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.
Laws abolishing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and transferring its powers to the education secretary will be debated in parliament later this month.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith introduced the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill in the House of Lords this afternoon ahead of the creation of Skills England.
A briefing note from the Department for Education states the bill will transfer the functions of IfATE to the secretary of state, rather than the new skills body.
Once IfATE’s functions have been subsumed by the education secretary, the Department for Education will decide what to allocate to Skills England and what to keep for itself.
The bill has been introduced in the House of Lords. Its second reading, which will be the first opportunity for a debate, will take place on October 22. There will then follow debates around amendments to the bill before it moves over to the House of Commons.
The transfer of powers to the secretary of state, rather than Skills England, is a departure from what was announced at the King’s Speech earlier this year. Number 10 said at the time the bill will “transfer functions from IfATE to Skills England”.
It’s not yet clear whether Skills England itself will be established in statute, as IfATE was, raising further questions about its independence from the Department for Education and its ability to galvanise other government departments.
Alongside replacing the apprenticeship levy, establishing Skills England as a national planning and co-ordinating body for skills was central to Labour’s post-16 policy agenda at the general election.
Since then, DfE board member Richard Pennycook has been appointed as interim chair of Skills England, which is currently set up as a shadow body with some staff from IfATE and the DfE’s Unit for Future Skills already working for the quango.
DfE “anticipates” that remaining IfATE staff will transfer to Skills England or “other teams within DfE” once the bill has passed.
Ministers have made clear Skills England will decide which non-apprenticeship programmes will receive funding through its proposed growth and skills levy and which level 7 apprenticeships will be restricted to “refocus” funding.
They have also described how Skills England will work with other government departments, regional governments, unions, colleges and training providers as well as the migration advisory committee to assess and close skills gaps in key sectors. However, it does not appear those responsibilities or objectives will be written into legislation.
Interviews for a permanent chair and board members for Skills England take place early next month.
Skills England published its first report last month outlining a “long list of challenges” for the “fragmented and confusing” skills system.
Smith said: “This bill marks the next step in our plans for Skills England, to help kickstart economic recovery by breaking down barriers to opportunity and unifying our fragmented skills system.
“IfATE has done fantastic work over the last seven years and Skills England will build on that to ensure there is a comprehensive suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships for employers and individuals to access.”
A longstanding awarding body chief and well-known FE figure has suddenly stood down from his role.
Paul Eeles, chief executive of Skills and Education Group (SEG), resigned yesterday. He said the time was right for fresh leadership, ending fourteen years at the helm of the awarding and professional development organisation.
Deputy chief executive Scott Forbes will lead the organisation until a new chief executive is appointed.
Eeles, a former Federation of Awarding Bodies chair, said: “After nearly fourteen years leading Skills and Education Group, I have decided the time is right for someone new to lead the organisation into its next phase.
“Looking back, it’s been a privilege to have worked alongside an incredibly dedicated and talented staff team. I’m so proud of the things we’ve achieved together for the skills sector; colleges, training providers of all shapes and sizes, and tens of thousands of learners.
“I am particularly proud of putting social mobility at the heart of everything we do at SEG, especially the work of our Foundation in reinvesting directly in learners who most need support.”
A Skills and Education Group spokesperson said: “Paul has told the group he feels it is time for someone with a fresh vision to lead them forward into their next phase and towards their 2030 vision.
“As of now and until a successor is appointed, the day-to-day running of the Skills and Education Group will be overseen by the current deputy chief executive, Scott Forbes, with the support of the group chairs; Atholl Stott, Yultan Mellor and Gill Clipson.
“The Skills and Education Group would like to thank Paul Eeles for his hard work and commitment.”
Eeles joined the organisation, then known as Emfec, in 2011 just in time for its 100-year anniversary in 2012.
Emfec became Skills and Education Group in 2018 following the acquisition of ABC Awards and Certa Awards and now consists of its grant-giving Foundation, awarding and end point assessment arms and the British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body, acquired in 2021.
Over that time, Eeles also served on the board of the Federation of Awarding Bodies, clocking up seven years in total, including four as chair.
Before joining Emfec, Eeles was a senior director at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, then known as the Association of Learning Providers.
A former chief executive of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills is to become the chair of London’s largest college group.
Michael Davis (pictured) will lead the board of Capital City College from October.
He replaces Alastair Da Costa, who has held the role since the group launched in 2016.
Davis, currently CEO of the National Centre for Social Research, led the employment and skills commission for five years until 2016. The non-departmental public skills and employment body, which was the predecessor to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, closed in March 2017.
Davis was also previously a board member of Warwickshire College Group and joined the Capital City College board as a member in January – at the same time the group welcomed former Warwickshire College Group chief executive Angela Joyce as its CEO.
Outgoing chair Da Costa said: “Having led the group to a £130 million revenue institution with 35,000 students and achieved ‘good’ status with Ofsted, I feel now is the right time to step aside and let our CEO Angela Joyce and Michael lead the organisation through its next stage of development.”
Davis said: “Alastair leaves an impressive legacy of achievement behind him and a set of very big boots to fill. The board is enormously grateful to Alastair for his strong leadership and taking the group to being one of the largest within the country, delivering technical and vocational education that allows 30,000 students annually to achieve their ambition and meet the needs of 2,000 local employers.”
Capital City College dropped the word “group” from its name last week as part of a rebrand. The group consists of City and Islington College, The College of Haringey, Enfield and North East London, Westminster Kingsway College, will operate under the shared identity of Capital City College.
