A new level 2 administration assistant apprenticeship standard has been assigned a provisional funding band of £6,000, the standard’s trailblazer group chairs have revealed.
Approval of the standard has been subject to a lengthy campaign after its popular predecessor business administration apprenticeship framework was switched off in 2020.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s (IfATE) route panel and approvals committee have now approved the standard, its funding rate and end point assessment plan.
In an email to the trailblazer group this week, seen by FE Week, trailblazer group chairs Lisa Shepherdson, apprenticeship manager at Hull City Council, and Sharon Blyfield, head of early careers and apprenticeships at Coca Cola Europacific Partners, celebrated gaining “formal confirmation”.
They called the £6,000 funding rate “encouraging”, although this figure – which is higher than the £5,000 level 3 business administrator funding band – is indicative and may well be subject to change.
Apprentices start in September?
The group now hopes for final sign off by the education secretary within the next twelve weeks, in time for the start of the new academic year.
Speaking to FE Week, Bylfield said: “The reason why this is such a journey but so important is when we look at opportunities for those who haven’t been as academically strong, the original level 2 framework had a high volume of uptake.
“If you’re not academically strong and want to start a career or job role, you’ve got to be able to have a route that allows that.
“We all know apprenticeships are a great platform to build that foundation.”
Until now, IfATE has rejected the new level 2 standard, arguing that it failed to meet requirements about duration and quality, and it overlapped with its level 3 equivalent.
Byfield said the group worked to ensure the new standard was “absolutely clear” on its purpose, its knowledge, skills and behaviours, and that the separation with level 3 was unambiguous.
She added: “There were lots of different views, to get to this we had to do a lot of influencing with current and former IfATE colleagues to demonstrate its value.”
More than 900 private and public sector organisations took part in a survey informing the trailblazer group of the skills and behaviours needed from the standard and get it over the line, with 99 per cent supportive of its current form, FE Week understands.
Offenders in open prisons could get more opportunities to work or train on day release under proposals for prison sentencing reform.
The landmark Independent Sentencing Review, published this week, also recommended the use of artificial intelligence to help prisoners with employment, education and probation support, voluntary chemical castration for sex offenders, and an “earned progression model” that mimics US reforms.
The review, chaired by former Tory justice secretary David Gauke, included suggestions to replace more custodial sentences with punishment within the community in an attempt to shrink the prison population by around 9,800.
Gauke’s proposals would seek to reward offenders for complying with prison rules through an “earned progression” model, where they can progress from custody into the community.
Meanwhile, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood is poised to propose legislation that will “go further” than Gauke’s recommendations, including considering making chemical castration mandatory and putting offenders to work in the private sector where their salary would support victims.
The Independent Sentencing Review recommended “ increasing and tailoring” the use of open prisons where suitable, adding that eligible inmates with little time left on their sentences could spend some or most of the day on licence to carry out work, education, or other resettlement activities.
It said: “Open prisons can lead to better outcomes for offenders – there is research indicating that open prisons and temporary release schemes offered within the open estate can positively impact reoffending.”
The review recommended the “creation of a new, separate open regime” for offenders with little time left, allowing the prison estate to focus on rehabilitating convicts with longer sentences.
Meanwhile, Gauke recommended the government collaborate with the tech industry to adopt AI assistants such as Sherlock AI, to offer “low-risk” prisoners personalised rehabilitation plans, and analyse compliance data to “predict breaches”.
The tool could also help with earlier intervention by connecting inmates with education and employment services or mental health support.
While no evaluation has been made yet on Sherlock AI, the tool gives access to job listings, educational resources and vocational training programmes, its website explains.
The review was commissioned to find answers to overcrowding, including alternatives to custodial sentences, after thousands of inmates were released early last year as an emergency measure.
Gauke said: “The scale of the crisis we are in cannot be understated. Overcrowded prisons are leading to dangerous conditions for staff and contributing to high levels of reoffending. We cannot build our way out of it.”
An extra £190 million will be funnelled into 16-19 education from September, the education secretary has announced.
Bridget Phillipson has said the funding, £160 million of which will be for colleges and other 16-19 providers, should be used for “strategic priorities, including [staff] recruitment and retention”. The remaining £30 million is for schools as part of a £615 million deal towards a 4 per cent pay award for schools, also announced this afternoon.
This funding comes on top of already planned increases to 16-19 funding rates of 3.78 per cent for 2025-26 announced in March. The Department for Education (DfE) promised to revise 16-19 allocations by June.
DfE will use the £160 million to increase per-student funding rates, programme cost weightings, English and maths delivery and disadvantage funding lines.
But their decision to route funds through 16-19 study programmes will once again disadvantage colleges and providers with larger cohorts of adult learners and apprentices.
In a lengthy written ministerial statement this afternoon accepting the School Teachers’ Review Body’s recommendation for a 4 per cent pay rise in 2025-26, Phillipson said: “Alongside this announcement for schools, I am pleased to be able to announce that we will also invest an additional £160 million in financial year 2025 to 2026 to support colleges and other 16 to 19 providers.
“This will power our growth mission and enable these institutions to address the immediate challenges they face in recruiting and retaining the expert teachers so essential to delivering our plan for change”.
Although it has no formal role in setting teacher pay in colleges, this was the first year the STRB was asked to provide the government with evidence about pay in colleges.
Colleges and unions have campaigned heavily for extra funding to close the growing pay gap favouring school teachers over college teachers.
Gap analysis
STRB’s report, published today, cited Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the pay gap stood at almost £7,000, or 18 per cent, in academic year 2024-25.
Further education college unions and the Association of Colleges (AoC) will begin negotiations for a pay recommendation for 2025-26 next month. Meanwhile, sixth form college leaders hope today’s funding announcement can stave off further strike action.
Alongside pay demands, colleges are also facing “unprecedented” growth in 16-19 student numbers due to a population bulge hitting the post-16 sector.
David Hughes, AoC chief executive, said the funding “aimed at supporting colleges to match the pay increase recommended for school teachers is great news and very welcome”.
Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said:
“Colleges will be very pleased to receive this welcome funding boost. The decision to extend the funding uplift to colleges as well as schools reflects the principle established in the settlement of our recent legal action that schools and colleges will not be treated differently from each other in this regard.
“We hope this additional funding will enable us to reach a pay settlement for staff in sixth form colleges, and avoid the strike action that disrupted the education of so many young people earlier this year.”
But the extent to which the extra funding will be enough to match the 4 per cent school teacher pay award is contested.
UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “As a bare minimum, college staff must be given the same uplift as school teachers as a step towards closing the pay gap between schools and colleges.
“The additional 16-19 funding is welcome, but will fall short of what the sector needs given an additional 60,000 16-19 yr old students are projected to enter the sector over the next two years.”
Gerry McDonald, who leads AoC’s pay negotiations with unions alongside running New City College was more positive.
He said: “Colleges work hard to recruit and retain great staff, and we want to pay our staff the wage they deserve. The funding announced today is a step towards being able to do just that: it means that the gap between school teachers’ pay and pay for college staff will not continue to increase,” he said.
Although AI chatbots have only recently captured the public imagination, Bolton College has been using a partner framework to actively engage with internal and external stakeholders in the development of its AI-driven Ada, FirstPass and campus chatbot services since way back in 2017.
The framework emerged because I wanted to answer a simple question. Could collaborative, participatory and co-design approaches be employed to design and govern AI in education (AIED) services? I found that it can, by combining several fundamental ideas and building blocks together. I believe there is an opportunity for the education sector to collaborate further, to develop a framework enabling leadership, pedagogy and technology to interact to support the design, use and governance of AIED services. Such a framework can lend support to those creating hyper-contextualised AIED services through a collaborative model.
Participation
Our partner framework places participation at its core. It gives voice to all stakeholders in either the design, development, use and governance of an AIED service. The participatory approach is inclusive because it gives teachers, students, education leaders and technologists an opportunity to make direct or indirect contributions which invariably reflect their perspectives, ensuring that the resultant AIED service is not only reflective of diverse educational needs but supportive of them. A participatory and collaborative approach ensures that AIED solutions are designed, produced, used and governed in a manner very different from the traditional consumer-facing AIED services procured by individual students, teachers and educational institutions.
Alignment
Alignment ensures that AIED services are in sync with the educational goals, values, and curricula of institutions, and more importantly with the needs of students, teachers and campus support teams. For example, collaborative design ensures that AI services are built with a diverse set of perspectives.
Responsible AI involves developing AIED services that are evidence based, fair, reliable, safe, private, secure, inclusive and transparent.
Transparency is pivotal, offering clear insights into AI processes and decisions, demystifying technology for users and stakeholders alike. It means clarity in AI decision-making processes and openness in communicating these processes to users. And transparency also ensures trust and acceptance among students and teachers. The idea is to foster a relationship where technology is seen as a transparent partner in education, not an opaque overseer.
Novel
In recent years the technical barriers and the cost of creating, deploying and using AIED services has fallen. Whilst AIED research has been ongoing for many decades, it is only recently that the education sector has come across consumer-facing services that students and teachers can use on a day-to-day basis in an affordable manner, such as Microsoft’s CoPilot, Google’s Gemini and OpenAI’s ChatGPT service. However, none of these services have emerged through a participatory and collaborative framework, and the issues that the education sector is currently facing from the advent of these services is evidence of that.
The partner framework assumes that the costs of producing AIED services will continue to fall and further technical challenges will be overcome.
Empowerment
When people are active participants in a collaborative endeavour, the outcomes they achieve are greater than any that could be realised by any single individual, team or organisation.
The proposed framework advocates for evidence-based practices that continuously inform and improve AIED services. The research element champions evidence-based practices, where each iteration of an AIED service is informed by the last.
With this framework, we believe we are building towards a future where the use of AIED services is as foundational and as thoughtfully considered as any traditional pillar of pedagogy.
Skills England chair Phil Smith is a former GB triathlete with boundless amounts of energy. Which is good; he will need it.
The day before I met this straight-talking Scotsman near his village home in Warwickshire, the 67 year old had cycled 75 miles with a group of 20-somethings.
His ‘part-time’ Skills England role is meant to take up two or three days a month, leaving time for his numerous other roles: chair of the Digital Skills Council, a board member for the National Theatre and the University of Coventry, and non-executive chairman of fintech companies Appyway and Streeva.
But the Skills England role is so far taking up “four or five days a week”. He has 300 meetings queued up and could “literally fill my diary up to 12 hours a day, every day”.
“I want to be responsive to people. But I also recognise there’s just an amount you can do,” he says.
Labour’s new flagship skills body has been the subject of months of debate in parliament, with his role specifically lauded by ministers as providing independence once IfATE is officially abolished on June 1.
Contrary to a report from the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) stating it was “not yet clear why any employer, provider or strategic authority would pick up the phone” to Skills England, Smith says no one has been avoiding his calls.
“Probably 100 per cent” of those he is speaking to have been “really enthusiastic and supportive” of Skills England.
But how long will the honeymoon period last?
Much responsibility sits on his shoulders to appease the sometimes conflicting interests in the skills system that span industry, education and training, unions and local and regional government.
He finds it “slightly overwhelming” that at “pretty much every meeting and dinner” he attends, the feedback is: “So you’re going to fix it then, are you? We’ve been waiting for Skills England to come along”.
Perhaps he acts as a therapeutic outlet for those who are frustrated with the current system, I suggest. “Exactly, it’s kind of a shoulder to cry on,” he replies. “But there is a genuine desire to get the system fixed.”
Skills England chair Phil Smith
Real power
Some naysayers see Skills England as weak because it was formed as an executive agency that sits within the Department for Education.
Any notion I might have had that Smith could speak openly to me without government interference was swept away before our interview; after we agreed on a date, the DfE press office waded in and postponed it until after the bill absorbing Skills England’s predecessor body, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), into DfE received royal assent. Now, at the interview, Smith is accompanied by a Skills England press officer.
He says he is “slightly neutral” to the argument that Skills England lacks sufficient independence or strength. He has “not specifically” pushed for more powers and points out that he also sits on the industrial strategy advisory council.
“As far as I can see, I’ve got all the mandate I want to recommend or change the skills system. I have not had any resistance in that from right up to secretary of state, or even prime minister level.
“It’s too easy to overthink problems before you even get started.”
Skills England chair Phil Smith
Leader and coach
Smith is a corporate heavyweight who spent 22 years as chief executive of tech firm Cisco, and six chairing the UK’s innovation agency, Innovate UK. He was officially appointed in February to give Skills England “strong credibility with employers”, as skills minister Jacqui Smith put it.
The rest of his leadership team are public sector stalwarts; joint chief executives Tessa Griffiths and Sarah Maclean were previously job-sharing directors for DfE’s post-16 skills and strategy, and deputy Gemma Marsh was Greater Manchester’s director of education, work and skills (with a two-year secondment to Downing Street). Smith’s vice chair, Sir David Bell – also a Scotsman – was a DfE permanent secretary.
Smith sees part of his role as a leader and coach who can help his colleagues “fit into those roles”.
He is also “really pleased” that the rest of his board, with whom he had an introductory call this week, incorporate “different voices” from the FE, HE, regional government and business sectors.
He rebuts allegations I put to him that Skills England is just another bureaucratic talking shop; it has “real people doing real jobs”, including performing all of IfATE’s former functions and DfE’s skills research arm the Unit for Future Skills. He highlights the “brilliant work” of its Skills Compass project, in which a large language model is being trained on job descriptions and adverts to look at “trends of how future technologies affect the skills you have to teach people at different levels”.
But Smith is himself more of a visionary than a stickler for technical details.
He is “not sure” he wants to get “bogged down in all the technicalities of some things in the skills system” and adds: “There’s plenty of people in Skills England who are expert on these areas.”
Presenting at the London Olympics 2012
Can-do attitude
Smith began his career as a computer programmer for Phillips, spending six years there then nine at IBM before joining Cisco. The US giant’s UK office back then only employed about 10 people. By the time he left 23 years later it had become one of the UK’s biggest tech employers. Smith is particularly proud of the positive work culture he instilled there.
The year before he stepped down, an employee engagement survey found 100 per cent of its staff were “proud or very proud” to work there.
“Cisco is a company that sold boxes that go in cupboards, yet people wanted to change the world.” He wants to enthuse Skills England with a similar can-do attitude.
His eyes light up as he talks about his career highlight – Cisco’s involvement in the 2012 London Olympics. As a keen triathlete who qualified three times for Team GB, it’s no surprise Smith was in his element at the games.
He believes 2012 marked a turning point for the country; at that time, companies invested in the UK partly because of its “great people with really amazing skills”.
But we have “lost a bit of that age now”, he admits. “Since 2012, it feels not quite so compelling, with Brexit and all the other things that have happened.”
Skills England chair Phil Smith competing as a triathlete for Team GB
Lessons from the past
Smith was motivated to apply for the Skills England role having seen how the government tends to “start all over again” with new bodies and “throw all that good stuff away”. He did not want to see mistakes repeated.
Charlie Mayfield, former chairman of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, is a “good friend” who can pass on lessons from his time at Skills England’s predecessor quango, which was disbanded in 2017.
Smith himself has impressive experience as a chair of government advisory bodies, including e-skills UK (the sector skills council for the IT industry and now part of trade body techUK), which helped the government create the essential digital skills framework and the first degree apprenticeships, and the Digital Skills Partnership which sat within the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. When this partnership “started to lose its way because of all the ministerial changes” after Covid, Smith urged ministers to create a digital skills council instead. The council was recently “revived” by this government, and Smith now chairs it within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
With “little enough government money around”, he is urging departments outside of the DfE to “use the capability” of Skills England.
But he knows from experience “how confusing it can be” dealing with different government departments.
Skills England chair Phil Smith (third from left) with Dame Ellen MacArthur who Cisco worked with in championing the circular economy
A jumbled up song
Smith refers to an old Eric Morecambe phrase to describe the present skills system: “I’m playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order”.
Although there are “lots of great components”, the system is “very hard to navigate and complex – it isn’t working at all”, he says.
He puts much of this down to a marketing and communications problem and wants Skills England to “help simplify the system”.
Smith confirms that marketing the skills system will be part of Skills England’s brief. But in the meantime, the government is cutting funding to the very organisations that market and communicate components of the skills system to young people, such as the Apprenticeship Support and Knowledge (ASK) programme.
Smith brushes this off. “Changes in funding routes happen all the time in government, whether that’s right or wrong. I haven’t found, talking to ministers or officials or anybody else, that anybody has any lack of desire to try and communicate better and make it more easy for people to get around the system.”
FE providers hoping Smith will help them push ministers for more money will be disappointed. He does not believe that “just putting a lot of money into FE fixes the problem”.
“The bigger problem is how people actually get pathways through careers of which FE might be relevant for some sectors and not for others,” he adds. “We have to think of this as much more of a system problem.”
In light of anticipated cuts to level 7 apprenticeship funding, he would encourage employers to reach into their own pockets to continue this training. He also suggests industry could support learners through their colleges or university pathways.
“Certainly when I ran a business, I didn’t sit there going, ‘right, I’m not going to train my people unless government give me some money’,” he says. “We need to encourage industry to recognise this is a shared problem, not a government issue, and government to realise it’s not just an industry issue.
“There’s something about looking at solutions rather than just throwing rocks at each other, which has been the narrative for quite a while. Government’s natural tendency is to create more and more stuff. And that just confuses the system.”
Part of Smith’s role is to work with regional mayors, and he wants combined authorities to share their “best practice and models” with Skills England to deploy to other areas. Smith last week told Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham to “help me support other regions” because “if the rest of the UK is falling apart, that doesn’t help Manchester”.
Skills England chair Phil Smith and his wife Steph at a recent Palace garden party
Voice consolidation
But with “a million voices and opinions” in the system, Smith knows it is impossible for Skills England to hear and satisfy them all.
The answer he believes lies in finding a “constructive way” to listen and “making sure we’ve got the right groups consulting with us, and nothing exclusive”.
He praises how Mark Reynolds, group executive chairman of Mace Group, “rallied [the construction] industry around” to present constructive solutions to Skills England and DfE around his sector’s skills shortages.
The government’s subsequent pledge of £600 million to train 60,000 more construction workers over four years, is “thanks to not just his lobbying, but his leadership”.
Skills England chair Phil Smith speaking at the education select committee
Let’s move quicker
Smith hopes that a year from now, Skills England will be collaborating with all of the major industrial strategy sectors in a “very constructive way”. It will also be starting to put measures in place to simplify the system and help people navigate it.
But things do not appear to be moving fast enough for him yet. “The truth is, we need to do it quickly”, he warns. The pace of AI rollout could mean we are “creating skills that are not relevant in a year’s time”.
He believes there are “already things happening” to improve the system but “we need to get them out there” and be “much more open and transparent about them”.
“I’d like to see a bit more transparency in the system overall,” he adds. And with that, he is off to another meeting.
College attendance isn’t what it used to be. The familiar refrain across the FE sector reflects a genuine concern. But the picture is more nuanced than a simple decline. While attendance remains a challenge, the data shows some steady, if sometimes overlooked, improvement since the pandemic.
At VLE Support we work with dozens of colleges and training providers to help them manage and interpret their learner data. This gives us a wide-angle view of what’s really happening across the system – and the signals are more encouraging than many might assume.
One area where concern rightly remains is GCSE English and maths – a perennial challenge. These resit subjects continue to see lower attendance compared to learners’ main vocational programmes. But even here, the data shows progress.
Among 16 to 18 year olds, the attendance gap between vocational learning and English and maths has been narrowing steadily since the pandemic.
In 2020-21, attendance in GCSE English was 6.4 percentage points lower than the study programme average. For maths, the gap was wider – at 7.8 points.
By 2024-25, both gaps have narrowed – although the 2024-25 data only covers until February so should be treated with some caution as attendance normally drops in spring and summer terms.
The English attendance gap now stands at 3.8 points, while maths has improved to 4 percentage points. The difference between the two subjects has remained modest with English maintaining a slight edge throughout.
Colleges have invested time and energy in re-engaging learners post-pandemic, strengthening support and adapting delivery. But data is playing a crucial role too – not just in tracking attendance but in helping identify patterns, target interventions, and measuring what’s working.
Too often, attendance is treated as a binary figure – up or down, good or bad. In reality, the story is more complex. Patterns vary by subject, by time of the week, by age group and course type. Digging into the data reveals where problems are emerging – and where they’re being solved.
While the Department for Education collects some data on FE, it is not as complete or timely as the data available for schools. Universities benefit from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) while colleges often rely on fragmented or delayed national reporting.
Yet FE providers are collecting detailed data every day on attendance, engagement, attainment and more. As a sector, we need the tools and platforms to interrogate this data nationally, to spot trends and tell stories that might otherwise be missed.
Used well, this evidence can challenge anecdotes and received wisdom, and paint a more accurate picture of what’s really happening in our classrooms.
For example, we’ve worked with providers who used attendance data to spot emerging issues in particular groups or curriculum areas, allowing them to adjust timetables, address travel barriers or strengthen pastoral support. In some cases, small tweaks have had big impacts – but only because the data revealed what wasn’t immediately obvious.
Attendance also has a significant impact on staff. Persistent absence makes it harder for teachers to plan, increases their workload, and can affect morale. A better understanding of attendance trends helps teams feel more informed and better equipped to support students, rather than constantly responding to problems after they’ve taken hold.
None of this is about quick fixes. The pressures on students are real – from the cost of living to mental health, from transport to timetabling. But when colleges have access to clear, connected data, they can move from firefighting to foresight – responding with insight rather than assumptions.
What the post-pandemic years have shown is that progress is possible. Even in the toughest areas – like English and maths resits – attendance is improving, albeit slowly. That should give the sector confidence.
The next step is to keep investing in the tools that help us understand what’s happening, and why. Good data isn’t just about compliance or reporting. It’s about knowing your learners, spotting issues early, and acting decisively.
The challenge of attendance hasn’t gone away. But the idea that it’s in freefall doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The data tells a different story: one of steady recovery, focused effort, and sector-wide commitment. And that’s a story worth shouting about.
In the past year many colleges have collaborated on a level not seen before – embracing partnerships rather than competition in a challenging financial landscape.
One catalyst for this has undoubtedly been the Local Skills Improvement Fund (LSIF).
LSIF has driven innovation across the sector and is delivering opportunities for both learners and employers. It has enabled colleges to invest in cutting-edge infrastructure and capabilities in expanding industries with rapidly growing skills gaps.
In London, our colleges (LSEC and Newham) have worked together to lead the LSIF project on behalf of 23 education partners. Uniquely, this collaboration includes adult education and private training providers alongside FE colleges – encompassing expertise from every part of the skills delivery landscape.
Together we secured £6.5 million of capital funding to accelerate progress in two critical growth areas: digital and green skills. As a result we’ve seen the creation of 21 immersive digital suites and eight green skills hubs in colleges across the region.
One aim of this game-changing network has been tackling teaching skills shortages in these specialist areas. Through these high-quality immersive suites, a single tutor can now deliver lessons to student groups in multiple locations across the capital simultaneously. This is a truly innovative way to share limited resources and expert knowledge.
This future-forward approach aligns with the themes that the government is building its post-16 strategy around, specifically the ‘competition to co-ordination’ and ‘fragmented to coherent’ strands. By joining up education and training we can strengthen industry links by helping employers more easily address their skills needs.
Our high-tech facilities are paying dividends. Over 4,000 learners will benefit from learning in these new environments, with teaching staff undertaking CPD and cascading this training across teams. Employers are engaged too – with 23 recently reporting that LSIF-enabled training is equipping learners with the skills their businesses need.
But what makes this project different is the shared vision behind it.
From the outset, every local London LSIF partner made a conscious decision to work together rather than compete.
We’ve developed joint action plans, hosted peer-to-peer learning events and designed facilities with shared use in mind. These efforts are broadening the student offer and sharing often-limited teaching expertise in specialist areas.
We can now deliver curriculum in AI, solar panel technologies and higher-level construction methods via our immersive hubs.
The result is a more relevant and increasingly resilient education and skills ecosystem, aligned with local employer needs and capable of responding to shifting economic priorities.
Across the country, other colleges have collaborated on LSIF in equally inspiring ways. From boosting manufacturing and engineering facilities at South Tyneside College to establishing low-carbon construction hubs at Rugby College and a cyber resilience simulation suite at South Devon College, this funding is helping to address a variety of regional economic challenges head-on.
The benefits of collaboration have been significant, with networks of providers developing innovative and lasting solutions to shared challenges such as workforce skills and staff retention.
We are committed to sustaining these partnerships beyond the lifespan of the LSIF capital funding as they have proven to be as valuable as the capital investment itself.
Yet as this first phase of LSIF funding concludes, there is a critical point we must make to policymakers: capital investment alone is not enough.
We now need follow-up funding to ensure continued partnership, coordination and collaboration – leveraging these resources to their full potential.
Maintaining cutting-edge technology, recruiting and retaining skilled staff and expanding employer engagement all require revenue support, especially in a sector already facing significant financial pressures.
A second round of LSIF is welcomed. But it must be accompanied by longer-term revenue funding and incentives to support the sustainability of what we’ve built. Without it, we risk these incredible facilities becoming under-utilised assets.
The sector’s collective success here and around the country shows what’s possible when colleges work as a system – not a set of isolated institutions. Our own immersive suites and green skills hubs are testament to what can be achieved through trust, collaboration and a shared mission to support both learners and employers locally.
Training providers with back-to-back ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted grades could see their Department for Education funding contracts terminated from August.
New contracts for education and skills services covering independent training providers for the 2025-26 academic year were published yesterday with tough new rules around financial health, reporting and accountability.
Rules giving the department the power to cancel contracts based on Ofsted inspection results have been bolstered for most provider types, but not colleges.
Next year’s contracts also give DfE the power to “engage directly with learners to ascertain the contractor’s performance” and transfer some or all learners to a new contractor if it is concerned about a provider’s financial health.
Until now, training companies receiving an ‘inadequate’ grade in an inspection, either overall or for a sub-judgment, faced contractual penalties. These range from enforceable requirements to improve and suspensions to learner starts through to contract termination.
Contracts for 2025-26, which come into effect this August, extend the Ofsted performance rules to include ‘requires improvement’ grades.
A new group of clauses details how two consecutive ‘requires improvement’ grades for overall effectiveness or “any graded sub-judgment” will now result in penalties at the DfE’s “absolute discretion”.
The same will apply to grant-funded employers, higher education institutions, local authorities and trusts. It also applied to local authorities with accountability agreements.
DfE’s new contracts for services come as Ofsted digests consultation responses on its new inspection regime, due to be implemented in the 2025-26 academic year, which will replace the ‘requires improvement’ and ‘inadequate’ judgments.
Further education and skills providers will also no longer receive overall effectiveness grades from September.
Sub-judgments currently include; leadership and management, behaviour and attitudes, quality of education and apprenticeships.
The number of sub-judgments is set to spiral under the proposed inspection regime with new grades for areas like curriculum, developing teaching and training, achievement and participation and development for each provision type.
Ofsted is yet to confirm its new five-point scale (‘exemplary’ to ‘causing concern’) which it proposed to replace the current four-point scale from ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’.
A DfE spokesperson told FE Week: “We’ll update our post-16 intervention, accountability and oversight policies in line with the new framework once it’s confirmed”.
Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said: “Make no mistake, this is a strengthening of the DfE’s intervention triggers for dealing with providers who are not meeting expectations. They are right to expect high standards and value for money, but interventions should be proportionate and consistent when compared to other types of providers.
“This is also very strange timing, given that single word judgements, including the ‘requires improvement’ terminology, are set to end a month after these contract changes start. A proper consultation process would have highlighted this.”
The 2025 contracts also introduce tough new penalties for providers receiving an ‘insufficient progress’ score in an Ofsted monitoring visit.
Alongside existing sanctions like suspending recruitment of new learners, the 2025 contracts include the suspension of payments for current learners and new DfE powers to force providers to become a subcontractor for another provider.
Elsewhere, training providers must now tell the department if their credit rating, or the credit rating of one of their subcontractors, is downgraded by any rating agency. This new clause also requires “prompt notification” of any suspected or actual fraud, financial irregularity, anything which “could cause” or does cause “an insolvency event of the contractor or subcontractor”.
New actions have been added to the menu of options the department can take “in its absolute discretion” against providers whose financial health or ability to deliver the contracts declines, or “may be declining”.
These include talking directly to learners about their provider’s performance, and unilaterally transferring all or some of a provider’s provision to another provider chosen by the DfE.
The government has clawed back a six-figure sum from a Liverpool college after an investigation into apprenticeship claims found “refutable” electronic signatures and unreliable evidence.
An Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) investigation found that between 2020 and 2022, City of Liverpool College breached several funding rules by submitting evidence that was either invalid or inaccurate.
According to the report published today, the college failed to keep reliable evidence, submitted inaccurate data and incomplete off-the-job hours evidence.
The college has repaid £177,885 and “is implementing changes to its procedures”.
It is the first investigation report about financial fraud, irregularity or error at a further education college published by the government since 2019.
The short ‘outcome report’ includes general descriptions of financial issues, such as a “failure to keep effective and reliable evidence”.
This included electronic signatures not being “supported by evidence to show they were non-refutable” and recommended new processes to ensure signatures are “secure and cannot be replaced easily”.
City of Liverpool College “inaccurately” claimed additional training costs and failed to keep “effective and reliable evidence” of claims, the report said.
Other issues included “incomplete” off-the-job, “too infrequent” reviews with apprentices, and individualised learner records (ILR) that investigators found did not reflect “what is happening”.
A spokesperson for the college said the report’s outcome “reflects the complex regulatory landscape” for apprenticeships.
They added that staff “swiftly adapted to remote working” during the time the issues occurred.
The spokesperson continued: “We acknowledge that the audit identified discrepancies and resulted in a recovery of 0.2% of our funding for the review period.
“We agree with the audit findings which pertained to our provision in 2020/21 and 21/22, and we have since addressed and resolved all identified concerns.
“The funding was recovered in the 2023/24 academic year and has no impact upon current college finances.”
The investigation report also includes “prevention” recommendations related to each issue it found, such as conducting monthly audits of evidence to “highlight any gaps” and undertaking “frequent reviews” with apprentices.
Audits should be conducted by a “internal audit/quality assurance function” who can identify issues, including that apprentices are “on track” to reach their off-the-job requirement.
Providers should also carry out monthly “detailed analysis” of their ILR, provider data self-assessment toolkit, and financial risk management reports to help “identify and correct” any issues, the report suggested.
Regular data checks “will ensure” that additional payments are “claimed accurately”, it added.
The investigation, carried out by the ESFA before it merged with the Department for Education in March this year, concluded in June 2024.
Unlike detailed, multi-page ESFA reports published before a change of policy in 2023, the ‘outcome’ report does not set out a chain of events and only three bullet points summarising the concerns and outcomes.
Further education funding expert Steve Hewitt said details of the investigation findings were “useful”, but said he would benefit from “more detail” about how the college’s processes failed with its electronic signatures.
He added: “The department, and the agency before it, has never given us a meaningful definition of ‘non-refutable’ and publishing something like this with no further detail is likely to scare providers into sticking with, or even returning to, paper-based forms.
“Having said that, I’ve always been somewhat sceptical that, just because it’s on paper, means it’s any less open to fraud or forgery.”
