Britain’s Got Talent judge Alesha Dixon is fronting a campaign to boost take-up of T Levels.
A charity funded by T Levels ‘architect’ David Sainsbury recruited Dixon and Dragons’ Den entrepreneur Sara Davies to promote the qualifications which have failed to achieve enrolment targets.
T Levels – billed as the technical equivalent to A Levels – were launched by the Tory government four years ago on the advice of a review led by supermarket heir and philanthropist Sainsbury in 2016.
Yet the low numbers of young people starting the courses and high drop-out rates have prompted a government review of their content.
In a bid to boost parental confidence in the qualification, Sainsbury’s Gatsby Charitable Foundation launched the celebrity-fronted ‘T-Team’ campaign, featuring videos and a ‘T Levels info for parents’ website.
‘Game changing’
Media, broadcast and production T Level ‘champion’ Dixon, who was a member of girl-group Mis-Teeq in the early noughties, called the qualifications “game changing” and praised their 45-day work experience requirement for helping young people into “tough to crack” industries.
In a video published last week she visits a class of T Level students to witness their learning first-hand.
Meanwhile, businesswoman Davies backs the craft and design T Level and hails the new qualification for giving students “in-depth industry knowledge and practical skills”.
Other celebrities who have been members of the ‘T-Team’ include The Apprentice winner Tim Campbell, Strictly Come Dancing star Oti Mabuse and TV presenter Dr Zoe Williams.
None wished to comment when FE Week asked when or how their enthusiasm for T Levels began.
Parents are key influencers
A spokesperson for Gatsby told FE Week it had focused its £2.3 million three-year campaign on parents because they are a “key influencer of career and decision-making for young people”.
“At the time of their launch, parental awareness and understanding of T Levels was low,” they said.
“We identified that this would have an impact on parents’ abilities to support their own child’s consideration of T Levels and so Gatsby has undertaken a range of advertising and PR activities to support the first few waves of T Levels.”
While refusing to reveal how much Dixon and Davies would be paid, the spokesperson said the T-Team were compensated “fairly” for their time, adding some had delivered additional work for free.
They added: “We only work with individuals who truly align with what T Levels have to offer, can speak with authority about the subject matter and are enthusiastic in their backing of the qualification.”
Billionaire heir
Lord Sainsbury has publicly lobbied for Labour to continue the former Tory government’s controversial vocational education reforms that involve culling T Level alternatives such as BTECs.
His lobbying included a high-profile intervention supported by former prime minister Gordon Brown shortly after the general election.
According to Gatsby’s website, Sainsbury founded the charity in 1967 and has since donated “more than £1.7 billion” to charitable causes.
During his career the billionaire heir chaired supermarket chain Sainsbury’s, served as minister of science and innovation, and has written books about opportunity and progressive capitalism.
Gatsby funds a range of work in education, the arts and public policy through grants from its endowment fund, which was worth £535 million as of April last year.
One of the charity’s stated aims is “to strengthen science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and training” in the UK, by informing national policy and developing innovative programmes.
According to its annual accounts for 2023-24 the charity is “supporting several projects” to help colleges source high-quality placements required by T Levels.
In total the charity spent £2.2 million through a subsidiary company Gatsby Technical Education Projects and £3.3 million on “raising awareness of the reformed technical education system”.
It has also funded research into the further education workforce, curriculum materials and studies of reasons for low apprenticeship completion rates.
The Department of Education said: “The Gatsby Foundation is an independent organisation that has not received government funding to support T Levels.
“We collaborate closely with the foundation, as well as other stakeholders, to draw from their expertise on delivering high-quality technical education.”
A failed railway college built to train HS2 workers will be resurrected as a Network Rail education centre after standing empty for a year.
The hangar-sized building in Doncaster’s Lakeside area was one of two branches of the National College for High Speed Rail which opened in 2017.
It was plagued by low student numbers and stopped training apprentices and higher education students in July 2023 despite multi-million-pound government bailouts, a rebrand as the National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure (NCATI) and a takeover by Birmingham University in 2021.
The Doncaster site, reportedly built for £26 million with central and local government funding, has been empty since NCATI formally wound down late last year.
A second branch of the college in Birmingham, also purpose-built, was given to a neighbouring school academy trust specialising in engineering last year.
Operational and leadership training
Network Rail told FE Week the Doncaster site, leased by freehold owner City of Doncaster Council, would be used as a training venue for operational and leadership training.
According to planning documents, the 7,200sqm building’s three storeys include a large workshop area, a 38m crane for hoisting trains and equipment, short railway lines, classrooms and staff offices.
Its design “reflected the philosophy and working practices of HS2” with a capacity of up to 1,000 students and 100 staff.
Doncaster Council’s elected mayor Ros Jones said the move was “great news” for the city and the UK’s rail industry, and added it was “fitting” Doncaster would continue to have a national rail hub given its historical importance to the industry.
Post-16 training rule
Ownership of the building reverted to Doncaster Council, the original owner of the land, when NCATI was dissolved.
However, the property’s freehold includes a Department for Education-stipulated covenant that requires a “significant majority” of the building to be used for post-16 education or the development of training and skills until 2043.
Doncaster Council said the covenant “significantly restricts” the building’s uses, with potential providers either unable to afford the rent or not in a position to take over the whole building.
Network Rail and Doncaster Council both declined to confirm the terms of their 25-year lease agreement, claiming the information was commercially confidential.
However, council papers reveal an income target of £150,000 was set for 2024-25, increasing to £300,000 in 2025-26.
Birmingham branch
Aston University Engineering Academy (AUEA), a specialist school for years 9 to 13, took over the Birmingham campus when NCATI closed in late 2023.
Slightly smaller than the Doncaster centre, the West Midlands branch also contained a specialist workshop with railway tracks and classrooms across three storeys.
The academy’s executive principal Daniel Locke-Wheaton said the building was also used as a “dedicated centre of national excellence” for T Level learners and featured a jewellery training centre.
Its upper floors will become a specialist sixth form, Aston University’s Mathematics School, which is due to open next September.
Unlike in Doncaster, freeholder Birmingham City Council has leased the site to AUEA at peppercorn rent, FE Week understands.
Council documents from 2016 show Birmingham Council suffered a “revenue loss” when it donated the site, which it ran as a science park.
Site preparation costs doubled to £3 million when the council discovered ground contaminated with lead, asbestos and hydrocarbons.
How much did the buildings cost?
The Doncaster site is understood to have been funded by the former Department for Business and Trade and several local authorities. According to a Doncaster Council cabinet report its construction cost £26 million.
FE Week has been unable to confirm the cost of the Birmingham branch, though the total budget for the two sites was understood to be around £40 million.
The Department for Education declined to confirm the final bill for the colleges.
Other costs to the public purse included a £2.8 million loan from HS2 Ltd which has been written off.
After issues with student enrolments, resulting in government bailouts of at least £12 million, only two still operate: the National College for Nuclear and Ada National College for Digital Skills.
The National College Creative Industries was dissolved in 2019 and reformed as a joint venture between Access Creative College and South Essex College.
The National College for Onshore Oil and Gas was announced in 2014, with a headquarters planned in Blackpool, but was dissolved seven years later partly due to a ban on fracking.
The HS2 project has been dogged by repeated spending cuts, including the scrapping of the line from Birmingham to Manchester by former prime minister Rishi Sunak last year.
As the former chair of BMET’s award-winning BAME network, I was fortunate to be given opportunities to contribute to the incredible journey that college was on as a pioneer in anti-racism, equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI).
That work has illuminated the sector. And as Black History Month begins, I’ve been reflecting on EDI’s importance, not just to FE as a sector but in conjuring up a true reflection of society, history and culture for our learners. There’s a long way to go on our journey to visibility and equality.
The key, as always, is to keep shedding light into hidden corners. And one realm of Black history that often goes unsung intersects and weaves in with another demographic of the EDI movement: the LGBTQIA+ community.
Being black and unapologetically LGBTQ in unison is an intricate and multifaceted identity. It gives one a unique perspective and lens through which to view society, culture and everyday life. And that perspective has fuelled individuals throughout history to face – and face down – gargantuan levels of persecution and adversity.
So who could you present to your learners an an example of Black LGBTQIA+ identity?
How about Marsha P. Johnson? Marsha “pay it no mind” Johnson was a self-identified drag queen and a prominent gay liberation activist. Born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, she became infamous in New York City’s gay art scene from the 1960s to the 1990s.
She was a veteran of the Stonewall riots. In fact, many say she helped start the riot on June 28, 1969.
The Stonewall riots is a name given to LGBTQIA+ outcry in response to a violent police raid that took place in the early morning hours of that fateful day at the Stonewall Inn.
The inn was a safe haven for marginalised people more broadly, but particularly for LGBTQ individuals who were not easily able to conceal their sexual orientation or gender identity. These included effeminate gay men, unconventionally less feminine lesbians, transgender people and homeless youth who were shunned by middle America.
It is a multifaceted identity with a unique perspective
At the same time as the LBTQIA+ community faced this normalised persecution, the civil rights movements was very active in the US. That activity influenced the riot that followed the raid.
So it was Black Americans standing up to systemic racism that influenced the LGBTQ movement to take the direction it took, with individuals like Martha P Johnson at the forefront.
The riots took place over a week, but they were only the start of a new and more effective phase of the gay rights movement.
In their wake, activist groups were quickly formed who endeavoured to create safe spaces for LGBTQIA+ people.
Johnson became an active member of many of these groups, such as the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) that fought for the protection and sexual liberation of all people.
Knowing the hardships of living on the streets, she also co-founded Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries (STAR) with GLF member, Sylvia Rivera. STAR provided homeless transgender individuals with shelter and community.
The first Pride march took place on June 28 1970 in New York. And today, Pride events are held annually around the world to commemorate the change that came about after the Stonewall riots – an event that triggered in large part by a Black trans woman deciding to take a stand against white middle class hetero normativity.
Martha P Johnson fought for the privileges that many LGBTQ people enjoy today, but are still too often denied to large numbers.
I acknowledge her bravery and celebrate her. I think your learners should too.
Black contributions to the LGBTQIA+ rights movement are powerfully evident, if you look. Perhaps it’s the dual identity itself that lends strength to people like Martha, leading to great leaps forward towards a greater good.
In my experience, being black and LGBTQIA+ provides one with a unique will to fight against oppression and injustice and for those whose voices are silences heteronormative ideas.
So this Black History Month, celebrate all those who fought for civil rights – and give a special mention to those who not only shaped their own corner of Black history, but fought for the rights of all LGBTQ people too.
The terms of reference of the curriculum and assessment review show promising signs – a “cutting edge, fit for purpose” curriculum and assessment system that prepares young people for their “future life and work”.
It’s everything we’d want to see for our skills system, but how do we turn these warm words into concrete actions?
Vocational at pre-16
Excellent, accessible provision of vocational education must be available pre-16 – and not just for “other people’s children”.
The government has promised a broader and more balanced curriculum to include creative and vocational subjects, and widening accountability measures would seem like a relatively sensible and effective first step to addressing the steep decline of these subjects over the past decade.
We also need to be pragmatic about the current state of affairs: school facilities and the teaching workforce to deliver these subjects look very different since the last Labour administration. So we need a blueprint for change that can span not just this Parliament, but its successors.
The world of work
Another key priority is to fire up opportunities for meaningful employer encounters to develop young people’s work-readiness skills and expand their career prospects, right across the country.
This is urgent, because we’re asking a lot of employers: two weeks’ work experience, T Level industry placements, apprenticeships, and now Foundation Apprenticeships.
It was quite remarkable hearing politicians at party conferences say that we still haven’t “cracked it” when it comes to work experience for learners in rural and coastal areas.
At Edge, we’ve seen some of the most ingenious and innovative place-based solutions. These tap into what the local labour market has to offer and, through effective collaboration and communication, remove many of the hurdles employers typically face in taking on young people.
A place for ‘soft skills’
In tandem with the above (and the promised accountability reforms), we should strive for an assessment system that recognises those aptitudes and abilities that employers are looking for, beyond academic attainment.
In 2023/4, 34 per cent of students fell short of a grade 4 at GCSE in English or maths – a blocker to progression to further learning, training and employment. We’re then expecting FE providers to pick up the tab through resits while dealing with compounding issues of funding and the most acute workforce retention crisis.
Meanwhile, Functional Skills Qualifications are riddled with issues – from the teaching and learning, to the time available to support learners through to assessment.
We’ve been pointing to the same worrying statistic that 9 million adults lack essential numeracy or literacy skills for years. What will it take to get policymakers to fix the broken system?
A little respect
As our recent policy report exploring the Growth and Skills Levy highlighted, the post-16 qualifications landscape (particularly when it comes to vocational and technical) is incredibly opaque, made so by the endless chopping and changing as government priorities shift. Interestingly, we don’t see the same for our ‘gold-standard’ academic qualifications.
This policy churn poses a real barrier for employers when it comes to taking on young people as apprentices, for example. We need agile, relevant qualifications that align with industry needs, but we’ve got to make it simple for employers, particularly smaller businesses to engage.
The government scrapped the Advanced British Standard early in its tenure. But there is an opportunity for this review to consider the merits of a genuine mix-and-match model with academic and vocational subjects on an equal footing.
Who knows? If we can align this review with Skills England’s ambitions, we could even end up with a vocational system envied by other nations.
Government-deployed surveyors will visit every further education college in England next year to gather evidence for future capital spending on buildings.
Between March and September 2025, surveyors will visit 381college campuses collecting data about the condition of their site for the FE condition data collection (CDC2) exercise, which last took place in 2019.
College rooftops will be photographed by planes, according to Department for Education guidance, followed by data collection visits by fabric surveyors and mechanical and electrical engineers.
DfE said one of several benefits to FE colleges will be to “provide a view of roof condition which is not normally seen” as well as “highlighting condition issues which need attention”.
One of three government-appointed surveying firms will conduct block-by-block assessments at each college collecting data on building conditions, asset management, asbestos and net zero emissions. Each “element” they assess will be graded A (good) to D (bad) for condition as well as a grade on priority for remedial action from 1 (immediate) to 4 (more than five years).
The visits have been designed to not replicate or replace colleges’ own condition surveys. They will only assess the visible condition of buildings rather than the structural issues and surveyors will only feed back on major health and safety concerns.
Colleges in scope include general further education colleges, land-based colleges and designated institutions. Sixth Form Colleges and University Technical Colleges are part of the sister scheme for schools. Specialist colleges are exempt as they are considered private sector institutions, as are independent training providers.
Alongside giving DfE an “improved understanding” of the condition of the college estate, colleges will receive “high-level” findings to “complement their own locally commissioned surveys”.
DfE also said CDC2 will “provide the evidence base to support future decision-making on capital funding”.
FE Week understands findings from the 2019 FE condition data collection helped make the case for the £1.5 billion capital spending commitment for colleges in the 2020 budget.
More than 170 college leaders joined forces last week to lobby chancellor Rachel Reeves for capital investment to build facilities to accommodate rising numbers of 16-year-olds in her October 30 budget.
Apprenticeship starts grew 3 per cent in July amid concern employers cut training investment when Labour entered government.
Provisional Department for Education figures show 19,410 people enrolled on an apprenticeship in the month of the general election compared to 18,790 in July 2023.
Overall starts reported to date for the full 2023/24 academic year hit 338,640, which is 0.6 per cent higher than the 336,510 reported at the same point in the previous year.
Labour pledged in 2022 to turn the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy so it could fund other types of training. The party confirmed this plan in the run up to the election, which was called on May 22, but has so far failed to set out a roadmap that shows employers when to expect new flexibility.
Five weeks after Labour won the general election on July 4 the Association of Employment and Learning Providers said it had received “multiple reports” of employers slowing down training investment in the belief levy reform was imminent.
The membership body added this would “lead to a reduction in apprenticeship starts as well as training being held back in the belief that a more flexible levy will cover those costs later in the year”.
Starts did fall by 520 to 18,920 in June, compared to the previous year.
But they increased 620 year-on-year in July.
Simon Ashworth, AELP deputy CEO and director of policy, said future data for August and September would provide a “clearer picture” about the extent of the perceived slowdown.
He told FE Week: “The rise in apprenticeship starts over the last year is welcome news. That said, AELP members continue to report that some employers have withheld training spending in anticipation of significant levy flexibilities.
“Any apprenticeship spend in the data covered by the recent release would have been planned well ahead of this period, so would not take account of this. The apprenticeships data for August and September will give us a clearer picture of the extent of this slowdown.
“We are confident that the reforms outlined by the prime minister at his recent conference speech show that 50 per cent flex is not on the agenda, and that there is no reason for employers to delay any apprenticeship spending this year.”
Final full-year 2023/24 apprenticeship stats are expected to be published next month.
Thursday’s provisional data shows starts for young people aged under 19 grew slightly (1 per cent) from 77,510 in 2022/23 to 78,590.
Starts for those aged 19 to 24 fell from 98,490 to 95,630 (3 per cent) while enrolments for adults aged 25 and above increased by the biggest proportion (2 per cent) from 160,510 to 164,420.
Meanwhile, level 2 starts fell from 76,210 in 2022/23 to 70,860 (7 per cent) and level 3 starts dropped from 147,420 to 146,110 (1 per cent).
Higher apprenticeship starts for levels 4 and above rose from 112,890 to 121,660 (8 per cent).
The government’s curriculum and assessment review is a key moment for this administration. But beyond its wide-ranging aims, it is essential to examine what the review could – and should – mean for further education.
Promised pre-election, the review aims to build a solid foundation in core subjects like reading, writing and maths, while broadening the curriculum to include more space for arts, sports and vocational courses.
When it comes to the last of these, the sector that does the most to provide vital skills training has long been neglected and underfunded. The country desperately needs what it offers, and governments consistently highlight it as crucial, but FE is often left without the necessary resources to support its aims.
The review aims to “ensure meaningful, rigorous and high-value pathways for all at ages 16-19” and will consider the “existing curriculum and assessment mechanisms” to determine the best means for achieving this goal.
It will also focus on the “ceilings to achievement” which exist at Key Stages 4 and 5, all while striving for “optimal structure and content” in full-time 16-19 vocational programmes, aligned with labour market needs and delivering positive outcomes for learners.
Here’s what I hope this will mean for further education.
Diversity
First and foremost, our FE members seek a curriculum that addresses the diverse needs of all learners while being aligned with future labour market demands. This will ensure that education and training are responsive to students’ aspirations and the skills employers require.
Breadth
Second, those we represent advocate for a fair and flexible assessment system that recognises different ways of learning, rather than focusing solely on high-stakes, year-end exams.
This would involve recognising a broader range of qualifications, including retaining BTECs and similar qualifications, and valuing practical skills alongside academic ones.
While T Levels can enhance the qualifications landscape, students should have the choice to pursue them rather than being directed into these courses by the removal of alternatives.
Flexibility
An important request from our FE members is the removal of barriers for students who do not achieve at least grade 4 in GCSE English and maths.
The current mandatory resits policy has long been criticised for adding undue stress and demotivation, especially for those who may be more suited to vocational pathways. Scrapping this requirement would better support learners who excel in practical skills but struggle with traditional exams.
To achieve this, ASCL has proposed a proficiency qualification in English and maths. Students would take this when they are ready rather than by age, and it would focus on reaching a predetermined standard – akin to a driving test – rather than ranking students by grade.
Resourcing
Finally, this is not in the power of the curriculum review to gift, but its recommendations must be informed by the sector’s real capacity to provide a rich educational experience.
Funding for facilities, staffing and extracurricular opportunities is currently significantly lower than in other parts of the education system. Increasing this is essential to delivering whatever an improved curriculum promises.
The secretary of state is pinning her hopes on this review to address some of the system’s long-standing issues. One of these is deep-rooted inequality, particularly for those facing barriers at the post-16 stage.
This will require better support for students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or mental health challenges, addressing pay disparities between FE teachers and their school counterparts and ensuring college students are not disadvantaged by inadequate funding.
An improved curriculum will help, but it can’t tackle all of these issues alone.
And meanwhile, the review does not cover adult education, an area that must not be forgotten. It has been hit even harder financially than 16-19 education, and economic reality simply demands that more be done to ensure those beyond 19 can return to education and training.
FE plays a vital role in fulfilling the nation’s skills needs, and this review must recognise and reflect its essential contributions to both education and the economy.
By prioritising the sector’s strengths and addressing its challenges, we can create a more equitable and effective education system for all.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith introduced a 12-page bill in the House of Lords yesterday which will transfer all of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s (IfATE) powers to the Department for Education, paving the way for Skills England.
Here’s your trusty FE Week explainer on what’s in the bill, and what happens next:
This is a departure from what was announced at the King’s Speech earlier this year when we first learned of IfATE’s demise. Number 10 said at the time a Skills England Bill will “transfer functions from IfATE to Skills England” suggesting the latter would have some statutory footing of its own.
Instead what we got was what’s called “amending legislation,” a rewiring of legal powers and responsibilities rather than any fundamental statutory reforms.
The bill also gives the secretary of state some “exceptional” powers to bypass employer groups to design and approve standards and apprenticeship assessment plans in a move touted to make the skills system more “agile” to employer needs. More on that further down.
Lords will get the chance to debate the bill and its wider implications for the skills system on October 22. MPs won’t get a chance to debate the bill until it’s been debated and amended by the Lords. Predictions are that the government wants Skills England, which is currently a “shadow” body, to be fully operational by April.
Hopes had been high among skills leaders for the new body to work in partnership with the sector to close debilitating skills gaps and create a more coherent system for learners, providers, regional governments and employers.
Labour has also claimed Skills England will be central to achieving the government’s five missions and relies on it to work cross-government in areas like industrial strategy and reducing immigration.
Much of that hope rests on Skills England’s clout across the government as the latest in a long-line of further education quangos.
Bringing skills in-house
We now know more about what kind of organisation Skills England will be and where it sits within government.
IfATE is legally established as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) whereas Skills England will be an executive agency. While both are types of quangos, there are some important differences between an NDPB and an executive agency.
As an NDPB, IfATE has some operational independence from the Department for Education. That’s because its functions and responsibilities have been set out in legislation approved by parliament. Skills England will instead be a defined team within DfE.
This is different from organisations like Ofsted, which are non-ministerial government departments (NMGDs) – established in law and accountable to parliament, not the government, which gives them greater clout.
For example, until this bill is passed, the law of the land states that IfATE decides how occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans get developed, it can approve or reject those standards and plans, quality assure apprenticeship assessments, commission the development of technical qualifications, run procurements and, for T Levels specifically, award and manage the awarding organisation licenses. It also approves higher technical qualifications (HTQs) and advises the government on apprenticeship funding.
The bill means all of those functions get absorbed by the education secretary, who will decide which bits to delegate within Skills England’s wider remit around skills strategy, planning and restricting level 7 apprenticeships.
As an executive agency, Skills England will legally be part of the Department for Education, so not as notionally independent as IfATE was. The Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) is also an executive agency, and as such could be easily abolished without debate or parliamentary debate.
It also means whatever strategy that emerges for Skills England, will in essence be a DfE strategy. This could feasibly spell an end to IfATE’s ‘employers first’ approach to developing policy and qualifications in favour of whatever strategy the education secretary of the day prescribes.
DfE’s spin on this is that: “The transfer of IfATE’s powers to the secretary of state may enable closer integration of employer input with broader government strategies and policies.”
Consider that alongside previous announcements about Skills England’s role in convening education providers, employers, unions and regional governments, all the signs point to the sort of social partnership approach sector bodies have been pushing for.
Interviews for a permanent chair and board members for Skills England take place early next month.
The government is taking steps not to spook employers too much though. DfE recognises its new approach “could lead to a perception that employers’ influence and centrality within the system is being diluted.” However, “extensive external engagement with employers” has been promised to reassure businesses.
Continuity with change
While the face of the bill suggests it’s simply transferring IfATE’s powers to DfE, it also changes “overly prescriptive” functions DfE thinks can make the skills system “more responsive and agile”.
Currently, IfATE convenes groups of employers through its trailblazer and route panels to develop and approve apprenticeship standards and assessment plans.
DfE said its “default” approach will still be for “groups of persons” to produce standards and plans. But the bill allows the secretary of state, and presumably later Skills England, to intervene and directly develop and approve standards and/or assessment plans where they are “satisfied this is more appropriate”.
The theory is this will speed up amending or introducing standards and assessment plans, bypassing what can currently be an arduous exercise of lengthy reviews involving employers, awarding organisations, training providers and multiple layers of officials.
Policy notes suggest these powers wouldn’t be used as a matter of course. The example given is if a standard required “minimal update due to a regulatory change or obvious knowledge-based changes” then the secretary of state could intervene. DfE said: “Giving the secretary of state this flexibility will enable the skills system to be more agile.”
Another “agility” change in the bill gives the secretary of state the power to bypass third-party “examination” of new standards and apprenticeship assessment plans before they’re approved.
Should the secretary of state use any of these new direct powers around standards and assessment plans, they will uphold “a high level of rigour” and consult with stakeholders, DfE said.
Another change is the way the government wants to review technical education qualifications. Current legislation stipulates technical qualifications should be reviewed “at regular intervals” against a published timeline. This bill keeps the requirement for reviews but removes any requirement for a regular timetable. Instead, the secretary of state can determine when to review qualifications. According to DfE, this gives “flexibility” to the government to prioritise reviews “which will have the most impact”.
A final change in the bill closes a loophole left by the abolition of IfATE which means Ofqual can step in to accredit technical qualifications “should the secretary of state consider it to be appropriate”.
Should any of that go awry, the bill helpfully gives the secretary powers to make “consequential” changes using secondary legislation.
Transition dangers
Transferring IfATE’s most learner-facing responsibilities could cause confusion and disruption, a Department for Education impact assessment on the bill has warned.
For example, apprenticeship standards and technical qualifications currently going through IfATE’s various approval processes could be delayed while IfATE shuts down. There will also need to be “a clear framework” for end-point assessments (EPA) during the transition period to avoid “periods of uncertainty” when IfATE’s EPA responsibilities are moved to DfE or Skills England.
Learners aged 25 and over have been flagged as potentially at risk from a slowdown of new apprenticeships and technical education courses because they are more reliant on local options than younger learners who have “greater mobility and fewer conjugal responsibilities”.
Training providers may be concerned about a raft of new or expensive compliance processes as DfE takes over IfATE’s regulatory functions. DfE acknowledges “there could be a cost” to training providers but expects it to be “negligible” given there are no plans to deviate too from IfATE’s current requirements.
DfE said any possible temporary disruptions affecting learners and apprentices during the transition were “limited” and “speculative” and promised to address any impact on affected groups with “the correct mitigations”.
Every teacher has at some point encountered The Quiet Student: the one who says little and whose friends speak for them. Part of our job is helping these students find their voice and their strength so they can speak up for what they need. Lately, I’ve been thinking of sixth form colleges (SFCs) in the same way.
In an emergency, rescuers are trained to initially ignore screaming people and head for the quiet ones. If you’re screaming, you’re breathing, and the quiet ones are more likely to need urgent help.
Likewise, when they do speak, make sure you listen. A famously ill-fated party leader once said, ‘Do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man’ – just before he was silenced. There’s something of Iain Duncan Smith in the sixth form experience too.
Our sector is pressed on one side by the secondary behemoth, and on the other by the lumbering might of the FE sector. Squashed between them, our tiny cohort languishes – consistently successful, yet often overlooked. Neither school nor FE college, it is neglected in most policy thinking.
As a result, a tension is brewing in these settings. Parents (and ministers) may think the threat of teacher strike action is past, but in the sixth form sector at least, it is not.
And the reason the quiet one might be about to make itself heard is simple – even silly: someone somewhere has presumably forgotten we exist.
When the new government offered a 5.5-per cent pay rise to teachers, it was on the condition that it was only for academised institutions. But not all SFCs have been able to academise, so teachers in these institutions are de facto excluded from the deal.
It isn’t necessarily that these colleges didn’t want to academise. Rather, they were not able to by law because they are Catholic. Fifteen of our 58 SFCs are Catholic – over one-quarter of the total. To become academies when the process began, they would have had to resile from their religious status by law.
Laws were changed in 2022, but the slow process of academisation only began for these settings in 2023. Many simply haven’t had the chance to complete it.
We all deserve the pay, or none of us will take it
Now, due to the tyranny of timing, they are being excluded from a pay rise. They are sitting at the back, silently stunned, left out solely on the basis of their religious character. There are grounds to suspect judicial review would find this discriminatory.
In the meantime, collective bargaining means this affects everyone teaching in SFCs. Unlike the rest of the FE sector, pay here has long been managed nationally by the Sixth Form Colleges Association and the teaching unions.
Broadly, this has worked. Teacher pay is lower in SFCs than in schools as the funding is lower, but collective bargaining has resulted in offers the profession could endorse.
The new government has put all that at risk. Its explicit manifesto commitment was to uphold collective pay bargaining, but they have done the opposite.
In essence, the SFCA can’t offer the full 5.5 per cent to all of its members, which means they can’t offer it at all – an invidious position.
Some college leaders will no doubt feel pressure to increase pay, and some teachers could accept it locally. It would be hard to blame them. But the essence of collective bargaining is that the voice of the quietest ones is amplified by being combined with the loud.
So teachers in SFCs who could receive the pay rise are currently objecting to it unless it is also available for their colleagues in non-academised, and in particular Catholic, colleges.
In spite of the rising cost of living, there is a principle to defend. We are going against our own best interests to help the quieter voice be heard. We all deserve the pay, or none of us will take it.
To destroy collective bargaining would leave the SFC sector an FE Wild West, with an inevitable downward pressure on pay.
If this government truly believes in collective bargaining, they will need to step in to finesse their pay offer.
Because the quiet one here needs serious attention, and silencing it is not an option.
