Day in the life with hairdressing lecturer Lisa Charles

Hairdressing lecturer at North East Surrey College of Technology (Nescot) Lisa Charles is basking in the glow of a double celebration. Just weeks after one of her learners, Reanna Chambers, was named the Association of Colleges adult student of the year, Charles, who leads Nescot’s hair and beauty department, was last month named the Pearson National Teaching Awards FE lecturer of the year.

Charles’s role these days is more about psychology than hair styling. She often has a long line of anxious young learners waiting outside her office door to talk, many of whom, like her, missed much of their schooling.

“We’ve all got an autobiography – but we have to rewrite our future,” she tells them.

Charles and her colleagues were left devastated last year by the suicide of a former student, and Charles wants to use the limelight of her award to raise awareness of mental health issues that many young people face, especially when they leave formal education and associated support networks. 

Her own story began when, aged just 18 months, Charles was blinded in one eye by her father during a violent outburst. She and her mum went back and forth from the family home to different women’s refuges, until her mum remarried when she was 12. But her new husband was also abusive. 

Charles credits her husband, whom she met when she was just 15, with saving her life by encouraging her to train as a hairdresser. Life at first was incredibly tough for the couple, who were only able to buy dinner if Charles made enough money in tips that day from washing hair.

A doctor gave them an oven after realising they were both suffering malnutrition. But after having her daughter at age 18, Charles trained to be an assessor, then a hairdressing teacher at Kingston College before starting at Nescot 15 years ago.

Here is what her typical day looks like…

5.30am

I get up and give my French bulldog, Rodney, a cuddle. Some things that students have told me the day before were buzzing around in my head through the night, so I didn’t sleep well. 

Some learners who are more needy do gravitate towards me. Last year, a student who was very close with us all died by suicide after finishing her course. The whole team was devastated. I still think about her lots and how she shared that her time at college was so happy. 

I’d love to use my award win to try to help young people who struggle when they finish college. Sometimes they lack the wider support and life skills they need, and there aren’t always jobs for them.

I worry that some young people aren’t resilient enough for this world. I feel very strongly that more needs to be done to support them.

7.00am

I check my phone to see if any staff are calling in sick that day, so I can arrange lesson cover. I’ll phone a learner to get them out of bed if that’s what I told them I’d do; it’s about being consistent. I don’t eat breakfast or lunch, as I don’t have time. And I drink too much Pepsi! 

I’m responsible for 160 students on our hair and beauty courses, which is up 50 on last year. I put the increase down to us having the best team we’ve ever had.

But we haven’t been able to recruit enough teachers for all the new students, so I’m teaching more sessions myself. We’ve gone to market a few times, but it can be hard to recruit teachers and tempt people away from industry and salons. 

Lisa Charles at her office desk

8.30am

I arrive at college and after a quick chat with colleagues, I check my emails. They’re often from parents explaining that their young person is too anxious to come in.

Some of the young people who were in our 14-16 provision last year have moved onto our mainstream courses and need more hand-holding. The first couple of months are always difficult, with the jump they have to make from doing functional skills to English and maths GCSEs. Then you see them strutting down the corridors like they’ve been here forever!

Often these days, learners come in with ADHD, ADD or dyslexia. At Nescot, I am proud that we are inclusive of all of our learners. In fact, I think we’re all a little different.

But we are realistic with learners as to the expectations of what the employer is looking for so we can prepare them for the industry. It shouldn’t be about categorising and pigeonholing. Everybody’s individual, we just need to get to know each learner and how to support them. 

I like to have a couple of lessons with my new students before I read their profiles from their previous place of learning, because I might build a different rapport with them than their last teacher did. It’s interesting; if you let a student read what’s been written about them previously, quite often they think it doesn’t describe them at all. 

Some young people lack the course entry requirements, but I believe they still deserve a chance. 

I remember on enrolment day in 2016 meeting Maria, a member of the traveller community who had no qualifications but who really wanted to become a hairdresser.

I was aware that there could be some unfair stereotyping given to this community and that the learner had no formal schooling, so technically didn’t meet the entry requirements for the course. But when I called the informal school that Maria had attended, her teacher was so complimentary about her that, with my manager’s support, we were able to accept her on the course.

Maria turned out to be an absolute angel. Five years later, I put her sister Reanna on a level one hairdressing course and in her first year she also passed her GCSE maths and English, which was unheard of. She now specialises in bridal hair for the traveller community.

I couldn’t be prouder of her winning the AoC’s adult learner of the year award. She’s opened the door for others, too. A positive has also been that our learners no longer stick to groups or backgrounds of culture, race or familiarity – they mix as one group of learners. 

Lisa Charles with Reanna Chambers, after she scooped the Association of Colleges adult student of the year award

9.00am

It’s like a doctor’s waiting room with all the people sitting outside my office door. We have a great wellbeing hub downstairs that I work with, but sometimes learners I have a rapport with will come to me first. 

Sometimes I just need a minute on my own, because some of what’s happening with these young people can be very upsetting.

I can’t turn them away, and if they’re very upset I end up sitting with them for some time. I always keeptwo boxes of tissues on my table and have lots of leaflets about coping with stress. 

‘Anxious’ is the word that they use all the time to describe how they’re feeling, but sometimes it’s a word that’s overused. I’ll say, ‘are you anxious? Or are you just a little bit worried? And is that maybe not a bad thing that you’re a little bit concerned about whether you’re going to pass?’

I’ll work from home tomorrow, so I can get my schemes of work done without being interrupted. 

Lisa Charles with Nescot’s principal Julie Kapsalis

9.30am

I meet with my principal, Julie Kapsalis, about getting a pop-up salon opened up in our main reception area, offering free haircuts for the homeless. The space is mostly empty, and opening a salon up would help us to provide much-needed work experience opportunities for our learners.

Work experience is a course requirement, but some learners feel awkward about going into a workplace straight away with people they don’t know, especially those who missed a lot of schooling. Some salons expect these kids to suddenly know how to talk to strangers, and they don’t. 

This salon would give more vulnerable students a stepping stone by helping them build their confidence. I’d run it in the evenings – it has to be separate from college learning hours.

Lisa Charles demonstrating a hair technique to her students

1.30pm

I spend the afternoon doing performance reviews with staff or observing their lessons. 

It’s lovely to see the rapport that a lecturer has built up with their students. The little bit of success that a learner has made that day can’t necessarily be tick-boxed. For some students, it’s a massive achievement just for them to be there.

I’ve found that having a learning support assistant working exclusively with a particular student can be problematic, because often they won’t utilise them. Many students have a learning need of some sort, but that’s not always defined on paper.

So, if you’ve got a learning assistant going around supporting everybody rather than focusing on a particular student, then that student who is deemed to need the help may actually take it. But if they’re homing in on them constantly, they refuse it. Nobody wants to feel singled out.

3.00pm

I have a meeting with a parent. I get parents in here all the time. I’d rather have a friendly chat with them first about behaviour issues and work with them before starting formal procedures. It’s important to manage parent/carer expectations as well as students’.

Sometimes there can be sensitivities around intimate treatments like Brazilian waxing. When a male learner, Craig, started with us on a beauty course, the mum of another learner wanted me to ask him to leave, and talked about going to the newspapers because she didn’t agree with having a boy in the group.

I said, ‘I’m really sorry you feel like that, but all students deserve an education’ and we are sensitive to all differences whilst being inclusive. After talking to the parent in person, they did not challenge any further. Craig is an absolutely beautiful therapist, and has now progressed onto our hairdressing course.

Lisa Charles being told on the BBC’s The One Show that she had won the Pearson FE Lecturer of the Year award

4.30pm  

After classes, it’s my CPD time. I’m doing a colour degree with L’Oreal, and I’m working with them to get a new colouring qualification off the ground in colleges. I’ve been part of a steering group with six other colleges helping L’Oreal to tailor the course to our curriculums. We’ll be the first colleges globally to pilot this qualification, which is fantastic.

At Nescot, we have just started offering hairdressing apprenticeships, which is bucking the national trend. Apprentice numbers in hairdressing and beauty have dropped heavily, from 16,000 to 6,000 between 2016 and 2023.

A lot of salons don’t want the aggravation of paying an apprenticeship wage, and some young people think they can teach themselves how to do the job using social media. I think L’Oreal recognises that they need to work with colleges to maintain standards in the profession. 

Lisa Charles with her National Teaching Award for FE Lecturer of the Year

6.00pm

I do some hairdressing for friends myself after work, because I think it’s important to keep my hand in the trade and it’s a way to socialise. 

Being a hairdresser isn’t just about cutting hair; it’s about empathy. In our industry, we’ll often be among the first people that someone with a serious medical condition talks to about it.

I remember as a young hairdresser, one lady wanting wacky colours put in her hair. She’d just been told she had terminal cancer, and walked straight into our salon. When you go home at night, you think about those things.

You can’t always learn the soft skills that students need for those conversations in a college environment, so, once a month, I take our students to the Royal Marsden Hospital in Sutton to provide haircuts and beauty treatments for children with cancer and their families. 

When I first suggested going, a lot of the students were very apprehensive. But now they all want to go! Some get a real rapport with the patients, and find the experience very humbling.

7.00pm

I’ll normally put my laptop on when I get home, but I hoovered up and put Fleetwood Mac on instead! Otherwise, I’d be checking Google Classrooms to see photographs and films of the work our learners have done.

It was blow-dries today. I’m also interested to see what they’ve done in other people’s lessons. One clip was a student dancing. It’s lovely to see them enjoying themselves. We post the best pictures and videos on Instagram, which also helps us with our student recruitment.

Lisa Charles at the Pearson National Teaching Awards

10.00pm

I start to read – it’s normally what I call ‘no-think reading’ on my Kindle, and within 10 minutes I’m asleep.

When I was doing my teacher training, I remember experiencing snobbery from some other teachers who saw hairdressing lecturing as ‘not really teaching.’ I occasionally still experience prejudice in the form of lower expectations some people have of our learners.

A number of years ago, I heard a staff member in a meeting saying, ‘that’s a good group because they’ve got really good GCSEs, and this other group will be the naughty group’. I said, ‘if that’s how you feel about the students, we should be rethinking what our job is’.

I hope I can dispel those myths – it’s what the college does so well. My team works 24-7. This isn’t a nine-to-five role. But I feel very fortunate that I absolutely love my job.

Peck’s picks: FE leaders join OfS’ ‘critical friend’ panel

Three college leaders have been selected for the higher education regulator’s “critical friend” expert group that aims to alert it to any emerging risks in the sector.

The Office for Students’ (OfS) new provider panel features 11 senior leaders from higher and further education institutions to offer advice and constructive challenge on current and future OfS regulation.

Former Leicester College principal Verity Hancock will serve as chair in tandem with her OfS board membership.

Debra Gray, principal and chief executive of Hull College, and Denise Brown, group CEO of South Essex Colleges Group, join the 11-strong panel.

Josh Allerson, managing director of degree apprenticeships provider Corndel College London – part of apprenticeship giant Corndel Limited, is also a panel member alongside five university vice-chancellors and two chief executives of arts higher education schools.

Members will act as a “critical friend” to the OfS and help shape the future of higher education regulation as part of the watchdog’s endeavours to work “collaboratively” with universities and colleges.

The OfS said the panel will help understand the views of the diverse institutions it regulates, as well as alerting it to emerging risks across the higher education sector.

Recruitment for the panel was launched in September and received over 80 applications from sector leaders, according to the OfS October board minutes.

Hancock was first appointed to the Office for Students’ board in 2019 on a five year-term. She stepped down as principal and CEO of Leicester College last summer after 12 years at the helm due to health reasons.

Hancock said the new panel will facilitate a “two-way” dialogue between the regulator and education providers.

Last year, the regulator published its aims for 2025-26, which included engaging routinely and collaboratively with universities and colleges to build trusted and productive relationships.

It also forms part of the OfS’s change to its governance structure to “to better oversee the OfS’s work as we mature as a regulator”.

She said: “Last year, the OfS told universities, colleges, and other higher education providers that we wanted to work more collaboratively with them in the pursuit of our priorities. The provider panel is an example of that commitment in action, and I’m excited to take up my role as its chair. 

“As a longstanding board member and former college principal, I know how important it is for the OfS to have a two-way dialogue with the institutions we regulate. Every panel member will have their own perspective of the risks and opportunities facing the sector, and I’m looking forward to working with them over the coming year.”

Chair of the OfS, Edward Peck, said the panel was the next “important step” in strengthening its relationship with the sector in recent years.

“The members we have announced today are a true reflection the rich diversity of the English higher education sector,” he said.

“Their views will help us to develop future policies and understand how our regulation impacts institutions of all types and sizes. 

“Our goal is to foster a thriving higher education ecosystem that is equipped to continue creating opportunity for all students and driving growth across the country. We look forward to working closely with the provider panel in the coming months as we strive to deliver exemplary regulation in the interests of students.”

The 11 new members of the OfS provider panel:

Panel memberJob title
Verity Hancock  (Chair)OfS board member and former principal and CEO of Leicester College
Professor Karen O’BrienVice-Chancellor and warden of Durham University
Professor Mark PowerVice-Chancellor and chief executive of Liverpool John Moores University
Professor David MbaVice-Chancellor of Birmingham City University
Professor Larry KramerPresident and vice-chancellor of the London School of Economics
Professor Nick JenningsVice-Chancellor and president of Loughborough University
Josh AllersonManaging director, Corndel College London
Debra GrayPrincipal and chief executive of Hull College
Denise BrownGroup chief executive officer of South Essex Colleges Group
Clare ConnorChief executive of London Contemporary Dance School (LCDS)
Dr. Matt LilleyPresident of Hult International Business School
Josette Bushell-MingoPrincipal and CEO of The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama

Half of college strikes called off as three-day walk out begins

Staff in half the colleges that voted to strike this week have called off their industrial action after agreeing to pay deals or to allow time for further talks.

Teacher members of the University and College Union in 33 colleges voted to strike in November and were set to walk out today, tomorrow and Friday.

But since then a number have settled their disputes with pay deals of up to 7 per cent, while a further ten colleges suspended the action at the last minute so union representatives can further negotiate with college bosses.

Members of the UCU from 16 colleges across England will continue to protest low pay offers and poor working conditions (see list below).

Strikes due at The Sheffield College, Abingdon & Witney College, Lancaster and Morecambe College, Stanmore College, Barnet & Southgate College, the City of Bristol College, New College Swindon, Wirral Met, Kirklees College, and Hugh Baird College have been abandoned in recent days.

UCU opened a nationwide ballot in October after the “disappointing” 4 per cent pay rise recommendation from the Association of Colleges for this year.

The union’s New Deal for FE campaign, alongside sister unions NEU, GMB, UNISON and Unite, is demanding pay parity with schoolteachers, national workload agreements and a binding national bargaining framework.

Union members at 33 of the 54 balloted colleges passed the legally required 50 per cent turnout threshold and backed strike action.

A total of 68 colleges were in dispute with bosses before the ballot. Twenty-one colleges failed to meet the turnout threshold, and 20 colleges have since settled their disputes.

Teachers take to the streets

UCU members at Sheffield College and Kirklees College voted to pause action for two of the three strike action days and will be consulted on whether to put down tools on Friday.*

Leaders at Sheffield have put in contingency plans to “minimise” potential disruption should teachers agree to walk out on Friday as well.

“We welcome the cancellation of strikes for two days this week,” said Paul Simpson, executive director for people at The Sheffield College.

“We are continuing discussions with UCU and committed to resolving this dispute, which affects a number of further education colleges nationally.”

Meanwhile, Daniel Braithwaite, principal & CEO of Lancaster and Morecambe College (LMC), said he has offered teachers a salary rise of 4 per cent due to a “sustained” increase in student numbers and “efficient” financial management.

He said: “We are now focusing on further development of our curriculum to support the continued growth of our 16-18 cohort and expanding our level 3 technical pathways provision.”

UCU members at LMC also accepted pay measures such as a £30,366 starting salary, an additional spine point at the top of the pay scale, and an agreement on workload protections, including a reduction in annual teaching hours, additional safety protections and prioritised time for planning and marking.

Lecturers at Abingdon and Witney College have suspended their strike action to consider a new 4 per cent offer by management.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady at picket line. Photo credit: Rehan Jamil

Representatives will also negotiate an offer to remove the current average annual teaching hours agreement and replace it with a maximum number of annual teaching hours, an action plan on workload concerns, and close the college for two weeks over Christmas so staff will not need to take annual leave.

Staff at City of Bristol College have also voted to suspend this week’s planned strike to allow for further talks on pay scales with bosses.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “It is down to the determination and solidarity of our members which shows what can be achieved when workers unionise and stand together. 

“To avoid disruption on campus this week, leaders at colleges where we are still in dispute need to make meaningful offers and show they value their staff.”

Capital City College sixth form teachers march on

National Education Union members at a sixth form college in Angel, part of Capital City College, are also striking today for three days as part of a long-running but separate dispute.

Union representatives claim the current offer will leave “experienced” sixth form teachers at the highest end of the college’s pay scales £1,614 per year behind other sixth form teachers on the same contracts.

The ongoing dispute has led to 16 days of industrial action due to CCC’s “intolerable” plans to freeze sixth-form teacher salaries for two to three years to bring them in line with FE lecturers.

NEU members, who coordinated this week’s strike with UCU to “march separately but strike together”, will also join a national strike rally this Friday in central London.

UCU counterparts at the college group are also striking this week. Members rejected a pay offer of 4 per cent, a 4.5 per cent rise for those on a salary of £25,000 or less, and a one-off payment of £200-250 for those earning £34,000 or less.

The current list of colleges on strike between January 14, 15, 16 (correct at the time of publication):

  1. Bournemouth and Poole College of FE
  2. Capital City College
  3. Chesterfield College
  4. City College Norwich
  5. City of Liverpool College
  6. City of Portsmouth College
  7. City of Wolverhampton College
  8. Isle of Wight College
  9. Loughborough College Group
  10. Morley College
  11. SK College Group
  12. South & City College Birmingham
  13. South Bank Colleges
  14. Truro & Penwith College
  15. Windsor Forest Colleges Group
  16. Working Men’s College

*[Thursday January 15, 5:45pm] Staff at Kirklees College and The Sheffield College pulled out of the third strike day after accepting pay deals of 4.5 per cent and up to 5 per cent respectively.

Kirklees College staff negotiated a deal that will also add an extra 0.5 per cent for lecturers on scale point 3, further negotiations to its workload agreement by April 2026 and potential time off in lieu for open days, parents’ evenings and recruitment events.

Lecturers at Sheffield College will see a 5 per cent pay rise and all other college staff will receive a 4 per cent bump as well as further work on a workload agreement.

We’re tackling NEET numbers by analysing pupil data early

The prevention of NEETs (not in education, employment or training) is a critical national priority and a key feature of the recent skills white paper.

Having a shared responsibility to support our most disadvantaged learners has always been central to our mission.

However, the scale of the challenge is significant. Nationally, nearly one million 16 to 24-year olds are NEET. But in Surrey, there are signs of improvement which we believe is due to better and more timely destination tracking.

In October, 12.5 per cent of our young people were NEET or ‘not known’, compared to 15.7 per cent in the South East and 13 per cent in England.

Our data shows RONI (risk of NEET indicators) scoring applied to all year 11 settings and the electively home educated, so we have a clear oversight of emerging risk. This ensures the best possible chance of a successful post-16 transition.

Surrey’s post-16 phase council brings together senior leaders from Surrey County Council and FE providers for proactive intervention, with distinct areas to our collaborative work. They include:

Understanding root causes

Work is carried out in primary and secondary schools to identify risk early, so intervention strategies can be deployed. This includes mentoring support and using the RONI score.

Surrey County Council defines ‘high-risk cohorts’as those presenting with severe absence (less than 70 per cent attendance) in schools.

Socioeconomic vulnerability is also used to indicate risk. Nearly 60 per cent of those deemed at risk of becoming NEET receive free school meals. Over 40 per cent have a child in need (CiN) or child protection plan, and 28 per cent have parents with mental health concerns.

The here and now in FE

For those young people who are already over 16, our focus is on maximising learner engagement through comprehensive support, which involves:

• Understanding individual circumstances.

• Collaborating with partners and support services to provide wraparound support.

• Offering creative and flexible approaches to learning, such as bespoke timetables, mentoring and coaching, thus creating a sense of belonging for every learner. Ultimately, this should maximise learner engagement.

These distinct areas need to intersect to be wholly effective. At the Post-16 Phase Council, we are collectively committing to the early exchange of data. FE colleges need early, actionable data from schools to analyse pupils who risk becoming NEET to ensure a seamless transition and immediate support.

What makes the SurreyFE approach to NEETs different is our strong partnerships with stakeholders – our council, the High Sheriff of Surrey, sixth-form colleges, charities and others – in this NEET prevention work.

Gaining momentum

SurreyFE is in the early stages of launching a careers and NEETs engagement programme that will initially focus on the occupational pathways of construction and health and social care. It will target pupils in years 10 to 12 and young adults at risk of disengagement by providing taster events, employer-led career days and mentoring and progression pathways.

We have high aspirations for our learners. By enhancing our engagement tools and focusing on clear progression routes, we are confident our SurreyFE collaboration will have a big part to play in NEET prevention in the county.

Our collective ambition remains resolute: to ensure no young person is left behind.But the NEETs challenge is complex and requires system-wide innovation.

We are committed to achieving a step-change in prevention across the region. We now issue a clear call to action to our partners across the sector: please share your most impactful and innovative approaches, strategies, or interventions that have demonstrably reduced NEET numbers.

By pooling our collective expertise and proven practices we can significantly accelerate our impact and realise our high aspirations for every learner.

English and maths resits keep sucking the life out of students

There’s a line in the classic eighties vampire movie The Lost Boys that came to me as new learners entered their FE classrooms in September: “You’ll never grow old, and you’ll never die. But you must feed…”

For many young people studying English and maths, FE can feel exactly like this – an endless cycle of resits, repeated exams, and familiar teaching approaches that never quite meet them where they are.

Learners are expected to keep going, to keep feeding the system with effort and compliance, yet are rarely given the time or conditions needed to rebuild what was missing long before they arrived.

They are not failing because they lack ability; they are lost inside a system that has never fully taken responsibility for their journey.

I came to my college last year new not just to the institution but to the FE sector – new to the acronyms, systems, and the particular language of FE that can feel like a world of its own. I’m still learning how funding rules shape curriculum decisions, how resit requirements drive timetables and how accountability measures ripple through daily practice.

I was struck by the contrast between the college’s forward-thinking approach to vocational education and its more traditional approach to English and maths.

In workshops, studios and training spaces, teaching is applied, responsive and clearly aligned to real-world outcomes. Learners are trusted to learn by doing, to problem-solve, to make mistakes and improve.

By contrast, English and maths delivery often remains exam-driven, content-heavy and disconnected from how learners succeed elsewhere.

I have worked in education for over 20 years, from early years to key stage 5. One truth has remained constant: when pathways are unclear, outcomes are prioritised over understanding and SEND systems fail to intervene early, learners do not fall behind by accident. They are pushed there by design.

National datasets and Ofqual-reported outcomes consistently show that only around two-thirds of GCSE entries achieve a grade 4 or above. Post-16 resit success rates – particularly in maths – remain significantly lower. FE colleges therefore receive large numbers of learners with grades 1 to 3 or U, many of whom have struggled with reading, number confidence or exam anxiety for years.

FE is effectively asked to compress long-term foundational gaps into a single academic year, while being held accountable for outcomes it did not create.

Alongside this academic fragility, learner complexity continues to rise.

Increasing numbers of post-16 learners present with identified or emerging special educational needs, often without complete documentation.

Exam access arrangements are frequently inconsistent, with learners reporting support approved at one stage and removed at another.

When they enter FE, the process begins again – gathering evidence, reassessing, reapplying – while learners continue to sit assessments without the support they require.

One of the clearest tensions in FE is between vocational success and academic exhaustion. Many learners thrive in applied settings, gaining confidence as their skills visibly improve. Attendance and engagement reflect this.

Yet those same learners often disengage rapidly in English and maths lessons when teaching relies heavily on worksheets, abstract tasks and exam-style questions.

Teaching conditions cannot be separated from this experience. Across the country, many English and maths teams are doing thoughtful, creative and highly effective work in extremely challenging circumstances. At the same time, practitioners are managing mixed-level groups, SEND, emotional histories and high-stakes exams with limited subject-specific professional development.

Where pedagogy does not evolve to reflect post-16 learners, motivation fades quickly.

Inspection commentary, sector research and practitioner evidence increasingly point to the limitations of a resit-driven model.

Government proposals for new ‘stepping stone’ English and maths qualifications acknowledge the need for greater learner confidence and alternative pathways, but their impact will depend on whether they genuinely prioritise skills development over repeated assessment.

A skills-focused approach, prioritising literacy, numeracy, communication and problem-solving in meaningful contexts, offers a more realistic way forward.

Our learners are not disengaged by choice. They are navigating a system that values outcomes over understanding. They are not the Lost Boys. The system is lost, and it is our responsibility to get it back on track.

Pink hard hats won’t fix the pipeline problem

Diversity initiatives are happening across the FE sector, reflecting the need – as highlighted in this article by JTL’s Clair Bradley – to address gender imbalances, particularly in the trades.

But my doctoral research into why young women choose engineering and trades routes shows that raising the visibility of male-dominated careers to girls and young women should not be the destination, but the starting point.

Showing girls a pink hard hat or a welding torch won’t shift entrenched participation patterns unless we also build plausible and viable spaces for them to belong, succeed, and be recognised on their own terms.

In interviews I conducted with young women at a large FE college, one consistent insight emerged: careers become thinkable and doable through layered social experiences at home, school and college, not through one-off interventions.

In my thesis I frame choice-making through three lenses: visible, plausible, and viable. Visibility is about bringing options into view; plausibility is about aligning those options with a young woman’s sense of self, values and identity; viability is about connecting skills, pathways and capital (social, cultural and institutional) so progress is attainable and recognised.

When FE providers fixate on visibility alone, they inadvertently treat girls as observers in a world designed for someone else. Our project in FE then is to invite participation, legitimise presence, and empower young women in male-dominated contexts.

This means reframing how we talk about trades and engineering qualifications.

Several participants I interviewed articulated their motivations in unexpected ways. Brickwork was a “creative craft” and plumbing was a “caring, socially useful vocation”. These are not soft glosses on tough jobs; they are legitimate dimensions of labour that many young women found compelling.

They offer broader narratives that reflect the full reality of the work: creativity, community impact, problem-solving, and systems thinking alongside technical skill. Doing this gives girls more ways to imagine themselves in a role without having to deny femininity or adopt a “tomboy” identity to justify being there.

Tokenistic gestures like a ‘Women in Trades/Engineering’ day can backfire. They risk communicating that women are an exception, or worse, a diversity goal to be met. What works instead is small, sustained practice:

  • Marketing that names values, not just tools. Highlight creativity, care, social contribution and problem-solving alongside technical competence.
  • Open events that widen the scope. Stop targeting only “girls who are good at maths” and start engaging those who enjoy design, making, fixing and finding creative solutions.
  • Train all FE staff in gender-aware practice, challenging gender-blind approaches and everyday sexism.
  • Group female learners where possible and create peer/mentor support networks.
  •  Audit workshop and classroom cultures, ensuring fair task allocation, inclusive language and clear reporting routes for issues.

Most critically, FE must shift from gender-blind to gender-aware practice. In my research, some trades and engineering tutors took pride in claiming “all learners are the same.” In reality, this can lead to young women encountering lower expectations, and everyday sexism disguised as banter.

Gender-neutral rhetoric can mask gendered cultures. Gender-aware inductions, staff training and mentoring are practical tools to tackle the hidden curriculum, which includes language in workshops, allocation of tasks, assumptions about physical strength and who gets stretched versus who gets sidelined.

Pairing women where possible, facilitating cross-programme tutorials and establishing peer and alumni networks are inexpensive, high-impact steps that address belonging.

We should also not underestimate parents’ roles, as many girls’ choices were anchored in home practices such as exposure to tools. Colleges should deliberately involve parents in open events and guidance, as co-constructors of plausibility. If home life remains firmly bounded by traditional gender expectations, then non-traditional pathways rarely feel plausible.

None of this avoids the harder issue: misogyny and sexism exist in classrooms and workshops. FE leaders can and should equip tutors and support teams with tools and expectations. Challenge sexist banter, set equal tasks, use inclusive language, recognise gendered microaggressions and maintain safe learning spaces.

If we want diversity across male-dominated qualifications and careers, we must move beyond visibility and build spaces that make women’s presence plausible and their progress viable.

Diversity won’t arrive through banners; it will be built in the workshop, in the timetable and in the language we use.

Ofsted takes inclusion more seriously and so should we

Inclusion has always been central to the mission of further education, but the renewed Ofsted inspection framework places it firmly at the heart.

This is not about preparing for inspection; it’s about creating welcoming environments where every learner can thrive and achieve regardless of the barriers they face.

The framework acknowledges that disadvantage is complex and multilayered. It is not enough to recognise that some learners experience hardship; we must understand the breadth and depth of those challenges.

Among the most significant areas are learners who experience socio-economic disadvantage, those with special educational needs and disabilities, individuals known to youth justice services, and those involved with social care.

Each of these groups faces particular obstacles that can affect attendance, engagement and achievement.

Added to this are learners who have not yet achieved a level 2 qualification in English and or maths, which is a barrier that typically limits progression and confidence.

These challenges do not exist in isolation. A learner may be disadvantaged economically and also have SEND needs, or may be navigating the complexities of social care while struggling with mental health.

These realities for learners may be due to an entrenched trauma that will be an invisible barrier.

For providers, this means moving beyond surface-level solutions to systemic approaches that address these overlapping barriers. Inclusion cannot be treated as an add-on; it must be woven into curriculum design, learner support and organisational culture.

The renewed framework asks a fundamental question: how do providers ensure that these learners are not only present, but successful? This requires a shift in mindset.

Inclusion is not about compliance; it is about curiosity, connection and commitment.

Providers must ask themselves: how do we know our learners feel included? What evidence do we have that barriers are being dismantled? Do these learners feel that they belong, do they thrive and achieve? Where can we go further?

Embedding inclusion begins with understanding the lived experiences of learners.

Economic disadvantage may mean a lack of access to technology or transport. SEND needs require tailored teaching and support strategies. Learners known to youth justice or social care often need stability and trust before they can engage fully. Those without level 2 English and maths may need confidence building alongside academic support.

These realities demand coordinated responses across teaching, support services and leadership.

Leadership plays a critical role in setting the tone. Inclusion must be visible in strategic plans, resource allocation and performance measures.

It is not enough to champion inclusion rhetorically; it must be prioritised operationally.

Staff development is equally vital. Tutors and support teams need the skills to identify barriers early and respond effectively, whether through adaptive teaching, wellbeing interventions or collaborative planning.

The National Association for Managers of Student Services (NAMSS) tutorial conference and student engagement conference, both happening in this month, will support providers to break down these barriers through the taught tutorial and also wider enrichment. 

While the Ofsted framework provides an external driver, the real motivation should be moral and educational. Inclusion is about equity, belonging and opportunity.

When learners feel that they are seen, that they belong, are supported and valued, outcomes improve. 

The renewed framework challenges us to think about inclusion as a culture, not a checklist. For providers this is an opportunity to lead with integrity and innovation.

Inclusion is not static; it evolves with the external environment, with society, technology and our learners whether they are young people, adults or apprentices.

The question for every provider is: are we ready to evolve? The renewed framework sets the stage, but the narrative is ours to write. Let us ensure that it is one of equity, belonging, connection and empathy.

Duty of care law may start in HE but its effects will impact us too

Parliament is debating the merits of introducing a statutory duty of care for higher education providers. The dicussion has been prompted by years of pressure from families and student campaigners, including ForThe100, and is being amplified by groups organising around sexual violence and institutional accountability.

It is tempting in FE and skills to see this as an HE issue. But that would be a mistake. Even if any new legal duty is initially framed around HE, the expectations that sit behind it will travel quickly through the rest of the system, including FE colleges without HE provision and independent training providers.

Under the proposal, a statutory duty of care would place a legal obligation on institutions to take reasonable steps to protect students from harm, including harassment, sexual violence and serious welfare risks.

The trigger would not have to be a formal complaint, but whether the institution knew, or ought to have known, that a learner was at risk.

This goes further than current regulatory requirements. HE providers are already subject to Office for Students conditions on complaints handling and harassment and sexual misconduct.

Those requirements focus on having effective processes in place. Duty of care would test whether an institution’s actions meet a legal standard of reasonableness in preventing and responding to harm. That distinction matters, and recent events outside education underline why.

Allegations of widespread sexual harassment at McDonald’s UK, involving large numbers of young workers and apprentices, have prompted legal action, union intervention and government-facilitated mediation.

The central question being tested there is not whether policies existed, but whether the organisation took reasonable steps to prevent harm and respond consistently when risks were known. That is precisely the territory a statutory duty of care in education seeks to occupy.

That same question is now being asked, in a different form, of education providers responsible for both young and adult learners.

Many FE colleges delivering HE are registered with the OfS. Others deliver HE through franchise or validation arrangements. In both cases, partner universities will expect equivalent standards of learner protection across the whole delivery chain. Once universities face heightened accountability for student safety, weaker practice in partner colleges becomes a reputational and contractual risk.

But the impact will not stop with HE provision.

FE colleges already carry statutory safeguarding duties for under-18 learners, and Ofsted tests safeguarding culture, leadership oversight and how providers identify and respond to risk.

As national debate sharpens expectations around adult learner safety, it will become increasingly difficult to justify weaker arrangements for adult FE learners. The expectation may not be written in the same legislation, but it will surface through inspection, governance scrutiny and public perception.

ITPs should also assume they will be drawn into the spotlight. Many deliver apprenticeships where learners spend most of their time in workplaces. That creates distinctive risk.

Harassment or abuse may occur off-site, disclosures may happen outside the classroom, and responsibility can appear blurred between employer and provider. In a climate where Parliament is debating institutional responsibility for learner safety, a provider will still be expected to demonstrate what action it took when concerns were raised.

So what does preparedness look like?

First, clear and accessible reporting routes for learners and staff. If someone feels unsafe, they should not have to navigate informal networks or guess who to contact.

Second, consistent case handling. Long and fragmented email chains and ad hoc notekeeping make it difficult to prove reasonable steps were taken. Structured recording, defined responsibilities and documented follow-up provide confidence for learners and evidence for leaders.

Third, leadership oversight. Governors and senior leadership teams need visibility of welfare trends, not just isolated incidents. Without reliable data, providers cannot identify patterns or intervene early.

None of this depends on waiting for legislation. New legislation around duty of care is unlikely to arrive overnight. It will probably emerge through OfS conditions, Ofsted expectations and contractual demands from partners. The effect is already being felt, and providers are being watched more closely on how they protect learners.

Duty of care may begin in HE but its influence will reach across FE and skills. Providers that recognise that early will be better prepared for future regulation, stronger partnerships and, most importantly, safer learning environments.

Inspections: What we now know following Ofsted’s first visits

The first results are out – and the outcomes of Ofsted’s inspections under the new education inspection framework look encouraging.

After last year’s extensive consultations, there’s an argument that all’s well that ends well. But employers and providers need to be confident that inspections will still be conducted fairly throughout 2026 and beyond.

The Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) has supported providers scrutinised under the new regime, although not enough yet to flag up definitively what our members believe is good or bad about the experience. However, we can offer pointers for those preparing for inspection in the coming months.

A key observation is inspectors are closely following the toolkit when making visits, even using it as a checklist, so providers should use the document as the template for preparation.

But following this simple recommendation won’t on its own guarantee a positive outcome. As FIN called out last year, the toolkit contains some frustrating ambiguities: What is meant by “typically”, and how often is “regularly” – every month or every six months?

Providers, and hopefully inspectors, should apply common sense in interpreting what is required to secure an expected or strong standard.

“Embedded” and “transformational” practice were seen in recent inspections as evidence of being strong across the board. At this stage though, it is not clear whether being consistently strong with no improvements required merits the awarding of “exceptional”. It will be interesting to see how many independent training providers achieve the highest standard compared with, say, sixth-form colleges.

Providers must be ready to showcase evidence and push for the award of a strong standard if they feel it’s deserved. Our members report that to meet an expected standard, perhaps even more evidence is required than under previous frameworks.

In terms of process, not every lead inspector wants to watch a presentation from the nominee at the start of a visit. Providers may instead be given a template to follow by Ofsted as an opening brief.

As expected, inclusion is a major feature of the new framework, whether it’s part of a monitoring visit or a full inspection. Providers should know the barriers to be overcome by every learner and be prepared to present evidence on how overcoming them is being achieved, and the distance travelled.

Furthermore, the provider should proactively identify the barriers rather than waiting for the learner to declare any. Again, in this respect, Ofsted is referring to all learners, not just the ones with special or additional needs.

Safeguarding is another area for particular focus. Inspectors will expect leaders to have undergone safeguarding training. One inspector wanted to see the name and phone number of the provider’s safeguarding officer in the safeguarding policy document, even though names can often change.

In a visit before Christmas, a nominee felt that repeated questions from the inspectors on inclusion and safeguarding were a means of establishing whether a strong standard had been achieved.

FIN keeps emphasising to members of all provider types, including employer providers, the importance of maintaining strong governance, and the recent inspections have underlined this requirement. With our support, members are preparing presentations to inspectors on this.

One aspect that hasn’t changed is Ofsted wishing to see evidence of good careers guidance. It’s advisable for each provider to have a strategy document for CIAG and to show it to the inspection team. Inspectors are less likely to dig further if the approach seems sound.

During the consultation period last year, we wanted Ofsted to recognise it must understand the context in which each individual provider operates. The early inspections indicate that providers should ensure the Ofsted teams are on top of this because our members feel they aren’t. For example, do inspectors appreciate that where apprenticeship standards incorporate a professional qualification, apprentices might not be interested in completing the programme once the qualification has been achieved?

It’s too early to confirm that FIN was justifiably concerned about whether inspectors would be consistent in their judgements under the scorecard system. But based on recent inspections, we hope to see much greater recognition of individual leaners’ distance travelled than inspectors’ reliance on achievement data.