In September last year, the second part of the Health Survey for England was published. It covered, among other things, the current state of adult health and obesity rates for adults and children.
Based on statistics from 2022, the report highlighted that 41 per cent of adults had at least one long-standing illness or condition. Meanwhile, 64 per cent of adults were overweight or living with obesity.
For children aged two to 15, more than a quarter were classed as overweight or living with obesity, with deprived children more likely to be obese – and the gap is widening.
The survey was followed by the news that more than half of all adults and a third of children, teenagers and young adults around the world are predicted to be overweight or obese by 2050.
Brain gains
So why is it relevant to the FE sector? I believe the health of the nation and the health of our education sector are inextricably linked.
If we can provide the right knowledge and skills to our fitness professionals, they can in turn support the nation to become more active, to understand their bodies, and to make healthier choices for themselves and their children.
But we know there’s work to be done. Active IQ’s Skills Gap report last year highlighted that over a third (35 per cent) of fitness professionals struggle to tailor fitness programmes for individuals with physical disabilities, and even more (41 per cent) find it challenging to adapt for those with chronic illnesses.
With well over a third of adults in England having at least one long-standing illness or condition, this seems like an obvious issue that, if left unchecked, will only exacerbate the health challenges we face as a country.
We also know that 42 per cent of gyms and leisure centres say they are struggling to find people to fill fitness instructor roles. Despite this, our Skills Gap report showed that 43 per cent of fitness professionals believe there are limited or no opportunities to develop and progress their careers.
Through these decisions we’re beginning to see what the future of skills provision looks like for key sectors such as education and early years, health and social care, and of course active leisure and wellbeing.
It’s important that we continue to keep up with developments within the fitness space to combat some of the health issues we face. At the same time, we must simplify the choices and support learners to find direct pathways into employment, to tackle some of the challenges employers are finding in hiring key roles.
As a specialist in this area, we were delighted to work with IfATE, Ofqual and the Department for Education to gain approval for 11 new Active IQ qualifications across Level 2 and Level 3. But it’s not just about volume. It’s about ensuring fitness professionals have the right knowledge and skills to support those they work with.
This includes qualifications covering physical activity for children and adolescents, as well as antenatal and postnatal fitness and how to work with ageing clients. If we’re to get people of all ages and abilities moving more and feeling confident about physical activity, it’s the current and future fitness professionals that hold the key.
Tracking progress
The fitness sector doesn’t hold all the answers to the health problems we see across the country, but I’m convinced it has a bigger role to play.
With challenges in the NHS well publicised, how can we support more people to take ownership of their health and begin to reduce the volume being placed on our primary and secondary care services?
Better awareness of the issues and therefore the opportunities for developing skills and knowledge is a starting point. Improved qualifications and access to outstanding education providers is how we can truly level up.
Ofsted’s proposed changes seek to deliver a more nuanced view about the quality of provision, to address concerns about the high stakes nature of inspections and the potential stress the inspection process involves. So have they got it right?
At Blackpool and the Fylde College, we are somewhat concerned that switching from a single judgement to a balanced scorecard will make inspection more onerous and difficult to understand. This could potentially be confusing for parents and students. We’re also concerned about what is now meant by ‘inclusion’ – a word which still lacks a clear consensus. So we’re interested to see what the consultation brings.
However, we are supporters of the inspection process itself – and see two issues as critical.
Consistency
First is the need for Ofsted to be consistent. We’ve seen significant improvements in recent years, particularly a focus on the learning process and students’ progress. In FE, it’s welcome that inspections are much more demanding in terms of pedagogical practice, curriculum design and delivery, and support for teachers than they were in the noughties.
Two areas of weakness in any inspection process are faddishness and behaviour – and these appear to have been problems in recent high-profile cases. The issues at Caversham Primary School seemingly arose around a particular interpretation of safeguarding which escalated into an adversarial inspection. Ofsted has a responsibility to ensure this doesn’t happen, so professionals can trust the process and the temperature doesn’t reach boiling point.
At our inspection in February, it was clear Ofsted is making significant progress in this respect. Their team was well-led, transparent, communicated clearly and behaved reasonably throughout. Senior leaders, including board members, all found them engaged and willing to listen.
Frontline teachers and support staff reported that they actually enjoyed their interactions with inspectors and found it to be an excellent learning experience.
Mick Bullock, our automotive operations manager, praised the “collaborative atmosphere…appreciated by all involved”.
Mary Roberts, advanced practitioner for access and continuing education, hosted three deep dives. During these, she “felt like the inspectors and I were on equal footing…a refreshing and empowering experience” compared previous inspections over her 19 years in FE.
Leaders must change too
But it is not all down to Ofsted to change. Leaders must do the same.
Too often, pre-inspection tension comes from the top with senior managers actively spreading totally unnecessary anxiety amongst colleagues.
One of a leader’s responsibilities is to be the lightning conductor: absorbing the shocks so others can get on with their job safely and securely. There’s no point getting stressed when Ofsted knocks at your door. They will see the results of work which honestly should have been in place for months, if not years, before.
We’ve had an internal conversation about improvement every day since the previous inspection. What’s truly important is setting out our own purpose, mission and standards around the quality students, apprentices and employers should expect.
We’ve defined standards of teaching, learning and assessment for ourselves, and have a methodology for embedding effective practice. We found the Walkthrus techniques, combined with our own performance system, to be particularly useful.
We don’t see Ofsted as our reason for being. But we use their handbook as a checklist to ensure our plans for student experience are aligned.
Since 2019, the inspection framework has been more focussed on the learning process (curriculum intent, implementation and impact) rather than performance data per se. This reflects our own approach, so the potential for dissonance is lower.
When ‘the call’ comes, we aim to make it a “low stakes” moment. Instead of asking people to work late and over the weekend, we encouraged them to go home early and enjoy their time beforehand. This helped them feel confident about showing inspectors what they do. And they delivered.
Sam Bailey, our head of people, heard from many teams that their experience was seen as a moment of “collective pride”.
“Colleagues felt trusted in what they do every day delivering excellence for learners”, she said. “They felt that psychological safety to say, ‘this is excellent, but this over here is something we want to improve’. There was no fear factor or panic, just genuine excitement to show what we do and the impact it has.”
The government should scrap level 2 apprenticeships and replace them with incoming foundation apprenticeships, a new report has said.
The call, which was floated to some extent by the Labour party while in opposition a decade ago, was put forward by Professor David Phoenix, vice-chancellor of London South Bank University, in a policy paper for the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) today.
He argued that apprenticeships in their current form are encouraging employer investment in higher level skills at the expense of entry levels. And the “evidence suggests” that “many” level 2 apprenticeships have “not offered high-quality education and training, nor been sufficiently accessible to potential learners”.
He said that the government’s decision to introduce foundation apprenticeships, set to launch this autumn, “presents an opportunity to address the situation”.
“If foundation apprenticeships were to become a publicly-funded replacement of level 2 apprenticeships, they could potentially offer a high-quality and accessible route for learners to achieve essential qualifications alongside work experience,” Phoenix said.
This would also free up funding to make the proposed defunding of level 7 apprenticeships “unnecessary” and enable a “more strategic and nuanced approach to funding priorities”.
Labour announced foundation apprenticeships in September, describing them as an option that will “give young people a foot in the door” that will be backed with an initial £40 million from Treasury.
A government press release at the time said: “These new apprenticeships will give young people a route in to careers in critical sectors, enabling them to earn a wage whilst developing vital skills.”
Ministers have however failed to outline the exact detail of foundation apprenticeships since September, despite the introduction of the courses coming in a few months’ time.
Phoenix’s report pointed out that in 1993, the then Conservative government launched “modern apprenticeships” which required apprentices to work towards an NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) at level 3 as part of their programme.
These were supported by the creation of level 2 “national traineeships” – designed to provide progression routes into apprenticeship programmes for young people.
In response to the Richard Review in 2012, the previous government created the apprenticeship system as it is currently constituted, with apprenticeship standards from levels 2 to 7 set up by employer groups, and a levy for all UK employers with a pay bill of over £3 million per year (set at 0.5 per cent of a company’s annual wage bill), which can be recouped on apprenticeship training costs.
The Labour party, under then leader Ed Miliband, put forward a proposal in 2015 to scrap apprenticeships of less than two years’ duration and below level 3. A report by Labour’s Skills Taskforce at the time said: “To protect the apprenticeship brand, level 2 training should be renamed as a traineeship or similar.”
Phoenix’s paper highlighted plummeting starts at level 2 for apprenticeships, as well as cases of big-name employers like Halfords ending their in-house apprenticeship training at entry level.
Current Labour ministers have made no indication that foundation apprenticeships will replace level 2 apprenticeships.
Phoenix, who recently hired former Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education CEO Jennifer Coupland at LSBU, said the idea of foundation apprenticeships acting as “feeders into level 3 apprenticeships is a positive step forward and could provide a more cost and pedagogically effective route into level 3 and above”.
He said around £421 million of the apprenticeship levy budget is currently used on level 2 apprenticeships, and added: “While a swap to public funding may see the numbers of learners on these programmes increase, the cost of this could be offset by designing shorter and more focused programmes.
“The government has already taken a step in the right direction in this regard by reducing the minimum length of apprenticeships from 12 months to eight months.”
However, Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, warned that “switching out” level 2 apprenticeships for foundation apprenticeships would be a “mistake and would remove access routes and reduce opportunities for thousands of young people and adults”.
He said: “Let’s not give up on level 2 apprenticeships – there are promising developments coming. This includes the new business administration standard, reducing bureaucracy in the apprenticeship service, new shorter programme durations tailored to employer needs and adopting a more proportionate end-point assessment model. If deployed, the sums of these parts effectively could help revitalise level 2 apprenticeships.”
Ashworth added: “Foundation apprenticeships, targeted at young people and focused on key sectors, will have a big role to play in future. However, with nearly one million young people currently not in employment, education or training, the government’s opportunity mission can only be achieved by expanding, not narrowing, access to high-quality training routes.”
Skills England bosses have defended their independence from government but dodged questions about whether they will challenge under-funding of training and apprenticeships.
As part of its inquiry into FE, Parliament’s education select committee heard from the chiefs of new executive agency Skills England this morning on its work so far and its priorities once the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is abolished later this year.
Committee members grilled the agency’s chair Phil Smith, vice chair Sir David Bell, and joint CEOs Sarah Maclean and Tessa Griffiths.
The committee was told to expect the new executive agency to be fully up and running in the “next couple of months” and will announce who will make up its board imminently.
The inquiry was first opened in January, which sought to explore the current reforms and challenges in further education, has already heard from college principals, FE policy experts and economists.
Here were the key takeaways from Skills England’s leaders…
Don’t rely on Skills England to fight for resources
Committee chair Helen Hayes quizzed the panellists on what risks there are to Skills England operating as an executive agency, which means it will have “less operational independence” than the predecessor organisation, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IFATE).
Skills England chair Phil Smith said executive agencies are “powerful” whilst also having a “tie in” to the Department for Education.
“I think what we’re trying as much as possible to do is not to focus on barriers and obstacles, but to focus on opportunity,” he added.
Vice chair Sir David Bell, a former DfE permanent secretary, claimed that other executive agencies such as the Met Office, the Health Security Agency and the Forestry Commission “have a strong role to play” and that people are not “terribly consumed” by their constitutional status.
Later in the hearing, MP Mark Sewards pushed the panel to agree that FE was underfunded and outline how this would affect Skills England’s work.
Smith said it will provide Skills England the opportunity to “rally” the assets of “regional organisations” to respond to data-driven skills gaps.
“Clearly in today’s environment, we’re working within a particular envelope of funding, which is difficult,” he said.
Sewards continued to press the bosses on what representations of funding Skills England will make, but the panellists continued to avoid giving direct answers.
Maclean added that it was worth bearing in mind the decline in employer investment in training.
“Some of the things that can be friction in the system can be best solved by industry themselves, employers,” she said.
Education select committee grills Skills England bosses at inquiry
Hayes hammered the panel over the historic underfunding of FE and asked if Skills England has the operational independence to speak about resources issues within the skills sector, as “our evidence certainly says it really is”.
“Are you really saying that you’re not making any representations to the department or within the department at the moment in relation to the comprehensive spending review?” she asked.
Griffiths did not answer the question but instead said the quango’s role was to “very clearly” articulate where the skills gaps are.
Bell added that the executive agency will provide the “evidence base” for England’s skills requirements but it is up to ministers to make decisions on spending and resources.
Hayes pushed back that for Skills England to be successful, FE must work as “effectively” as possible, but in some parts of the country, colleges are “absolutely on their knees” because of prolonged underfunding.
Bell replied: “I think it is then during the spending review for ministers to determine what the priority should be, both within the department and across government as a whole but I think what we have done already is really powerful in providing that evidence, but I think the decisions quite rightly will fall out of the spending review.”
Crickets on level 7 apprenticeships decision
Committee members asked the panel for an update on its progress made of its “crucial role” in determining which training will be eligible for the new growth and skills levy.
Smith said Skills England received much feedback on modularisation and employer input.
He confirmed the body is informing the government “as much as possible” where the shortcomings are and where flexibility around the levy would create growth.
Co-CEO Tessa Griffiths pointed to last month’s announcement from DfE on pouring £600 million into construction training as a “blueprint” to work on government and industry working together to plug gaps.
Skills England chair Phil Smith
Sarah Maclean, Skills England’s other co-CEO, added that the agency has heard from a number of stakeholders on how to shape decisions on apprenticeship standards, such as the PM’s announcement last year on shorter apprenticeships.
“We’ve heard a lot about some apprenticeship standards. Some apprenticeships may be too long, hence, shorter apprenticeships in some areas, some difficult to access, hence foundation apprenticeships in some areas,” she said.
But there was a marked silence on Labour’s policy proposal to move level 7 apprenticeships outside the scope of levy funding.
The controversial reforms were criticised by Ben Rowland, chief executive of AELP, who was questioned by the committee in a later session.
He said defunding level 7 apprenticeships was “unnecessary” but should be introduced gradually.
“Employers are upset enough at some of the changes that the government’s brought about in terms of [national insurance contribution] and upcoming employment legislation, so to suddenly pull the rug away with no time to adjust just doesn’t look like its very business savvy at all,” Rowland added.
Skills England will sell its ‘products’
Smith did acknowledge waning apprenticeship participation, saying he wants the system to be “holistic” and “easy to navigate”.
“I’m not just talking about apprenticeships; bootcamps and all the other things, T Levels and so on. How do they fit together? We’ve got to do a better job on that,” Smith said.
“’IfATE is essentially a product organisation,” he added. “It’s built great products and it’s maintaining those great products but it didn’t have any sales and marketing function. […] It would be crazy to have an organisation that made products and didn’t tell people why they should buy them.”
Skills England is expected to inherit IfATE’s responsibilities on developing standards for technical education and apprenticeships once it’s fully up and running. It also has a role in analysing data on skills shortages and training needs, and a convening role to bring together providers, unions and local governments. Running marketing campaigns is yet to appear in any official description of Skills England’s role.
Power at the top
Griffiths and Maclean were asked to respond to concerns their roles were too junior to have an impact.
Skills England’s CEOs are at the director-level civil service grade, reporting to Dfe’s director general for skills, Julia Kinniburgh. When the role was advertised, some argued it should have been a grade higher, director general, to have the heft to influence policy across government.
Both said they were privileged to be sharing the role and and pointed to other executive agency heads who are also placed at the director grade.
“It’s about impact, it’s about influence. The level of the CEO role is actually the same as in other executive agencies,” Maclean said.
She added: “It’s the same as the CEO of IfATE, for example. So we don’t see that as an issue, but I guess the proof will be in what we managed to deliver and how well we do that.”
Board appointments ‘ready’
Smith ended the session committing to return to the committee in the future and added that the Skills England long-awaited board is “ready to be announced”.
DfE advertised for Skills England board members last August but is yet to confirm who has been appointed.
They will be paid £10,000 to £15,000 per year and are expected to provide “independent perspective and insight” to the responsible minister, helping set key strategic objectives and identifying “high-quality feedback loops” between the government and skills bodies across the country.
The funding rate uplift for T Levels will be halved to 5 per cent next year, the government announced today.
Ministers told the sector last month that all national funding rates for students on 16 to 19 study programmes and T Levels would increase by 3.78 per cent in the 2025-26 academic year.
But the 10 per cent T Level-specific uplift that has been applied to the flagship qualifications in recent years was removed while the Department for Education calculated whether it would be affordable.
The DfE revealed today that they have landed at a 5 per cent T Level uplift.
It means that the funding rate for band 9 “very large” T Levels of 1,830 total planned hours for the programme’s two years will fall from £15,330 in 2024-25 to £15,188 in 2025-26.
Band 8 will reduce from £14,056 to £13,926, band 7 will shrink from £12,782 to £12,664 and band 6 will fall from £11,082 to £10,980.
Catherine Sezen, director of education policy at the Association of Colleges said: “Due to the complexity and breadth of T Levels, they often require greater teaching hours. As they have been introduced gradually, it is still early stages of delivery and class sizes are often smaller than for other qualifications.
“Colleges have been waiting for clarification on the T Level funding confirmed today and will be disappointed that the outcome is a cut to the uplift from 10 per cent to 5 per cent.”
The uplift decision comes weeks after a damning National Audit Office report revealed the DfE had an original budget of £1.94 billion for T Levels up to the end of 2024-25, but it only managed to spend £1.25 billion – meaning a £688 million underspend since the courses launched – due to low student take-up.
Last month’s funding rates announcement revealed that the DfE also can’t afford to fully fund “unprecedented” requests for in-year growth to cover this year’s rise in student numbers.
Adult skills funding allocations are also set to be slashed next year.
Employer support fund for health T Levels
The DfE said today it will run a “targeted” employer support fund in the 2025-26 financial year to support placements for health T Levels in both large and small employers.
The fund will also be available for small and medium-sized businesses providing placements for all other T Levels.
This funding “responds to feedback from previous pilots about higher upfront costs for these employers, and is designed to be used where placements could otherwise not be offered”.
Previous versions of employer support funds have suffered big underspends. Freedom of Information data from the DfE, obtained by FE Week last month, showed officials recouped over £3.9 million of the £8.5 million dished out through the one-year T Level Employer Support Fund available from April 2023 to March 2024.
Officials have not released a total allocation for the new special fund.
A spokesperson said: “We will publish more details in due course outlining how all placement funding will operate, including information on how to claim from the funds.”
According to the Department of Education, around 13.5% of apprentices report learning difficulties or disabilities (LDD). However, research suggests this figure underrepresents the real number. As many as 20% of adult learners may have non-statemented learning needs that could affect their success in a learning programme.[1] This is why the funding rules require training providers to screen learners undertaking vocational training programmes for learning support needs, as part of the initial assessment.
Why assessment matters
Screening for additional cognitive needs is particularly important in vocational training because success isn’t simply a case of gaining knowledge, but also on supporting the cognitive processes that underpin how people learn, adapt, and grow. With this understanding comes a greater awareness of the need to tailor support to each learner’s unique needs, and that starts with an effective initial screening.
Some learners may be hesitant to declare their needs because they mistakenly believe it may prevent them from starting a programme like an apprenticeship. Others may simply be unaware that they have a need that can be supported. That’s why it’s so important for providers to screen all learners during the onboarding process, but this can be prohibitive in terms of cost and time chasing up the assessments. Traditional assessments can feel like hurdles instead of stepping stones. They’re time-consuming, anxiety-inducing, and, worst of all, disengaging—especially for younger learners or those with a history of struggling in education.
Engagement should be the first priority in cognitive assessment
As well as causing onboarding delays as administrators chase up uncompleted assessments, the engagement of learners is essential for accurate screening. The moment a learner disengages, the value of the assessment plummets. Here’s why keeping learners engaged is critical:
1. Increases Accuracy
An engaged learner is more likely to take the task seriously. They process the questions carefully, answer thoughtfully, and give it their full attention. This results in a truer picture of their cognitive strengths and challenges. In contrast, a disengaged learner might rush through the test, click at random, or skip it entirely.
2. Reduces anxiety and stigma
When a screening tool is gamified, mobile-friendly, and quick, it feels less like a test and more like an exploration. It removes the formal test anxiety that often triggers past negative experiences. And it helps learners realise that this is not about passing or failing—it’s about getting the right support to thrive.
3. Promotes self-awareness
A well-designed interactive assessment encourages moments of insight. Learners begin to recognise their strengths. For example, a learner may excel at visual memory tests but need help with verbal reasoning. That kind of awareness builds confidence and can support them in becoming advocates for their own learning journey.
4. Boosts completion rates
The simple trust is that engaging assessments are more likely to be completed. Boring or overly complex tests are costly and often abandoned midway, leaving providers with incomplete data and learners without the support they need.
Aptem Assess – designed for engagement
Initial needs screening tool Aptem Assess was developed from the ground up by Chartered Psychologists. It follows the best practice guidelines laid out by the British Psychological Society, the International Test Commission, and the European Federation of Psychologists. But what really makes it stand out is the design philosophy behind it: engagement first, always.
Eight gamified tests that feel more like puzzles than exams. These include tasks like symbol spotting, identifying missing picture pieces, and recognising fake words. Each one targets a core cognitive skill, such as working memory, verbal reasoning, or executive function.
Smart adaptability ensures learners don’t get stuck in too-easy or too-hard questions. The test adjusts in real time, keeping the experience flowing and frustration-free.
Mobile-first design allows apprentices to complete assessments on the device they’re most comfortable with—whether that’s a phone, tablet, or desktop.
Quick and simple to complete, with approximately 87% of learners completing the assessment in 15 minutes or less.
Clear, friendly interface that removes distractions and makes navigation intuitive.
In addition to these features, a quality score flags careless or disengaged responses, helping providers know when to revisit an assessment or explore further.
Each of the eight games in Aptem Assess maps to a specific cognitive skill that’s key to learning success:
Symbols – Tests visual processing speed. Ideal for identifying learners who may struggle with absorbing new information quickly.
Similar Words – Evaluates verbal reasoning. Key for understanding instructions and written content.
Number Recall – Measures working memory span. Low scores here can impact problem-solving and multi-step tasks.
Picture Completion – Assesses visual-spatial reasoning, critical for trades and technical apprenticeships.
Fake Words – Challenges word recognition, especially useful for spotting signs of dyslexia.
Missing Numbers – Basic arithmetic ability using all four operations, shedding light on numeracy challenges.
Objects – Short-term memory assessment using visual recall.
Shapes and Colours – Executive functioning test, based on the well-known Stroop effect. Crucial for focus and task-switching.
This multifaceted approach helps training providers build a comprehensive picture of each learner’s needs. As Leanne Hughes, Operations Manager at Time2Train stated following the pilot programme, “We loved the Aptem Assess assessment from the minute we first saw it and think it’s particularly engaging for our non-technical apprentices.” Rosie Tasker-Brown, Senior Functional Skills Maths Tutor at Specialist Skills Hub added that the team was “impressed by its engaging design, efficient completion time, and accessibility across all devices.”
Better engagement delivers greater inclusion
An engaging assessment is an inclusive assessment. When cognitive screening is enjoyable, learners with undiagnosed needs are more likely to participate fully. Those with past anxieties around education feel safer. And those without additional needs still benefit from a quick, non-disruptive process that doesn’t delay their onboarding. Kelly McAllister, Head of Apprenticeships at Bradford College commented, “Aptem Assess enables us to tailor our support and gives tutors a clear picture of each student’s needs, which leads to much better outcomes.” That’s why an engaging assessment isn’t simply a nice-to-have – it’s essential.
Discover the difference – try Aptem Assess free
When learners feel seen, supported, and understood, they’re ready to succeed. At Aptem, we believe in giving learners the best start possible. That’s why we created Aptem Assess – a fast, intuitive, research-backed cognitive screening tool that actively engages learners. Try Aptem Assess for free and experience firsthand how engaging, accessible cognitive assessment can transform your learner onboarding process—and help you meet mandatory requirements with confidence. Visit the website to learn more and to try the test for free today.
[1] McLoughlin, D., & Doyle, N. (2017). “Psychological assessment of adults with specific performance difficulties at work”. The British Psychological Society. https://www.bps.org.uk/guideline/psychological-assessment-adults-specificperformance-difficulties-work.
A large apprenticeship provider has been sold to another private equity-backed group amid substantial losses and a pricey government investigation into historic traineeship subcontracting “wrongdoing”.
Babington was today taken over by Knovia Group, which currently includes competing apprenticeship giant Paragon Skills, as well as businesses called Shaping Lives, and Tempdent.
It comes a month after newly published accounts for Babington show that losses after tax grew from £3.8 million in 2023 to £5.1 million last year.
The financial statements also revealed the Department for Education is currently investigating claims of “learner data manipulation” and “recycled learner details” by unnamed subcontracted traineeship providers of Babington between 2019 and 2021.
The investigation is ongoing, but as Babington was the primary contracting party, any “funds recovery / clawback for subcontractor errors or wrongdoing, would be claimed against Babington”.
Babington has set aside almost £2 million for “potential maximum liability”.
Babington was sold by RJD Partners in December 2022 to Unigestion, a Switzerland-based private equity firm, and has been restructuring ever since in response to “the worsening financial performance” of the company.
Staff numbers have reduced from 405 to around 280, and the provider has exited adult education delivery including skills bootcamps.
In May 2023, months after the Unigestion takeover, then-CEO David Marsh left Babington and was replaced by turnaround specialist Mark Basham. But Basham only stayed until February 2024, leaving the company for “personal reasons”. He was then replaced as CEO by Babington’s chief operating officer Jen Bramley.
Babington’s latest accounts included forecasts that show a “return to both profitability and cash generation” while funding required to “deliver the base case, together with contingency for substantial downside scenarios,” had been committed by Unigestion.
Babington has now joined Knovia Group, which is backed by Sovereign Capital Partners, a UK private equity “buy and build” specialist.
A spokesperson said that following the transaction, Unigestion will own a “minority stake in Knovia alongside Sovereign and the management team”.
Bramley said she was “delighted” with the deal which will allow Babington to “leverage Knovia’s robust platform for growth and innovation”.
She added: “Our shared commitment to excellence and impact demonstrates why joining Knovia is a fantastic next step for Babington, and I look forward to achieving great things together.”
Babington has been delivering training for around 50 years, currently delivering to 4,800 apprentices and commercial learners across England, Scotland and Northern Ireland in areas like accountancy, HR and leadership and management, IT, and business administration.
As part of this new “partnership”, Paragon Skills’ professional services provision will “transition to Babington, allowing both businesses to sharpen their unique sector expertise and enhance learner outcomes”.
Paragon mainly delivers apprenticeships in care, early years, accountancy, business administration, automotive and leadership and management.
Mark Botha, CEO of Knovia Group and Paragon Skills, said: “I am truly thrilled to welcome Babington into the Knovia Group. Their rich 50-year heritage, unwavering dedication to quality and innovation resonates deeply with our core mission of impact, change, and growth.
“Together, we will create meaningful change and provide career-boosting outcomes for learners, customers, businesses, and the industries we serve. This partnership is a powerful opportunity to expand our reach, enhance our services, and invest in the future of vocational training.”
Last month’s apprenticeship data release for 2023/24 showed that Paragon recorded an overall qualification achievement rate of 47.7 per cent while Babington scored 48.7 per cent. The sector average QAR was 60.5 per cent.
Nearly two thirds of respondents to a consultation set up to rival Ofsted’s own on inspection reforms said the changes were actually worse than the current framework.
The ‘Alternative Big Consultation’ (ABC) was carried out by former senior HMIs Colin Richards and Frank Norris to gather responses to the inspectorate’s plans.
More than 700 people responded, with questions largely mirroring Ofsted’s own.
Just one in 10 (11 per cent) felt Ofsted’s proposals would be an improvement on the current inspection framework, while 90 per cent felt its proposed five-point grading system was either “largely unfit” or “unfit” for purpose.
“This is a damning judgement on the current set of proposals,” said the report.
The former HMIs behind the consultation have now called for Ofsted to take a “substantial pause”, rather than pushing ahead with plan to roll out its reforms in autumn.
They say there is “a strong case for a total re-evaluation of inspection policy and practice”.
One in 10 think Ofsted proposals mark improvement
The ABC report shows just one in 10 respondents (11 per cent) believe Ofsted’s proposals are an improvement on the current framework, while 63 per cent believed them to be worse.
Respondents also widely dismissed the proposed new ‘report cards’, which will see colleges rated from ‘causing concern’, through ‘attention needed’, ‘secure’ and ‘strong’, to ‘exemplary’ across up to 20 different judgment areas.
Eighty-eight per cent of respondents deemed the report cards “unfit” or “largely unfit” for purpose.
In comments accompanying the survey, some expressed concern about how inspectors could reach a judgement on all aspects of a provider’s work within a two-day inspection.
The vast majority of respondents (90 per cent) rejected Ofsted’s proposed five-point grading system, with nearly two-thirds judging it “unfit for purpose”.
Concerns over ‘exemplary’ policy
Ofsted’s approach to its new ‘exemplary’ grade was particularly criticised, with 92 per cent of respondents branding it either “unfit for purpose” or “largely unfit for purpose”. This marked the highest level of dissatisfaction in any part of the consultation.
Frank Norris
Under Ofsted’s proposal, an education provider can be considered ‘exemplary’ in an evaluation area if it is consistently strong in all aspects of that area, and at least ‘secure’ across all other areas.
Inspectors can only recommend a provider gets an exemplary rating. This will then be “moderated and confirmed” by a “national quality and consistency panel”.
Respondents also widely criticised the new inspection toolkits, with 85 per cent deeming them largely unfit, or unfit for purpose.
Those answering also “made clear in their comments that Ofsted was tinkering with, rather than radically changing its policies and practices,” said the ABC report.
The report does not specify how many parents, teachers, and provider leaders responded.
Colin Richards
But it says there was “little discernible difference in dissatisfaction levels to Ofsted’s proposals” across the various groups.
Ofsted’s own official consultation runs until April 28, and has already had more than 5,000 responses. A full report is due to be published in the summer.
The report acknowledged the “limitations” of the ABC, which it said is not statistically representative, as those responding to it are “self-selecting”.
Responding to the report, an Ofsted spokesperson said: “The consultation on our proposals for education inspection is open until April 28 and I would urge anyone with an interest to participate at gov.uk/ofsted. To date more than 5,000 people have had their say.”
A special educational needs college that faced closure following a surprise eviction notice has been saved by a £3 million loan from the Big Issue magazine’s “social impact” funding arm.
Great Oaks College has taught more than 100 students aged 19 to 25 with SEND each year since it opened at a purpose-built site in Hounslow, west London, in 2018.
But the college feared it would have to shut less than a decade after it opened when landlord Hounslow Council “unexpectedly” served it with two-year eviction notice from its £38 million home, which it shares with Oaklands School, a special secondary.
After struggling to find a suitable new building or secure a mortgage, Big Issue Invest, a subsidiary of the magazine, agreed to a £3.2 million loan from its ‘social impact debt fund IV’ to help the college buy and convert an office block six miles away in Sunbury-on-Thames.
In a statement about its relocation, the college said Hounslow Council “asked us to find a new home” due to increasing demand for secondary and sixth form special needs school places at Oaklands School.
Nickyie Thomas, principal at Great Oaks College, said she was preparing to “break the news” about potential closure after running out of options for a new site.
She added: “There was fear, anxiety, and the deep worry that without financial backing, all the good we had built could be lost.
“Securing this funding has not only safeguarded the future of Great Oaks but has laid the foundation for growth.
“I love what Great Oaks stands for—and even more, what it has the potential to become, now we have this fantastic new backing from Big Issue Invest.”
Big Issue Invest is a social investor set up to help social enterprises, social-purpose businesses and charities two decades ago by the founders of the Big Issue magazine.
The social impact debt fund offers organisations like Great Oaks College financing of up to £3.5 million, with flexible repayment terms at a higher loan to property value than bank mortgage funding.
The loan reduced the amount of deposit needed to buy the Sunbury-on-Thames site, which was advertised at £3.5 million.
James Potter, investment director at Big Issue Invest, said the company is “delighted” to have helped the college move to its new site and gain “long term security”.
He added: “This loan will remove the uncertainty and challenges of a short-term leased site and allow Great Oaks to own, manage and invest in its site, providing the students with the opportunity to make the most out of their time at the college, opening doors for their future.
“The outcomes achieved by the students at Great Oaks College and the difference the college makes to their lives is why Big Issue Invest funds projects like this.”
The college successfully applied to change the Sunbury-on-Thames building from office use to education late last year.
From September this year it will mainly operate from a smaller site in Hounslow, with additional space rented nearby, and hopes to move to the new site by spring term 2026.
Great Oaks College is a company limited by guarantee called the Great Oaks Charitable Trust, established in 2018 after a council-led construction on recreational land.
Samia Chaudhary, Hounslow Council’s cabinet member for education, children, skills and employment, said: “Great Oaks College has benefitted from a preferential lease arrangement at a local maintained special school, but were asked to vacate with a full two years notice; so that we can make good on our ambition to support more young people with special needs to be educated in Hounslow maintained schools.
“Investing in our local schools is only possible if we reduce our hitherto reliance on high costs independent placements.
“We must also strengthen the support young people receive to progress to independent living and work, breaking the carousel of specialist provision, post 19, that is all too often a feature of the independent sector’s offer.”
