holding a bricklaying workshop.
This year those contracts are being updated, but Phillips is concerned they will still provide “few incentives” for prisoners to engage without being linked to jobs on release.
A new workshop complex is being built at Highpoint with 14 classrooms and six vocational training workshops. Phillips would like to offer four of them up to City & Guilds, which sits outside the prison education contracts, to provide “sector-focused employment and training” for its prisoners.
But all this future provision depends upon City & Guilds’ ability to procure boot camp funding from new devolved authorities. The government is only extending the central funding for the construction boot camps.
This “worries” Pond. Prisoners are not necessarily released into the areas where their jail is based; most of Highpoint’s are from London. This means there is little incentive for a devolved authority to pay for prison-based training locally.
So, continuing and expanding the training provision probably depends on support from central government, as well as further buy-in from key industry players. Smith believes this will come in time.
“We just have to be patient,” he says, “because things take a long time to happen in prison. That’s what’s been the success of this. We’ve all stuck at it when it would have been easy to give up.”
*Names of prisoners have been changed to protect identities
Young people at risk of violence are being offered a route into employment, thanks to a groundbreaking jobs scheme initiative which is being expanded across the UK.
The UK Summer Jobs Programme (SEP), now in its second year, was borne out of the success of programmes that are common in major US cities such as New York, Chicago and Philadelphia.
SEPs are delivered over the summer, when young people are not in education and rates of youth offending tend to be highest. They target vulnerable young people and usually involve pastoral support, such as a mentor and job-readiness training, alongside paid work. They aim to build skills, improve education outcomes, boost job prospects and reduce the likelihood of involvement in violence.
Thousands of young people participate each year in US cities, leading to a demonstrable drop in participants’ involvement in violence and promising outcomes on social and emotional skills and job readiness.
The Youth Endowment Fund (YEF) is testing replicating that success in the UK.
In 2023, as part of a large research project to learn better ways of supporting young people at risk of violence, the YEF committed to a three-year programme to establish and evaluate an SEP. The charity UK Youth was awarded £1.5 million by the YEF, The Department of Culture, Media and Sport and Youth Futures Foundation to develop and deliver the Summer Jobs Programme in the UK.
Year one was a feasibility study to assess if the programme was deliverable, acceptable and evaluable. Locations were identified based on the availability of delivery partners, potential placement providers and rates of violence involving young people.
In summer 2024, more than 425 16-24 year olds identified as at risk of violence across London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester took part. They received one week of paid pre-employment training, covering areas such as goal-setting and preparing for work, followed by five weeks of paid employment with leading employers including Timpson, Burger King and Veolia.
They also received up to three check-ins with a youth worker to support them with the transition to work and resolve any issues.
The evaluation of year one was overwhelmingly positive: 95 per cent of the young people were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the programme. They appreciated being paid to do something, and get a gateway into employment.
Retention of young people offered a placement was high, but while they appreciated how their youth workers liaised with employers, they would have liked a greater range of placements better matched to their interests.
Placement providers demonstrated a desire to offer opportunities to vulnerable young people.
Employers welcomed the extra summer staff, and the real-life staff development opportunities that come with mentoring a young person new to the world of work.
More than four-fifths of employers were satisfied with the programme and their young person’s work, with 80 per cent saying they would take part again.
Suggestions from employers included more support for the young people, alongside improved communication with delivery partners.
Given the demand and high satisfaction demonstrated in year one, we are confident there is sufficient demand and capacity to deliver on a larger scale in years two and three with the aim of securing enough data for a robust evaluation of the programme’s impact, alongside supporting more young people.
This year, the programme is returning to London, Birmingham and Manchester and being expanded to South Wales, Middlesbrough and South Yorkshire. Recruitment of employers is underway to secure placements for 600 young people aged 16-20.
One of those helped last year was 18 year-old Eessa. After growing up in a low-income household, losing his father and struggling in school, he was unsure what the future held.
The programme he joined, Sporting Your Futures, changed that. His commitment, passion and leadership qualities stood out and he became a role model for others on the programme.
Recognising his potential, Sporting for Futures offered him a community activator coach apprenticeship, providing stability, a clear career path and a chance to continue his development in a field he now loves.
Eessa’s story is a testament to the power of opportunity and mentorship. His journey proves that investing in young people does not just change individual lives, but strengthens communities and inspires future generations to build brighter futures. For further information, see ukyouth.org
The proliferation of artificial intelligence has sparked fierce debate among educators. While some FE institutions are tentatively welcoming this new technology, others have battened down the hatches in an effort to keep AI at bay.
But, as teaching staff squabble, students have already begun to adopt AI in droves.
This is no surprise as AI-fluent employees are the pick of the crop for hiring managers. For adults navigating the job market, knowing how to use AI effectively is a top priority.
The education system’s resistance to AI is a thorn in the side of students’ future work prospects. To ensure that they enter work with crucial digital skills, the FE sector needs to drop its AI aversion and build this technology into the curriculum.
I want to see educators not just accept AI but actively embrace it. Teachers must take a step back and consider how AI can be used, ensuring that students are taught core digital skills.
It is also vital that FE institutions offer upskilling support for staff, empowering them to make informed decisions about AI. And, above all, teachers must emphasise the importance of responsible AI usage alongside fundamental learnings.
AI is reshaping the jobs market well beyond the tech sector. Finance, pharmacy, business leadership – even creative industries like marketing and design are on the lookout for AI talent as businesses scramble to prepare for the future.
To ready students for the workplace, they must be taught the fundamentals, such as how to successfully leverage AI tools to drive results, engagement or productivity.
Educators should turn to hiring managers and industry professionals to understand the skills that companies are hiring for – whether that is teaching data literacy to marketing students, enabling them to interpret and leverage customer data for future campaigns, or helping business students to translate AI insights into tangible business solutions.
Educators can then target these specific, sector-relevant skills in their learning plans, setting tasks or assignments that test their capabilities – like their ability to craft clear and precise prompts or extrapolate information from an AI-generated dataset.
But embracing AI does not mean just reaching for the nearest chatbot. The FE sector must ensure that each course has a bespoke digital solution. What might work for mathematics won’t necessarily work for language studies. Educators must ensure the tools they build into their lessons are right for their students.
With AI’s breakneck pace of development, tools can be quickly rendered obsolete. Educators need to continuously adapt to AI transformation.
To maintain a competitive edge, FE colleges must promote AI literacy in all their staff through mandatory upskilling classes that ensure all educators understand the benefits and use cases of AI in the learning environment. This must be regularly refreshed to ensure AI literacy stays relevant. Because, without a solid understanding of what AI is and how it can be used, teachers risk scrabbling in the dark, picking software that “looks best” or “sounds good”.
Educators need to ensure that AI is used responsibly and in moderation. Alongside new digital skills, students should continue to be taught and tested on core, fundamental learnings, separate from the assessment of AI skills.
In the same way that students might have both open and closed-book exams, course providers should set two distinct assessments – one allowing the use of AI, and one prohibiting it. This way, students are still tested on their knowledge and understanding of key concepts without AI assistance, ensuring they can engage with course content on a critical level.
Students must be taught how to use AI ethically and responsibly. This includes ensuring they are honest about their AI usage – and that covert usage is treated with the same gravity as plagiarism where it has been prohibited.
In the current, cut-throat market, having a firm grasp of AI is the competitive advantage job hunters need to get ahead of their peers. But the education sector’s hesitancy risks holding students back.
More than six months on from the announcement of blanket defunding for level 7 apprenticeships, last week’s revelation that there will be an exemption for 16 to 21-year-olds could be seen as progress.
There is no doubt that Bridget Phillipson and her team want to get this right. The problem, though, is that this concession will have minimal practical impact because the government’s wider strategy of focusing apprenticeships solely on young people is fundamentally flawed.
As Sheffield Hallam is home to the National Centre of Excellence for Degree Apprenticeships and one of the largest providers of degree apprenticeships in the country, we have said for years that apprenticeships work best when they work for everyone.
And so, while it may be well intentioned, this caveat still does little to address the very serious concerns around the government’s overall policy towards level 7, and the knock-on effects it could have for apprentices, providers, businesses and the public sector.
The practical perspective
Even with the latest concession, the government is still essentially condemning level 7.
Very few 16 to 21-year-olds will be qualified to undertake these courses. In our current cohort fewer than 7 per cent of level 7 apprentices are under 21, which is not enough to viably provide these standards at all.
But, if the threshold were raised by even the smallest amount, say to the normal DfE categorisation range of 16-24, then already the picture looks different and some cohorts could run, and in really economically valuable sectors. For instance, on our level 7 architect standard, 6 per cent are under 21, while that climbs to over 90 per cent when we look at under 24s.
Caution needed
Even if the government’s stated intentions were financially practical, they would still bring about concerning consequences.
An age limit would essentially pull up the drawbridge on many young people who are progressing through apprenticeship standards. Many have been told – very much in good faith – that the system is designed to create progression and have started a level 3 or 4 programme with the intention of moving through the stages.
In these cases, apprentices would almost certainly be over 21 before reaching level 7, and therefore punished for their age – and potentially mis-sold what they expected would be a structured pathway of progression.
Another side-effect which must be closely considered is the disproportionate impact that these measures could have on public services, especially healthcare. Level 7 apprenticeships train people in desperately needed skills, for key industries including the NHS.
Our level 7 advanced clinical practitioner standard, for example, would not run if it were subject to an age limit – be that 21 or 24. Individuals have to have worked their way up in the NHS to be in a role that means they can evidence the knowledge, skills and behaviours necessary to enrol.
So, this is almost exclusively a mature market, which helps committed healthcare professionals to take the next step in their careers.
These are vital skills which the government surely does not intend to curtail. But, unless it changes course, the risk is very real.
The esteem gap
As much as anything, the path which the government appears to be taking is disheartening. The all-ages approach to apprenticeships, which we – alongside many others – have long championed, is about changing attitudes and increasing opportunities.
I have always said that we will only achieve cultural change and parity of esteem once we have a c-suite that has come through work-based routes – and this is finally beginning to happen. The fear now however is that this change will mean fewer decision-makers have direct experience of apprenticeships.
They will therefore revert to favouring traditional pathways based on their own lived experience, further impacting opportunities for young people.
This surely is not what the government wants. But, unless it thinks deeply and listens closely to industry as it continues to define its policy, then these may be the unintended consequences.
The government announcement that apprenticeship qualification achievement rates (QAR) climbed back to 60.5 per cent last year was understandably greeted positively, although the sector recognises that there is still plenty of room for improvement.
The debate has long moved on from simply laying the blame for non-completions at the door of providers. Research in the past five years has identified various reasons for apprentices withdrawing, ranging from the positive such as moving to a better-paid job to the negative such as lack of employer support.
These research projects are only occasional, however, and given the importance of apprenticeships, we need to deploy more regular means to identify reasons for non-completions and implement actions to further improve the QAR.
When a learner withdraws from an apprenticeship, there is a Department for Education requirement to capture within the ILR the reason from a set of limited categories. Although training providers may be aware of the reason, the most commonly used category is “other” followed by “other personal reasons”, which between them account for almost 90 per cent of withdrawals and does not tell us much at all.
The reason offered by the early leaver may be given directly to the development coach, which does not guarantee honesty. Hence the ILR withdrawal categories do not allow for an informative analysis of why learners withdraw and how this might vary across apprenticeship levels and ages.
While still mapped to the ILR codes, Aptem’s customer providers can create detailed custom categories to track withdrawals which ensure a richer data set and result in more effective learner improvement plans.
We recently undertook a thematic analysis of withdrawal reasons used by our customers, clustering these into 23 categories. We did this by analysing the available data for learners withdrawing from an apprenticeship on or after August 2023 to March 2025. This gave us 35,190 data points across 140 training providers, of whom a third are using custom reasons to capture the reasons.
We found that a third of withdrawals were employment status-related, where the learner’s employment was either terminated, the learner made redundant, they resigned or were promoted to a new role not suitable for their apprenticeship programme. Some 6.3 per cent of learners withdrew due to an employer no longer supporting the apprenticeship and withdrawing or not actively providing support within the workplace.
A further 15 per cent of apprentices withdrew due to a lack of commitment or engagement, poor attendance or simply no longer wanting to continue with their apprenticeship. Another 4 per cent withdrew because the course/programme was unsuitable for them, or they had decided to study in further or higher education instead.
Perhaps surprising given the case for the recent policy changes, the analysis only identified 4 per cent leaving due to dissatisfaction with or failing to complete functional skills requirements – although this rises to 7 per cent for level 3 apprentices. We would expect the recent scrapping of functional skills requirements for adult apprentices to lead to this small proportion reducing further over the next academic year.
At lower levels, apprentices were more likely to leave for employment status-related reasons compared to their higher-level peers, with those on degree level apprenticeships such as nursing and policing being on clear employment and progression pathways.
Apprentices aged 16 to 18 were more likely to withdraw for employment status-related reasons (47 per cent) compared to any other group. Often this was due to a change of employer.
Older learners were significantly more likely to withdraw for personal reasons or commitment and engagement factors. Compared to younger learners, those aged over 35 were almost twice as likely to withdraw for health-related reasons.
The use of custom reasons therefore offers more detail on why learners withdraw. It can identify appropriate interventions such as learner motivation, wellbeing support and better employer engagement.
Improved retention will obviously lead to an increase in success rates, while the richer data can evidence positive progression, such as when a learner leaves to move into further study. All this offers a much more nuanced picture of outcomes, beyond the QAR.
