Trainee mechanics must be tooled up or the EV revolution falls flat 

Electric vehicles are no longer a futuristic vision; they’re fast becoming the norm on UK roads. With the 2035 ban on new petrol and diesel cars edging closer, demand for EV-ready technicians is accelerating.

However, there is a serious skills shortage in the industry. We run the risk of coming to a complete standstill unless providers of further education step up.

Vehicle technicians have been proficient in the intricacies of internal combustion engines for many years. Hundreds of moving parts, finely tuned mechanical systems and oil-stained diagnostics were the bread and butter of the trade.

EVs require a completely different skill set and tool set.

Electrical and electronic expertise, awareness of high-voltage safety, and confidence with software-driven systems are now essential. Colleges cannot simply ‘add EVs’ into existing motor vehicle programmes as an afterthought. It requires a full rethink, from curriculum design and workshop equipment to staff training.

The transition to EVs may be accelerating, but the availability of skilled technicians isn’t keeping up. Unlike combustion engines, EVs are mechanically simple, but far more complex in their electronic and diagnostic demands.

Working safely and efficiently on high-voltage systems calls for specialist tools. The right tooling enables compliance, confidence, and speed. With the right tools, technicians can handle electronic controls, diagnose battery systems, and work on high-voltage cabling without endangering their safety.

Training and tooling must evolve side by side. Training technicians without access to the correct tools leaves them unprepared. On the other hand, providing tools without the necessary expertise can put people in danger. Only by addressing both at the same time will the industry be able to address the EV skills shortage.

Businesses that thrive in the EV era will be those that invest equally in training and tooling.

By supporting further education, providing access to specialist equipment, and fostering collaboration across the sector, we can ensure the workforce is future-ready and safe.

Risks of falling behind

The consequences of inaction are already visible. Independent garages report turning away EV jobs due to lack of confidence or equipment. Learners risk graduating into a workforce where their training no longer matches real-world demand. The public faces the risk of safety incidents involving technicians working beyond their competence. And perhaps most critically, the UK risks missing its net-zero targets because the workforce cannot keep pace with industry change.

We also need the government to recognise that funding qualifications alone is not enough. Without investment in tooling, colleges cannot deliver safe and effective EV training. Without staff development, even the best equipment risks sitting unused.

Why specialist tooling matters

Specialist tooling is the often-overlooked partner in building skills and confidence. Safe, hands-on learning requires access to the same diagnostic and protective tools that’s used in real-world environments.

Without diagnostic tools designed for EVs, learners can’t properly test battery systems, trace faults in high-voltage cabling or manage complex electronic controls. Asking them to train without such equipment is like teaching science without a lab, it creates a false sense of competence.

The risks extend beyond inefficiency. EV systems operate at voltages high enough to cause serious injury. Insulated tools, EV-specific diagnostic devices and appropriate protective gear are not optional extras; they are critical safety essentials.

Too many training facilities and workshops, however, are ill-equipped and use improvised or antiquated equipment. This is a false economy.

Investing in the right tooling not only improves learner outcomes, it gives employers confidence that new recruits are truly job-ready. For colleges it sends a clear message: we’re serious about keeping pace with the industry, and we’re preparing our learners to do the same.

EDL confrontation underlined why Black History is more than a month

This year’s Black History Month theme – “Standing in Pride” – resonates deeply with me. Standing in pride isn’t just about celebration; it’s about sustaining pride and purpose throughout the year.

As an educator, consultant and proud black mixed-heritage British woman, I’ve spent years helping colleges and schools weave black history into the curriculum – not just for one month, but every month.

Earlier this month I was invited to an anti-racism conference, where I spoke about connecting arts, heritage, local communities and educators to support young people on their educational journeys, and to embed black history 365 days a year. We celebrated schools and colleges already working to make their teaching more inclusive and representative of the diverse Britain we all share.

Yet on my journey home, that optimism met a harsh reality. As my train travelled back towards Suffolk, passing through parts of Essex, I encountered hostility that sharply contrasted with the conversations I’d just had. Flags were waved. Voices shouted “EDL” in my face. It was Black History Month – a time meant for unity, learning and respect – yet I was reminded that racism doesn’t take a month off.

A few passengers asked if I was OK, realising the distress that the situation was causing. But it made me wonder, do people truly understand allyship?

I also thought about the young people heading into college after the weekend. How many might see those flags or hear those words? What messages are they absorbing about identity, inclusion and belonging?

Our role as educators is to help them understand that we live in a multicultural, interconnected society – where respect must be learned, modelled and lived. Black History Month should never be an “add-on.” It should reframe how we understand Britain’s story, showing that Black history is British history, woven into our collective narrative all year round.

From my own experience and reflection, here are some reminders not just for October, but every month that follows it.

Essential reminders for educators

1. Inclusion is everyone’s responsibility. Black History Month isn’t about overloading your black or global majority staff. It’s not a free pass to hand over all the planning and speaking to them. True diversity work is shared work. Take time to plan and develop opportunities both inside and outside the classroom, from displays and “lunch-and-learn” sessions, to staff CPD. Create or review your anti-racism framework, and work with student EDI ambassadors to ask what they’d like to see in enrichment activities. Even simple things, like celebrating cultural foods – from puff-puffs to roti – help make your environment more inclusive.

2. Avoid last-minute planning or “tick-box” exercises. Representation should be intentional and embedded. Don’t be afraid to ask for help. Collaborate with local communities, consultants, museums and libraries. Many hold rich collections of black history.

Did you know British libraries are celebrating 500 years of black music this year? There’s a wealth of local and national resources waiting to be explored. Make history relevant and local. Who are the black heroes on your doorstep? Was there a Windrush RAF sergeant from your area, or a black Tudor in your region’s archives? Local stories bring history to life.

3. Let October be the launch pad, not the finish line. Black history, excellence and culture deserve visibility all year – in lessons, assemblies, displays and everyday conversation. Review your anti-racism policy. Do you have active student or staff EDI ambassadors, or even an EDI governor? What resources are in your collection – and are they up to date? Most importantly, are you asking students what they want to see represented? Let October be the start of something woven into the fabric of your institution’s identity.

Real inclusion means more than inviting people into the room. It’s about joining the dance to equity. When we all move together, education becomes the rhythm that unites us. So let’s remember pride in allyship, and continue this daily with our actions in and outside the classroom.

My T Level journey at the Sharp end of digital skills

I’m working towards becoming a security engineer, but my journey onto this career path began with my two-year T Levels course at the Basildon Centre for Digital Technologies in Basildon town centre.

I liked the idea of studying for a T Level as it meant I could focus solely on the subject I was interested in, rather than picking up two other subjects alongside it for A-levels.

I chose South Essex Colleges Group for my studies because I got the impression all of the lecturers I spoke to at the open days were nice people. I was also keen on the technology they had to offer, from high-spec computers to physical networking equipment to test.

The best part of the T Level was the industry placement at Every Child Online, a charity which assesses, repairs, and prepares broken electronic devices to ensure they are in perfect working condition before being distributed to those in need. It was a nice change of atmosphere from the college one day a week and gave me insights on the working day I could expect to experience after my studies.

The balance of three days in college and a one-day industry placement was perfect, in my opinion. It gave me enough time to learn the content and skills in the classroom, and then I could practise that on the placement.

I developed a range of different skills at SECG, from technical skills like networking basics to personal skills like teamwork. However, I think the biggest skill I gained was the ability to push myself out of my comfort zone and take risks.

A typical day on the placement would consist of the following tasks:

· Building Windows devices from scratch, even fixing the devices’ hardware components beforehand if necessary.

· Recycling old components and devices that weren’t suitable for use, while complying with Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment regulations.

· Cleaning devices professionally so they were ready to be sent out to users.

· Talking with customers and potential customers about the business and what it could offer.

Building devices prepared me for the time in a workplace where I would have to onboard new users and build them a new device. The recycling of old components got me into the habit of complying with legislation and laws when working in the IT industry. Talking to customers definitely gave me good practice in using the correct terminology when speaking to non-technical people, plus it increased my confidence.

I’m now working for Sharp. I manage the deployment of security products to our clients, I test new tools by simulating attacks and payloads, and also help to improve processes and playbooks so the team can respond quickly and efficiently. Occasionally, I will respond to security alerts that have been escalated from a security operations centre or helpdesk.

Overall, my T Level has provided me with practical and technical skills, industry experience and most importantly, confidence in public speaking.

It prepared me with the mandatory networking fundamental knowledge that I will build on in my career.

T Levels are an important alternative because they are a great mix between academic studying and real-world work. Unlike A-levels, you’re exposed to workplace environments before your career, and unlike apprenticeships, you build up knowledge around the industry first. Overall, I’d say T Levels are the perfect choice for being as career-ready as possible.

I feel SECG supported my journey into employment because they put me in contact with Sharp. Also, the lecturers there encouraged and convinced me to attend, and ultimately go on to win the Power Platform Challenge competition, which helped me stand out and land employment with Sharp. 

My career ambitions now consist of achieving more qualifications and certifications in cyber security, in the hope of advancing into more technical cyber security roles.

Let’s ensure that apprenticeship reform doesn’t set us back a decade

AAT has been at the heart of apprenticeships since End-Point Assessments (EPAs) were introduced in 2017 and before that by way of using our qualifications as a core element.  And as members of the Level 2-4 assistant accountant trailblazer group, we’ve been working closely with the government on the detail underpinning their reform. We take this role seriously, with a clear focus on delivering the best outcomes for apprentices and employers.  

The government’s ambition to make apprenticeships simpler, more flexible and more cost-effective is absolutely right. It’s something we can all agree on. Through apprenticeships, we’ve been able to open-up careers for more people, which positively contributes to in addressing the skills shortages within the UK.

However, we’re at risk of turning the clock back on the progress made since the 2012 Richard Review. To deliver for learners, employers, and the economy, I’m urging policymakers to prioritise three principles: effective collaboration, maintaining standards and consistency, and protecting learner outcomes. 

Effective collaboration  

There’s growing concern across the sector about the lack of detail on how these reforms will play out in practice. Without this, we risk disrupting the apprenticeship journey and crucially undermine learner and employer confidence in a system we’ve been fighting so hard for, for the past decade.  

To work, reforms require close partnership between the government, regulation, awarding organisations (AOs) such as AAT, and employers. What’s becoming clear as I speak to colleagues and partners, is that we’re not all speaking with one voice. We’ve seen already Ofqual’s consultation proposing that revised assessment plans should only be available for new starters. This is a misalignment with the messaging from the government that existing transitional rules will be applied. Mixed messages like these could lead to a disjointed landscape undermining progress, leading to confusion and uncertainty on the part of all awarding organisations, training providers and employers, who are ultimately the key driving forces working together to ensure the success of these reforms.  The end result of this could be less potential apprentices on quality programmes.

Maintaining standards and consistency  

Apprenticeships are now firmly and quite rightly taking their place at the table, alongside traditional routes like a university degree. This is because we’ve all worked so hard to ensure the apprenticeship assessment is rigorous, transparent and consistent – meaning students can be confident that their hard work will help open doors and be recognised because employers know and value exactly what they’re getting. The 2023 DfE survey found 80 per cent of employers view EPAs as essential for validating occupational competence.  

With no clearly defined approach to how employers will verify behaviors and the removal of explicit references to apprenticeship behaviours within the new standards, we’re at risk of eroding the quality and objectivity that has made apprenticeships the success they are.  

Protecting learner outcomes  

Learners are and should remain at the heart of apprenticeships. Protecting learner outcomes means delivering reforms that are transparent and consistent, preparing apprentices for real-world challenges. But uncertainty around shifting standards is already causing anxiety, with some apprentices worried about delays to their qualifications or job prospects. Equally, employers will become unwilling to invest in a system they are unclear about.  

The overall ambition being proposed is difficult to argue against.  Collaboration between the government, awarding organisations and employers will be vital to delivering clear, timely guidance for a smooth transition and most importantly to retain confidence and value in apprenticeships and apprentices.   

For apprenticeships to thrive, we must protect the quality and objectivity of assessments, retain employer trust and above all, we must protect learner outcomes.   

Governors Havant a clue about college’s finances going South

Trust between leaders and governors at a Hampshire college has broken down after the full scale of its deteriorating financial position came “out of the blue”, an FE Commissioner report has revealed.

Shelagh Legrave’s team found that Havant and South Downs College (HSDC), which teaches around 7,000 students across three campuses, entered severe financial distress last year after senior leaders lost control of finances.

Her report, completed in May but only published today, said governors were “not appropriately sighted on, or informed of, the financial risks developing” and that some board members told investigators the news of the crisis came “out of the blue”.

“The financial pressure the college was facing was more significant than had been initially recognised,” the report added. “Some [governors] were now questioning how they could regain trust in information they would be given as a board in the future.”

The Department for Education placed HSDC in formal intervention earlier this year following the discovery of mounting deficits that “shocked” governors, “inaccuracies in financial reporting” and “poor financial controls”.

Large-scale redundancies have since hit staff, and the college’s principal has decided to retire.

Governors in the dark

The FE Commissioner said the college has experienced a “significant fall” in 16 to 18-year-old learner numbers in recent years, with “consequent year-on-year reduction in income”.

Until summer 2024, the college’s management accounts and budget forecasts suggested a healthy position, with plans for a small surplus.

But by October, the finance team admitted that the year would end in deficit after “late identification” of expenditure.

Governors told the FE Commissioner’s team they were blindsided. Some had believed the college’s position was stable after earlier positive assurances from an external governance review and a ‘good’ Ofsted rating.

Ofsted’s report, published in May 2024, judged that “well-informed governors provide leaders with strong challenge, support and strategic direction”. 

And an external governance review in July 2024 found that board structures and processes were “currently effective”. The external review noted that “governance provides senior management with one of its lines of defence” and that “the current approach should give assurance to stakeholders that the college is managing its assets prudently”.

But Legrave’s team found that financial reporting to the board had been “inaccurate”, and there was “risky reliance” on future land-sale receipts to fund an “ambitious property strategy”.

The college also did not report financial contribution by campus and although its recovery plan “addresses some inefficiencies”, it is “unclear if each individual campus is financially viable”.

There was also an “expressed concern from staff” that communication is “limited, mostly one way, leadership remote and closed, and that staff have not been kept informed of the issues that the college is facing”.

Legrave said: “There will inevitably be work the principal and executive need to lead and undertake to restore confidence and trust in leadership’s financial oversight and the information being presented to the board and to the wider college.”

An HSDC spokesperson said reference to governance and leadership by the FE Commissioner “was in February and is now outdated”, adding that there has been a “refresh of the leadership team since this date and the executive team work in a highly effective way with governors”.

Gast-off: Redundancies and leadership exit

HSDC’s principal Mike Gaston warned staff in July that “significant redundancies” were inevitable as part of a recovery plan.

As FE Week previously reported, the college planned to axe around 100 workers as it tries to bring its staff-cost ratio — which hit 72 per cent of turnover — back within the FE Commissioner’s benchmark of 65 per cent or below.

The University and College Union announced three days of strike at HSDC in June. HSDC said only one strike day was taken.

HSDC said today its restructure resulted in a staffing reduction “of 67.28 full-time equivalent (FTE)”, made up of “redundancies (42.91 FTE), retirements, resignations and post deletions”.

Gaston, who has led the college for a decade, has announced his retirement for early 2026 but will remain in post through the recovery process.

Governance overhaul

In response to the intervention, HSDC’s governors have created a new recovery, sustainability and accountability (RSA) committee to oversee “the developing financial sustainability plan”.

The board has also committed to redesigning its management accounts, producing campus-level financial analysis, and introducing clearer key performance dashboards for enrolment, curriculum efficiency and cash flow.

The long-term sustainability of the college “is in the control of the board and senior leaders, but it is recognised the path to financial recovery presents a major operational challenge”, Legrave’s report concluded.

HSDC said that since May, the college has appointed “new governors with expertise in finance, audit, education and stakeholder engagement” and “enhanced staff and student voice mechanisms to ensure inclusive decision-making”.

HSDC’s spokesperson said the college “acknowledges the findings of the FE Commissioner’s report and accepts its recommendations in full”.

“The report reflects a challenging period for the college, and we are committed to addressing the concerns raised with transparency, urgency and care,” they added.

A formal FE Commissioner “stocktake” visit is scheduled for November 2025.

Helping every learner use AI responsibly

The AI genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

AI’s influence on further education isn’t a slow burn. It’s quickly reshaping how we teach, assess and think about knowledge itself. In FE, conversations about AI have often centred on practical implementation and staff efficiency – important goals in themselves.

But for AI integration to be effective, students will need support in developing digital judgement and applying these tools with care. The challenge now is to build the confidence, skills and judgement needed to make AI a force for better learning – not just faster work.

Confidence isn’t competence

According to the upcoming Pearson College Report 2025, launching next month, 62% of college students feel confident using AI to support their learning. That’s the good news. The twist? Many don’t feel confident choosing appropriate tools, applying them accurately and fairly, or judging the quality of AI content.

One in five say they want to learn how to use AI more accurately and fairly, and nearly as many say they need help understanding how to use it ethically. Meanwhile, most tutors agree the curriculum needs to evolve to embed digital and AI skills, and over half say they need more support themselves.

There’s a gap – a significant one – between how students are using AI and what they’re being taught. Tutors can see it. Many cite the increasing use of AI in teaching, learning and assessment as one of the top challenges they’ll face this year.

While some learners are already confident with AI, many are still experimenting – copying, pasting and refining prompts without clear guidance on how to use these tools well.

Why digital confidence matters

This isn’t about banning AI or policing behaviour. For AI integration to be truly effective, guidance and digital judgement will be key.

As AI becomes woven into everyday life and learning, familiar priorities like safeguarding, academic integrity and employability are being shaped by AI – adding new layers to the digital landscape that students must navigate.

Can learners recognise bias in AI outputs? Do they know when a chatbot is bluffing? Can they credit their sources, explain their thinking and use AI as part of their own process rather than instead of it? Those are the skills that turn AI from a shortcut into a genuine support tool.

A practical place to start

At Basingstoke College of Technology (BCoT), staff could see the gap – so they decided to act.

Supported by Pearson, they developed AI Essentials, a short, self-paced course that introduces students to responsible and reflective use of AI. It’s not a qualification or a coding module. It’s a 90-minute foundation designed to build confidence, curiosity and awareness.

Delivered during induction or tutorial sessions, it explores questions such as:

  • What exactly is AI, and where do we come across it?
  • What makes an AI-generated answer helpful or harmful?
  • How can students use these tools without crossing ethical lines?
  • What does fairness look like when a chatbot can write your essay?

Richard Harris, a Digital and IT Lecturer at BCoT, saw the impact straight away. “It was fantastic to see students not just getting excited about the topic but really starting to think critically about the content they consume every day. It’s given them up-to-date, practical skills that will be vital for their future.”

The college worked with Pearson to host the course on ActiveHub, making it available across departments under a site licence. It’s designed to flex around different courses and teaching schedules – the aim is to start a conversation, not add another layer of workload.

What’s at stake

A recent report from the Institute for the Future of Work ranks AI literacy among the top priorities for employers across every sector. They’re not just looking for coders – they’re looking for critical thinkers who can use technology thoughtfully and responsibly.

If students aren’t supported to use AI well, we could see a new kind of digital divide – not based on access, but on understanding. That gap could quietly influence learning outcomes, confidence and future opportunities.

With its close ties to both employers and learners, further education is well placed to help close that gap. Not through sweeping reforms or expensive new frameworks, but through small, structured steps that bring AI into everyday learning in a safe, thoughtful way.

Anthony Bravo OBE, Principal of BCoT, added: “This isn’t about being cutting edge. It’s about being responsible. Our job is to get students ready for what’s next – to help them make smart, ethical choices with AI, now and in the future.”

The genie is already out of the bottle. We don’t need to put it back in. We just need to learn how to work with it – and help students do the same.

Find out more about the AI Essentials course developed by BCoT and supported by Pearson: Access your sample pack

Ofsted reforms ‘the most sensible’ way forward, Oliver tells MPs

Ofsted chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver and chair Christine Gilbert were grilled by MPs on Parliament’s education committee today ahead of next month’s rollout of new-style inspections and report cards.

Here’s what we learned.

Consultation response was ‘transparent’

Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden pressed Oliver on Ofsted’s refusal to publish a breakdown of the 6,500 consultation responses it received regarding new “report card” inspections.

Unions have criticised the decision to provide only a narrative summary as “deeply problematic”.

Voaden cited findings from the “alternative big consultation” – a smaller carbon copy of the consultation, run by a group of former HMIs – which found just one in 10 people viewed Ofsted’s proposals as an improvement on the current framework.

She described this as “a pretty damning verdict” and asked if Ofsted chose not to publish its own consultation responses, because it received similar findings.

Oliver rejected this, saying: “I think we have published openly and transparently the views that were expressed to us.

“We set out really clearly the negativity that we heard against what we proposed to consult on.”

He added the finalised framework “has changed in so many ways” since consultation.

Requests for a “granular breakdown”, he said, reflected a “fundamental misunderstanding of what a consultation is”, adding that “it’s not a plebiscite or a vote”.

Union tensions a ‘concern’

Oliver said the fact the new inspection framework has failed to win confidence of teaching unions “does concern me”, but going forward he “takes confidence” from the response of “those who’ve actually experienced an inspection” under the new framework “as opposed to those who are theoretically looking at the toolkits”.

“Those in the test visits, all of the challenges that they raised, which allowed us to refine our approach for the final consultation, have come forward and said, you know, this feels better,” the chief inspector added.

But he was not able to say whether Ofsted will publish its analysis of pilot inspections that are currently underway.

Today, the Association of School and College Leaders shelved plans to ask leaders to quit as Ofsted inspectors but has now vowed to “explore legal action” against the reforms.

Headteachers’ union NAHT has already filed a legal challenge against Ofsted’s reforms in the high court. 

Ofsted complaints go ‘further than almost all regulators’

Gilbert, who published a damning review into Ofsted’s response to Perry’s death before becoming chair, said progress has been made by the inspectorate.

She described Ofsted’s new complaints processes as “much more human” and “far better” than it used to be. “The terrible tales I heard when I was doing the review … that does not happen now, you can talk to a person.”

But she said looking at making the process independent from Ofsted is “really key”.

“I’ll look at the options for… greater independence in the process, and we’ll come back to that hopefully by about February, March time.”

Oliver said he feels Ofsted “go[es] as far and if not further than almost all of the regulators in this country, with dealing with complaints.” 

“But do I think we can go further? I think we can.” He welcomed the “experience” and “challenge” Gilbert will bring.

Board ‘will be looking at ourselves’

Gilbert’s 2024 review of Ofsted found the role of its board “appear[ed] curiously limited”, and called for it to be strengthened.

Having now been at its helm for around six weeks, she assured the education committee the Ofsted board “won’t be taking reports, nodding, and saying ‘well done’”. “We will be looking ourselves at…engaging with the sector.”

Meanwhile Oliver said the new framework “removes the ‘gotcha’ moment” from inspections and “will allow complaints to surface during the inspection rather than at the end” when “they’re allowed to fester”.

Inspectors will “talk to the provider and explain what they’re seeing” as they go, rather than revealing a grade at the end of day two.

More details on inspector ‘matching’ process

Oliver also gave insight into Ofsted’s plans to match inspectors with settings they have had experience in.

He said Ofsted had “undertaken what they are confident saying is the largest data set on civil servants, to match their experience and expertise”. He said this comprises “two million sets of data” on HMIs.

He added Ofsted now specified settings when advertising for HMI.

“Each region has looked at its strengths and deficits of experience and it’s advertising to fill that pool. We’re on it,” he said.

MPs also cited the independent wellbeing impact assessment recently commissioned by Ofsted, which found the new framework “does not reduce the pressure on leaders…and is likely to increase stress and workload”.

Asked whether this means Ofsted “has failed” in its bid to reduce pressure on leaders, Oliver said Ofsted has “made very significant changes” to the framework in light of the report.

“I can’t make inspection entirely stress free, any more than exams or tests can be stress free, but I am doing all that I can to make them manageable, constructive and, above all, useful to leaders.”

He added: “We’ve tried to find the most sensible way throughout all of this, and I think the new report card does that. It has an at a glance grade, it has the narrative which the trade unions have pushed for, it has the data, it has the context – it has all of those in the round.”

Oliver ‘corrects the record slightly’ on Caversham inspector

An inquest in December 2023 ruled that Ofsted “contributed” to headteacher Ruth Perry’s suicide. Coroner Heidi Connor said the conduct of the inspection was among the “most important areas of concern”, with some elements of it “rude and intimidating”.

Oliver today backtracked on an assertion he made at a previous committee hearing in January, when he said there was “no suggestion” inspectors involved in the fateful inspection at Caversham Primary School, where Perry was headteacher, “did a bad job or did anything wrong whatsoever”.

He thanked the committee this morning for the “opportunity…to try and correct that record slightly”.

Oliver accepted that “clearly” the coroner found “concerns about the way the conduct” of that inspection took place.

The individual inspector has also “reflected” on their conduct and the coroner’s findings while Ofsted is taking responsibility for “all of its actions”.

The chief inspector later dismissed claims that the inspector has been “promoted”, adding that they were taken out of their role and has been given “a different role and different challenge”.

DWP’s skills takeover won’t impact inspection

The recent announcement that control of adult skills policy will move from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions is unlikely to have any impact on inspections.

Oliver told MPs today: “At this stage, I don’t anticipate any significant change to our inspection activity resulting from responsibility moving from some policy areas to DWP, I think we’ll manage it carefully.

“We’ve long history. If you think about inspection of prison education, young offenders, we work really closely with the Ministry of Justice. We’re well used to doing this. I think it will be fine.”

ITPs show ‘greatest variance in quality’

Having an inspection toolkit that is “unique to FE” and report cards that grade up to 16 inspection areas will help hold the sector’s independent training providers (ITPs) to account, Oliver said.

Committee chair Helen Hayes said she had recently heard “horror story” reports from a union of an apprenticeship training provider with “unqualified staff” who were using YouTube as a teaching guide and lacked basic safety training.

Oliver responded that while some ITPs have “got some fantastic quality” their inspections also show the “greatest variance” in provider quality.

Speaking about the framework more generally, he said taking away the overall effectiveness grade gives “nuance and complexity” that will help the government “deliver on our ambition to provide the skills needed for an improved economy going forward”.

The chief inspector argued that while the number of areas is large, inspections of colleges are “some of the biggest” Ofsted carries out, stretching over a fortnight with 20 to 30 inspectors.

ASCL drops Ofsted inspector threat – but mulls legal action

The Association of School and College Leaders has shelved plans to ask leaders to quit as Ofsted inspectors, but has now vowed to “explore legal action” against the reforms.

The union said in June it was considering the “unprecedented step” of asking its members to step down as Ofsted inspectors unless the watchdog delays roll-out of new inspections and ditches plans for five grades.

ASCL has said today its council has decided not to go ahead with the plan “at this stage … to allow time to gather evidence over the impact of the framework in practice during both pilot and routine inspections”.

But the union said it has now “resolved to explore options for taking legal action” over the potential impact of new report card inspections.

When asked what action this could mean, a union spokesperson said they will be speaking to headteachers’ union the NAHT “about their legal action as part of the process of exploring the options”.

NAHT has already filed a legal challenge against the Ofsted reforms in the high court. This was updated following the publication of an independent review of the wellbeing impact of the proposals.

In the report, Sinead Mc Brearty, chief executive of the charity Education Support, warned new Ofsted report cards will create more anxiety for leaders with already “concerningly high” stress levels.

The leadership of the NAHT headteachers’ union is also considering whether to ballot members for industrial action over Ofsted reforms.

During an emergency online meeting last month, almost 2,000 NAHT members were asked if they would support exploring industrial options. Eighty-nine per cent voted yes.

‘We don’t take this step lightly’

Pepe Di’Iasio (pictured), ASCL’s general secretary, said: “We don’t take the step of exploring legal action lightly, but our members are gravely concerned about the stress and pressure likely to be generated by the new inspection system with its five-point grading scale applied over multiple evaluation areas.

“As feedback to the independent wellbeing impact assessment commissioned by Ofsted put it so succinctly, this will result in ‘many more ways to fail.’”

While he said the plans are a “recipe for chaos”, Di’Iasio added the union is “trying to be as reasonable as possible, and have decided to hold off from encouraging members who are Ofsted inspectors to withdraw their services for the time being while we gather evidence about the impact of the new system as inspections are rolled out.

“But we will be monitoring this closely and that option remains firmly on the table.”

An Ofsted spokesperson said: “We welcome ASCL’s sensible decision not to ask members who work for us as inspectors to withdraw their services. 

“We have had really positive feedback from our pilots and we’re confident that our new-look inspections will be well-received when they begin in November.”

‘Devastating’ prison education cuts will fuel reoffending, warns chief inspector

Reoffending is likely to get worse due to cuts of up to 50 per cent to prison education services, the chief inspector of prisons has warned.

Charlie Taylor said today that “devastating” real-terms cuts of at least 20 per cent to prison education services in most jails are likely to worsen already “appallingly high” reoffending rates.

Prison governors are facing severe reductions under new prison education contracts, which started on October 1, resulting in teaching staff redundancies and courses being shut down.

Taylor issued the warning on funding today alongside a report on work and training in adult prisons, which highlighted long-running concerns about “atrocious” attendance of 67 per cent on courses, a lack of training places, and demoralised teaching staff.

Ministry of Justice (MoJ) officials have told the chief inspector that the funding reductions at each prison are at least 20 per cent, FE Week understands.

The higher reports of cuts of up to 50 per cent are understood to have been reported to Taylor by individual prison governors.

Writing in today’s report, ‘just passing time’, the chief inspector said the prison service is failing to protect the public by making prisoners less likely to reoffend.

He added: “With two-thirds of prisoners not in work or training six months after release, there is little doubt that many have left jail and returned to criminality, causing mayhem in their communities and creating more victims of crime.

“Too many prisoners are spending their time in jail lying on their beds watching daytime television, often under the influence of drugs.

“Until leaders in the prison service take the provision of high-quality education and training more seriously, it is hard to see how appallingly high reoffending rates can be reduced.”

The chief inspector’s report found only a “small number” of prisons currently offer high-quality training, with few offering “meaningful qualifications” or progression opportunities.

Many can’t provide the full-time activity spaces for their population due to a lack of workshop space or instructors, resulting in “large proportions” of prisoners locked in their cells during the day.

Overall, Ofsted judged 26 of the 38 prisons inspected in 2024-25 as ‘inadequate’ or ‘requires improvement’ for education, skills and work activities.

It comes as prison education providers across the country start contracts worth up to £1.5 billion after a delayed two-year procurement process.

Lord Timpson, minister for prisons, probation and reducing reoffending, said: “I welcome this report and the challenges it brings. We inherited a crisis, and it is our job to not just sort the problem, but to create a justice system that is both sustainable and does its job of reducing reoffending.

“I have been involved in employing prisoners for over 20 years, and can confirm that we need prisons that work in giving offenders the tools they need, so when they are out of prison, they stay out.

“We have already done a lot to improve our prisons, but given the scale of the crisis we inherited, there is clearly an awful lot more that still needs to be done.”

A MoJ spokesperson said prison governors were told what their education and training budgets would be from this month to March 2027 in April this year.

University and College Union head of further education Paul Bridge said: “This latest report into the parlous state of prison education is another savage indictment of the failure of the MoJ’s stewardship of prison education.

“We welcome the positive comments made about the essential role of our members in delivering front-line prison education, but this is not the full picture. 

“The latest prison education service contract will further compound the failings highlighted in the report, rather than address them.”

Courses in functional English and maths, IT, hospitality and catering have all been cut, Bridge added.