Lifelong learning increases people’s likelihood of being in employment, boosts their earnings and reduces the amount of time spent on out-of-work benefits. So says our latest research, commissioned by Phoenix Insights.
Ministers targeting an 80 per cent employment rate and savings in the welfare system should take note. When adults learn, our society and economy thrive.
NHS mental health services are buckling, but we know learning can be transformational for people’s wellbeing.
Last year’s riots after the Southport murders lifted the lid on deep divisions in some communities across England, but we know learning promotes social cohesion and increases levels of interaction between people from different backgrounds.
Sectors with growth-driving potential need more skilled workers to kickstart a decade of economic renewal. But rates of retraining are falling short of what’s required.
Despite the evidence outlining its benefits, investment in lifelong learning has been in decline for over a decade. Government investment in adult skills fell by £1 billion in real terms between 2010 and 2024, resulting in seven million fewer qualifications awarded than if attainment had remained constant.
These cuts predominantly affected people in the poorest areas with the lowest qualifications who had the most to gain.
Employer investment also contracted sharply over the same period, with UK firms spending half the EU average on workplace training. The effects of declining employer spend have also been felt unequally, replicating and reinforcing inequalities in public skills investment and vice versa.
This situation cannot continue, particularly as lifelong learning is becoming ever more vital. As technology alters our economy and careers get longer, people will increasingly need to update their skills.
The same is true for life outside of work, with people needing the know-how to access essential public services and remain active and engaged in their communities.
Increasing investment and participation in lifelong learning promises great rewards: growth, productivity, good work, resilient communities, and fuller and richer lives. But if levels of learning continue to languish the future will look different – with job dislocation, economic scarring, deepening inequalities and social exclusion all a major risk.
This is why L&W has launched the Get the Nation Learning campaign to make and win the case for lifelong learning. Just two weeks after launch, we’re delighted to have the support of dozens of organisations, including Make UK, Channel 4, the National Housing Federation, Association of Colleges, AELP, HOLEX, Be the Business, Enginuity, Libraries Connected, Centre for Better Ageing and The 5% Club.
By joining the movement, you too can add your voice to the case for change and lead by example in getting the nation learning.
Everyone has a role to play. National and regional governments can put the funding and policy in place. Employers can invest more in skills and training and give their staff the flexibility they need. Community organisations have a role in delivering learning opportunities, but also in removing barriers local people and their service users face.
By acting together, we can move towards a culture, society and economy where everyone can learn throughout life.
This campaign builds on the legacy of the Festival of Learning, which L&W ran for over 30 years. And the tradition of our annual Adult Learning Awards will continue with the Get the Nation Learning Awards.
These awards will be the biggest celebration of lifelong learning in England. They will shine a light on people and organisations empowering adults to engage in learning, as well as individual learners who can inspire others. Get your nominations in before July 25.
If you have any questions about the campaign, and how you can get involved, please contact me and my team.
It’s time to turn the tide. It’s time to get the nation learning.
A London-based apprenticeship provider has raised questions of “deep-seated” biases at Ofsted after being judged ‘inadequate’ following an inspection during Ramadan.
The London Academy for Applied Technology (LAAT), based in Tower Hamlets, has lodged a complaint claiming the grading of its first ever full inspection was “fundamentally flawed, inaccurate, and unfair”.
The watchdog’s report, published this week, judged the provider as ‘inadequate’ in three out of five areas. Inspectors claimed apprentices were waiting months to be registered for their final assessments, including English and maths, were studying at the wrong levels, and leaders were “too slow” to make improvements.
Bosses at LAAT escalated the row to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, which reviews alleged failures to follow complaints procedures, inspector conduct and concerns of the inspection process.
Raghav Malhotra, LAAT’s operations director, accused Ofsted of “failing to accommodate” staff and learners’ religious commitments as the inspection was conducted during Ramadan in March, impacting staff’s ability to “fully engage” with the inspection.
He said 90 per cent of the provider’s provision serves ethnic minority apprentices.
Malhotra told FE Week: “It is increasingly difficult not to wonder if there is some form of bias at play here. How else can you explain the allocation of four white inspectors to a diverse provider like LAAT?”
His provider’s “treatment” by Ofsted makes him question if “racial dynamics played any part in how our inspection was handled”, he said.
Malhotra added: “Ofsted talks about inclusivity, but the way in which our case has been handled suggests there are deep-seated biases in play, particularly when it comes to providers like us – who serve largely ethnic minority communities and offer opportunities for growth in diverse sectors.”
Ofsted told FE Week it completely refuted any claim of discrimination, adding that the watchdog does not comment on individual inspections.
Malhotra said LAAT “immediately” submitted a formal complaint when it received Ofsted’s draft report in late April “in the hope of having the issues fairly addressed”.
“We provided evidence and clear arguments demonstrating the errors in the draft report, yet the outcome letter we received on June 3 was even more negative and dismissive than the original report,” he added.
Private providers judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted are usually sanctioned by the Department for Education, which can include contract termination. Malhotra said the DfE had not yet contacted LAAT.
‘Why us?’
LAAT began delivering apprenticeships three years ago and was fully inspected for the first time from March 25 to 27. Ofsted’s report stated that the majority of the provider’s 119 apprentices were studying level 2 commis chef and level 2 production chef and the minority were on early years and adult care apprenticeships.
Malhotra said there were “severe” factual errors in the report, including the calculation of 119 apprentices.
“In reality, we had 59 active apprentices, with the rest already in gateway and end point assessment (EPA) stages,” he claimed.
Ofsted’s report noted that “many apprentices” need to gain English and maths qualifications as they have not studied in England before, adding that most do achieve but “not always” in the time expected.
Inspectors praised trainers for helping apprentices “fill the gaps in their knowledge of these subjects and teach English and mathematics effectively”, but also said trainers “do not correct errors in apprentices’ written English”, adding that the “quality of written work for many apprentices is not of an appropriate standard”.
Ofsted’s report also claimed that LAAT apprentices were not on “appropriate” apprenticeships for their level of prior expertise and trainers did not consider what apprentices already knew.
Although a new apprenticeship director and quality manager were recently appointed, the report found leaders were “too slow” to act and did not have “effective” oversight on the quality of training.
Malhotra said Ofsted put forward four recommendations for improvement that were already identified and being “actively worked on” by LAAT, but that none of them justify a grade of ‘inadequate’.
Malhotra added that LAAT paused new apprenticeship starts in November to “focus” on the quality of provision for current learners.
“This is an example of us being proactive and committed to quality, yet it seems this was not adequately considered in Ofsted’s final grading,” he said.
Malhotra added he was puzzled why inspectors did not reference the “strong” performance indicators LAAT achieved in the Apprenticeship Accountability Framework, which he claimed was “green in all areas except for the achievement rate”.
He also claimed “astounding” contradictions in the report, which revealed most apprentices regard their teachers highly and said their training was “helpful”. Inspectors also praised trainers for giving “useful” advice for managing sleep and work whilst fasting during Ramadan.
“Yet, despite this, Ofsted rates us as ‘inadequate’. This makes no sense and is fundamentally contradictory,” he said.
“The question we are forced to ask is why us? Are we being targeted because we raised our voice against Ofsted’s unfair and inaccurate assessment? Or is it because we are a minority-led provider with 90 per cent of our provision serving ethnic minority apprentices?”
There’s no shortage of ambition among the young adults I meet. But too often, it’s not ability that holds them back – it’s a system that decides they’re not worth the investment.
At Nisai Learning, we work with young NEETs who’ve been out of school for months, sometimes years. They’re not “unmotivated” or “hard to reach”, they’re recovering from trauma, anxiety, or long-term health conditions; young adults trying to rebuild their lives and secure the level 2 qualifications they need to progress.
But the path to reintegration is riddled with barriers.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t about ability. It’s about access. The post-16 system is set up for those who fit the standard trajectory. Demand for college places is spiralling, funding is rigid, and accountability pressures leave little incentive to take a risk on a learner who might take longer to succeed.
Our system rewards speed and outcomes, not distance travelled. That discourages providers from working with learners who need time, flexibility or a second chance.
Meanwhile, accountability measures prevent leaders from letting former or external pupils enter as exam candidates – so even if a learner is ready to ‘sit’, there’s no way back in.
These aren’t learners without potential. But we’ve built a system that treats them as if their chance has passed. It’s no surprise that the proportion of 18-year-olds not in education, employment or training is now at its highest since 2009.
That’s why we launched our Every Learner campaign, to ensure this group is no longer overlooked. Every learner deserves a system that meets them where they are and gives them a real route back. So, what would it take to build that system?
First, it means flexibility
Traditional classrooms are simply not viable for every learner, at least not right away. Blended learning, phased reintegration and small-group, online provision offer a bridge back into education.
We see this every day at Nisai: learners with severe anxiety who begin with a few hours a week online and gradually rebuild their confidence and capability.
This flexibility is equally vital in adult learning. For decades, we’ve run the widely acclaimed and valued Nisai’s Professional Development Institute, supporting adult learners to gain functional skills. It helps those not yet ready for college or employment build confidence, structure and independence.
Second, it means access to qualifications
Remote invigilation, trialled successfully during the pandemic and already standard for international candidates, must be expanded. It offers a secure, scalable way to assess learners who can’t attend an exam hall.
And we must make it easier for schools and colleges to accept external candidates. Right now, we have pupils with university offers but no exam centre willing to take them. They’ve completed the course, but without the assessment they lose their place. That is indefensible.
Third, it means rethinking what we value
Instead of asking, “Did they pass five GCSEs in a year?”, we should ask: “Did they re-engage? Did they gain confidence? Did they progress from where they started?” Because the irony is, these learners have enormous potential. In 2024, 95 per cent of our UK students had an identified special educational need or disability. Yet they achieved a 99 per cent GCSE pass rate, with 78 per cent gaining grade 4 or above, way outperforming national averages.
One third of our learners reintegrate into mainstream education and 91 per cent progress to apprenticeships, further study or work. This is a second chance working exactly as it should.
But these results are in spite of the system, not because of it. We need second chances to be a built-in – not bolted on. That starts with properly funding flexible provision, embedding remote assessment, and holding providers to account for re-engagement, not just results.
Every learner deserves a route back in. And for many, blended learning is the only way that journey begins.
Our ‘back to the floor’ day at Chelmsford College last month was an incredibly valuable event for our whole community.
Every member of staff – both teaching and support – left college and spent the day either back in industry or volunteering in the community. It was a chance to refresh and remind ourselves of why we do what we do.
For me, it meant getting my steel-toe boots back on and heading out with an electrician who led me as an apprentice. He now runs his own company, Scott Thompson Electrical, and it felt full circle to be back on the tools with him.
I started out in college myself, first studying beauty therapy before realising it wasn’t for me. I switched to electrical and never looked back. I loved the hands-on challenge and problem solving it brought every day.
I spent several years working in the trade before an accident meant I could no longer use tools safely. So I moved into teaching, determined not to let my hard-earned skills go to waste.
That experience also deepened my understanding of health and safety. And I now try to instil that same respect and caution into my students every day.
Industry doesn’t stand still. New techniques, tools and technologies are constantly emerging. If you don’t keep up, you fall behind. And if we fall behind as lecturers, our students suffer. They would no longer be getting taught what’s really going in industry – and may be getting a version that’s years out of date.
That is why industry days like ours are vital. “If you don’t use it, you lose it” might sound like a cliché, but it’s absolutely true in construction, specifically electrical, as systems change, tools are developed and renewable energy systems evolve.
Our students deserve the most up-to-date, relevant training we can give them. And to do that, we have to keep our own knowledge fresh.
I encouraged my team to take the day seriously and make the most if it. One also spent the day with an electrician and another visited another FE college. Both came back with ideas and best practices we could adapt ourselves. We are also planning return visits – demonstrating genuine collaboration, which again benefits students.
Some staff volunteered at Billericay Town FC to assist with maintenance. This was a great reminder that our college is not just in its own bubble – we are rooted in our communities and have a responsibility – and opportunity – to give back.
The day, which took place at the end of term so learners finished on a Thursday rather than the Friday, was part of a full week of events, with learners holding a youth social action day the day before.
This was the third time this event has taken place and it’s a firm part of the college’s calendar now.
FE colleges like ours are anchor institutions. We train the local workforce, offer second chances, support small businesses and keep communities connected. Days like “Back to the Floor” show what that looks like in action – staff learning from the world outside, while also giving back and generating social value.
I’d love to see more colleges doing something similar. Construction, electrical – and indeed most vocational sectors – move fast. The more we can get out and stay close to industry, the better. And the more we show our local community that we are very much part of it, the stronger those relationships – and the outcomes for our learners – will be.
The UK achieved an important milestone last month in the race to become a clean energy superpower by 2030. The bill to create Great British Energy – the new publicly backed energy company – received royal assent.
The organisation will be backed by £8.3 billion over this parliament to leverage additional private sector investment and expertise to deploy clean energy technologies and create high-quality jobs across the UK.
Amid this promise of clean energy creating tens of thousands of new green jobs, a key consideration is how we transition workers from carbon intensive to clean industries.
This is not only a moral requirement, as we cannot afford to leave these workers and communities behind, but also an economic necessity.
We will struggle to fill these new roles solely with those entering the workforce for the first time. We need to draw on the existing workforce, including those employed in oil and gas, steel and other energy-intensive industries.
This is talked about as a challenge for the future, but the transition is happening now.
Scotland’s Grangemouth refinery, which marked its 100-year anniversary last year, will cease manufacturing operations this summer following a decision to close the plant.
More than 400 workers will lose their jobs and need support to reskill and transition into other roles.
The Scottish and UK governments have put in place £225 million of funding alongside a training guarantee for all staff.
The ECITB is supporting some of these workers through a new cross-skilling programme we are piloting, which will provide existing oil and gas technicians with the technical training needed to work on wind projects.
Looking at the wider picture there are several challenges to navigate, such as how to sequence the transition so workers have roles to move into at the right time.
The ECITB’s Labour Forecasting Tool shows peak demand for workers in engineering construction has shifted from 2028 to 2030, a sign many projects are being delayed or deferred.
The UK government has a key role to play in providing policy certainty to help unlock the final investment decisions that will see shovels in the ground.
How we highlight available opportunities is another issue.
Our 2024 career motivations study highlighted that supporting the energy transition was not a strong enough reason on its own to attract new entrants or motivate the career choices of those already in industry. Of more importance, especially to young people, were attractive salaries, career progression and working in a welcoming and inclusive environment.
Furthermore, 41 per cent of workers in oil and gas are over 50, our latest Workforce Census found. Anecdotally, we hear that many are no longer prepared to travel for work, favouring instead to settle down closer to home – which could be a problem if there aren’t sufficient opportunities locally.
Another issue is whether skills will be transferable.
Robert Gordon University research suggests that over 90 per cent of the oil and gas workforce hold skills with medium to high transferability with the offshore renewables sector.
Our Connected Competence scheme is providing a mechanism whereby workers can demonstrate their transferable competence and could play a key role in a future skills passport.
In all of this, collaboration is key.
The UK government will be launching its industrial strategy later this year. This is an opportunity to set out a clear workforce plan for clean energy, including how to deploy existing workers.
Now is the time to pull together. Industry, government – in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and the regions – trade unions, education providers and public bodies such as GB Energy and the ECITB must work together to ensure clean energy opportunities are available for all.
We must act now. As Grangemouth demonstrates, the transition is already underway.
We owe it to the communities that have powered our energy system for the past 100 years or more to ensure they are among the first to benefit from the future clean energy opportunities.
Most colleges make the same mistake on social media – they talk at students, not with them.
It’s a classic case of institutions misunderstanding their audience. Your social team spends time crafting polished updates, sharing official news and broadcasting messages that they think are important.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth. Most students don’t care. Not because they dislike your institution. Not because they’re disengaged. But because, in their world, interacting with official accounts just isn’t cool.
They’re not going to share your latest campus update with their mates. They’re not rushing to comment on a post about your latest news story. They don‘t care that your local mayor came to look at a classroom. And they’re definitely not leaving enthusiastic comments under a corporate sounding caption. Maybe their parents will. But students? Unlikely.
So if they’re not engaging, then what’s the point? Should colleges just give up on social media? No, but they need to get smarter about how they use it.
Instead of pushing out more corporate content, create content students actually want to engage with.
The list is long, but the three main reasons why students are ignoring your social media content are straight forward.
It feels too corporate
Most institutional social media accounts sound like a press release. Formal, polished, professional, which is everything students actively avoid in their own feeds.
If your posts read like they’ve been written for a committee, rather than by a human, students will scroll straight past.
Bear in mind this is also the reason your news stories will be some of the lowest ranked pages on your website.
It doesn’t speak to them
Think about the content students actually engage with. It’s personal, relatable, often funny, and always relevant to their lives. If your posts focus solely on institutional priorities, rather than student interests, you’re talking into the void. Those posts with case studies selling your courses? Forget it.
There’s no reason to share it
Social media is about self-expression. People share content that makes them look good, makes their friends laugh, or sparks a conversation. A campus press release doesn’t tick any of those boxes. Believe it or not, students want to look cool in front of their peer group.
So how do you cut through? Instead of pushing out more corporate content, create content they actually want to engage with:
Make students the stars
If a student’s face, voice or story is in a post, they’re far more likely to engage with it and share it. But here’s the important part; it has to be authentic. No overly scripted testimonials or case studies, no awkwardly staged photos. Think student takeovers, day-in-the-life videos, and user-generated content that feels natural, not forced.
Lean into humour
What’s the best performing college content? It’s rarely the official news updates. It’s the memes, the tongue in cheek videos, and the self-aware posts that are relatable. The posts that feel like they’ve been written by someone who actually understands student life, not by a marketing department trying to sound “down with the kids”.
Tap into student pride
Students might not share your official announcements, but they will share something that makes them feel proud. Give them something they want to show off. Whether it’s a sports victory, a student achievement, a quirky campus feature (the strange staircase that goes nowhere, the best study spot, the most epic takeaway item on the menu), or simply a reminder that they’re part of something special.
And here’s one bonus tip to get your team to implement right away. Be useful.
What are students actually asking about? Careers, student finance, where to find the best cheap eats near campus? Answer those questions. That beloved local chicken shop all the students go to? Feature it. That niche but essential piece of student advice? Post it.
The institutions winning on social media aren’t trying to be cool, they’re being useful, entertaining and authentic. Because here’s the thing: most students won’t engage with an institutional account. But they will engage with content that speaks to them, not at them.
So, take a moment and look at your last post. Would you engage with it if you were a student? If not, it’s time to rethink your strategy.
Deprived areas need vision – not victimhood – to level up, and Social Mobility Commission chair Alun Francis is delivering it with a ‘Multiversity’ built in Britain’s most famous seaside town
Alun Francis is practising what he preaches as chair of the government’s Social Mobility Commission at the Blackpool college he runs.
In a town where deep structural economic challenges lie behind the neon lights and candy-floss charm, he is poised to realise his longstanding vision for the UK’s first ‘Multiversity’.
This unique £65 million project will expand access to degree-level learning through flexible courses, tailored to Lancashire’s skills needs. It will, Francis believes, help to finally shift the dial on social mobility – “the signature problem of our times” – in a town that tops the charts for having the lowest male life expectancy and the second-lowest employment rate in the country.
Having spent his entire career trying to solve the challenge of ‘levelling up’ from all angles of the public sector – local authority (Manchester and Oldham), combined authority (Greater Manchester), FE (13 years leading Oldham College) and nationally through the commission, his passion sometimes spills over into exasperation at the forces holding it back.
Birbalsingh and controversy
Mindful of his responsibility to uphold Blackpool and The Fylde College’s (B&FC) reputation, Francis has until now been less outspoken than his commission predecessor, Michaela Community School head Katharine Birbalsingh, who achieved infamy as “Britain’s strictest headmistress”.
In 2023, she handed the reins to her “brilliant” deputy Francis, blaming her “propensity to voice opinions… considered controversial” for her decision to step down.
Although Francis prioritises “building bridges” more than Birbalsingh (she recently called Bridget Phillipson a “patronising cultural Marxist”), he shares many of her views, including her disdain for the national narrative of ‘victimhood’.
The Cabinet Office-sponsored commission he leads, which was formed in 2016 to assess and promote the UK’s progress on social mobility, now faces an uncertain future amid the latest quango-cutting drive.
Perhaps he feels the time is ripe to be more vocal.
He explains he gets “frustrated in education when everything’s about disadvantage”. Disadvantage, he says, is “so badly defined” that much of the time people “never actually work with the most disadvantaged – very often it’s about the polite poor, who will do well anyway”.
He accuses some prominent educationists of caricaturing working-class kids in a negative way without considering the children from those backgrounds who display “model behaviour” and “amazing attendance”.
“The flip side is an equally insulting argument that middle-class kids are bland and achieve only because of their parents’ privilege. They’re all caricatures. We want a world where every individual has the potential to achieve.”
He also lashes out at graduates who “dominate the policy world” and view non-graduates as “victims” they “don’t understand”.
A month into his role at Blackpool in 2023, Francis sent a team of staff to Birbalsingh’s school to learn from her approach. They returned energised with ideas to raise the bar on student expectations.
B&FC proceededto ban mobile phones in classrooms (unless permitted for learning) and prohibited vaping on campus grounds. Staff in designated blue jackets conduct regular patrol duties to enforce such rules. Although “one or two staff” are not fans of these patrols, they are “non-negotiable” for Francis.
No vaping sign at Blackpool and The Flyde College
Blackpool renaissance
Since taking the helm at B&FC, he has been too busy juggling the role with his day a week at the commission to do much sightseeing. But he knows Blackpool well. When his seven children were younger he would rush his asthmatic second youngest son from the family’s Manchester home to Blackpool beach when he was having an attack, as “the air’s just better here”.
Many of this area’s residents are welfare claimants who moved from nearby Liverpool and Manchester for its cheaper housing.
Francis sees the area’s decline as symbolic of a “very British” problem. Like many left-behind towns, Blackpool has been neglected by our finance and commerce-dominated, London-based economy and a “welfare system that allows people to move here without taking any care for the outcome”.
“You end up with ghettos where everybody’s seriously poor, which has knock-on effects. Getting neighbourhoods right is key to getting schools right, which is key to skills,” he says.
An artist’s impression of how Multiversity will look, with the housing being torn down to build it in the background
These rundown houses are about to be torn down to make way for Multiversity Blackpool, with residents relocated to better-quality homes while the college works with the council to improve their skills.
The Multiversity’s flexible routes into and through higher education, incorporating digital and AI, health and life sciences, and business and engineering, will serve Lancashire’s wider economy, including its large manufacturing base and the new National Cyber Force base in Samlesbury.
Francis believes that by “broadening opportunities” for those in and out of work to improve their skills across different life stages, the Multiversity approach “really epitomises where FE should go”.
The Department for Work and Pensions is moving its new office into the area too as part of wider regeneration plans to diversify Blackpool’s economy away from day trippers and stag dos to more “high-end shopping and better-quality attractions, but without losing the town’s soul”.
Multiversity represents a gamble for B&FC, which is borrowing £16 million from the council to fund the project and paying it back through rent on the completed building.
Given that universities elsewhere are scaling back amid deteriorating finances, is this not an odd time to be expanding HE?
Francis denies that Multiversity represents competition to Lancashire’s universities. It will instead provide “what only colleges can deliver – highly intensive support for students and a real understanding of their needs. We’ll constitute their lessons into one day if we can, so they can work four days a week.”
Multiversity is a term coined by Andy Haldane, who in 2018 (three years before becoming the government’s levelling-up tsar) suggested that multiversities could “operate like career roundabouts, with turnoffs into both work and study”.
Like Haldane, Francis is a fervent critic of the country’s “one size fits all” system of “narrowly defined academic success”. He believes that a decade of social mobility programmes “focused on getting poor children into elite universities, then into London jobs at magic circle law firms” has now “run out of road”, having “neglected” adults and not led to any wider community benefits.
Andy Haldane and Alun Francis speaking recently at an RSA event
Welfare woes
Francis saves his harshest criticism for our welfare system.
He backs controversial government proposals to overhaul Personal Independence Payments (PIP) for those with a health condition or disability, which he describes as a “very spurious system” of people “sometimes acquiring, sometimes seeking labels” to boost their benefits. “You can’t blame people for doing that, if that’s how the system works.”
He knows of some mainstream schools where most pupils are now seen as having a special educational need, and puts some of this down to parents seeking “external explanations for bad behaviour”.
Meanwhile, families with four or more children and a household income of over £80,000 a year are a “neglected part of the social mobility story” as they live in “relative poverty” but “never figure in social mobility stats”.
But “pouring money” into more welfare support would not “get to the root of the other things sitting behind disadvantage – a lack of skills and the need for family support”.
Francis says: “Not all disadvantage is about money. It’s about behaviour and being looked after properly.”
He also considers it “bonkers” that the DWP can categorise young NEETs (not in education, employment or training) as unable to work on mental health grounds, and then expect not to see them for a year.
“They certainly don’t need writing off at the worst possible time in life to be doing nothing,” he adds.
Francis is familiar with our welfare system from his own upbringing in a similar poverty-stricken seaside town, Colwyn Bayin north Wales. His “downwardly mobile” parents never worked again after he turned 10. His dad, a former church minister, “kind of lost his faith” and his brother’s alcoholism worsened after he was signed off on disability benefits, thereby providing him with regular money for booze at a time when his family was trying to encourage him to give it up.
“There are genuine issues around what the welfare system does to human beings which you wouldn’t do to your own family,” he says.
But in talking about his background, he worries that people will think it’s this that qualified him for the commission chair role, which is not the case.
New DWP offices moving into Blackpool
Diversity drama
In fact, his social mobility credentials partly stem from his work on aspiration-raising regeneration programmes. They include a £77 million project in east Manchester which was found 10 years later to have cut crime by 40 per cent and unemployment by 25 per cent.
Six years after Oldham’s race riots, Francis worked for the council there on tackling community segregation by closing seven schools and opening five new ones in “neutral” community areas.
A subsequent DfE report found that blending these divided communities “increased trust” between them but did not boost school performance or “liking” between social groups.
Francis is therefore deeply sceptical of the prevailing narrative among some big-name consultancy firms that ethnic or gender diversity increases success.
Oldham College later sponsored one of the new schools, Waterhead Academy, and in a “joke that became serious”, Francis took up a friend’s suggestion that he should run the college, despite his lack of FE experience.
A mentor arranged for him to “learn the ropes” by visiting Sir Peter Birkett at Barnfield College in Luton, which at the time sponsored two schools achieving impressive academic results. But Francis was left unimpressed during his “very strange” trip to Luton.
After being driven to the college in a limo and offered a trip to the races, Francis asked Sir Peter how it was that his schools were performing so well. Francis says he credited the “energy boosting” bananas that pupils were given after lunch.
Sie Peter Birkett, when he led Barnfield College
Sir Peter was knighted in 2012 for services to FE and the academy movement, but was later embroiled in two government investigations over grade massaging and ghost learners.
These found a “lack of oversight” by governors into improper use of college funds for Sir Peter’s pay-off, foreshadowing a similar turn of events more recently at Weston College for which Francis at the time voiced his “anger and disappointment”. He would like to see the FE sector being “braver” at calling out such bad behaviour.
“It’s still very easy for people to create the impression that somehow they’re wonderful… ministers aren’t helpful because they always want their heroes, so people cozy up to them. Then it all gets a bit uncritical”.
Gaming the system
Francis is aware that some of his views clash with the FE mainstream.
He disagrees with the “increasing view” that the “curriculum needs to be thrown up in the air to start again” and was in a “minority of one” for thinking the government should have scrapped BTECs last year. By keeping both BTECs and T Levels, he is concerned that “everyone’s just going to do the easy one and the hard one will never happen”.
He claims the current curriculum and attainment system is vastly better than the one in place when he started out in FE, when few exams took place. Back then, he says, many teachers “didn’t really know how to teach” as “we didn’t talk about pedagogy”.
Meanwhile, Oldham’s academies were focused on “institutional performance” rather than “improving learning”. He accuses the then-prevalent Greater Manchester Challenge system of school improvement (which was based on the celebrated London Challenge) of teaching people “how to cheat” by sharing techniques to jump grades, rather than teaching “theories of learning”.
Francis sits on Ofsted’s inclusion reference group but takes an opposing line to many of its members. He believes the watchdog’s current focus on inclusion will mean schools and colleges having to “bend over backwards to accommodate everybody”.
“The inclusion I’m worried about is the poor kid that comes in wanting to work hard, but the rest of the class are messing about and won’t let them. How is that inclusive?”
Francis claims there is “embarrassed silence” when he poses this question to Ofsted.
He believes there are “a lot of crackpot theories going around the inclusion world at the moment”, one being around “trauma-informed practice”, which has become widespread in FE colleges. Francis believes that not all bad behaviour is down to trauma, and “if you let [young people] behave in daft ways, they’ll do that more”.
During a 1990s community project in south Manchester in which local youths were “running riot”, he recalls how at a concerned community hall meeting of “woolly jumper wearing” locals, the youths’ ringleader “opened the skylight and urinated” over everyone.
“They all thought it was trauma. Honestly, traumatised kids don’t do stuff like that.”
Francis is concerned that so-called behaviour management ‘experts’ are cashing in on young people’s perceived mental health problems. His inbox is “full of people writing to me with all kinds of snake oil”.
He puts the theory that “we all have different learning styles” into the snake oil bracket, instead advocating that “our brains all work pretty similarly… which is great for teachers, because they don’t need 99 different techniques”.
Francis is also concerned about a sense of “learned helplessness” among young people, particularly those who fail their English and maths GCSEs and falsely believe they are “rubbish” at them.
And school leaders who complain about having to “do the washing and buy people food” should “shut up”. “Everybody’s always done that. Be discreet when you need to do it.”
He asserts that “half the education system is turning into a therapy centre”, which is not its role. Francis believes that sometimes, college governors “like to climb into the safeguarding issues because they find it interesting”.
But he adds: “we’re not a therapy unit, we’re an educational centre”.
“People come to college to learn – that’s the best therapy we can give them,” he concludes.
In its response to the watchdog’s latest consultation, FIN welcomes written confirmation of a five-day notice period for inspections for all providers. This was among our recommendations during the Big Listen.
To better understand sector sentiment, FIN, alongside the University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC), conducted a survey on Ofsted’s proposals. It revealed strong support for the introduction of report cards, albeit with notable concerns. Providers fear inconsistencies in how inspectors differentiate between secure and strong grades and their own ability to self-assess, based on the current draft toolkit and without detailed new operating guides for inspectors.
We must ensure the new exemplary grade is both meaningful and attainable. Providers and inspectors alike must have a shared understanding of what exemplary practice entails to promote excellence effectively.
A key concern remains the ability of sector non-specialist inspectors lacking confidence to identify and award ‘exemplary’ within specialised fields. There’s a risk that important contributions could be overlooked.
As one of the most debated topics in FIN’s consultation roundtables, members really hope the intention is to highlight best practice to celebrate the huge impact FE has on learning and skills and for government recognition.
FIN advocates for high quality and will actively encourage members to showcase strong examples during inspections rather than leaving identification solely to inspectors. In turn, inspection teams must be fully equipped and tasked with proactively seeking out best practice in every organisation they assess.
Given that report cards will be the only written output from inspections, FIN members are seeking assurances that accompanying narratives will adequately justify assigned grades. Ofsted reports should be valuable not only for providers but also for employers and prospective employees, offering clear insights into the quality of the training.
While FIN is broadly comfortable with the five-point grading scale, members have questioned its selective application. For example, grading is limited for safeguarding, raising concerns that Ofsted’s approach could rely too heavily on learners’ perceptions of a provider’s responsiveness rather than evidence-based assessments.
The integrity of the grading process must be preserved to ensure judgments remain objective and substantiated.
There is also support for independent training providers, HE and employer providers to be graded as exemplary on their ability to meet local skills needs, a long-standing strength of the wider sector that deserves recognition.
FE providers cater to a diverse range of learners, making it essential for inspectors to assess broader outcomes beyond qualifications. Personal development, workplace impact and career progression, including promotions, should all form part of the evaluation process. Measuring progress from a learner’s starting point and recognising distance travelled as a critical achievement will be key.
While the inclusion agenda is widely accepted, one FIN member posed an interesting question: “Isn’t this what we do every day?” Nonetheless, the majority of survey respondents agreed that inclusion should form part of the new framework, provided Ofsted establishes a clear definition and consistent guidelines to ensure fairness across all types of providers.
The careers guidance aspect of the toolkit is well written. FIN believes employer providers and indeed all providers should be celebrated and recognised for fostering internal promotions contributing to sustained employment and improving attrition rates.
The new operating guide must also explicitly reference functional skills. Inspectors will continue to assess how providers are delivering improvements in maths and English, but it’s important Ofsted recognises that this may not be funded, particularly in light of the removal of exit requirements for apprentices aged 19 and over.
Lastly, the FIN survey uncovered overwhelming support for embedding external challenge within provider governance structures – a move that will strengthen accountability and sector-wide improvement.
Overall, FIN members see the proposed reforms as positive steps. However, Ofsted has for some time widened its scope, way beyond what providers are actually funded to deliver. There is an underlying concern that the inspectorate leans too heavily toward younger learners, potentially sidelining the needs of those already in employment and seeking career progression.
The International Monetary Fund. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Make UK. Combined authorities. Backbench MPs. Every single one says that that skills improvement is a top priority if we want growth and prosperity.
On Wednesday, the chancellor presented her three-year departmental spending settlement to drive the government’s agenda.
What did skills get? One sentence in a 35-minute speech – and even that referenced previously announced funding!
At this point the government’s reluctance to embrace the low-risk, high-benefit, easy choice that is skills investment is starting to look, well, a bit weird. Politicians often want to be seen as ‘making tough choices’ – but when that is at the expense of making a really easy choice, that’s not rational.
The government should embrace three truths, if they are to get the growth they want by releasing more funding for skills:
First, skills is its best lever for growth, assessed against four key criteria:
Cost
Additional spend of less than a billion more would be transformative; compare that to the numbers announced yesterday for other measures that will cost tens of billions.
Impact reliability
Skills spend gives an almost guaranteed return, whether that is someone not becoming NEET, someone earning more or a company filling a long empty vacancy – or just people gaining confidence. By contrast lots of Wednesday’s big announcements have been (rightly) characterised by the press as “gambles”.
Speed
Sizewell C is the right thing to do, but it will take decades to see the benefits; by contrast, benefits from skills spending come in months and years, not in parliaments and decades.
Gearing
Spending on skills catalyses and enables tonnes of other benefits – 1.5 million homes needs skills; northern transport transformation needs skills; new nuclear power stations….you get the picture.
The criteria that skills falls short against are, unfortunately, the ones that politicians love: the bigger the number the better, and the more industrial/military the photo op.
The second truth that the government should embrace is that skills investment is what everyone wants. With nearly one million young people NEET and 3 million inactive adults and businesses desperate for better home-grown skills, everyone is united around the need for more skills investment. Who is against skills investment? That is not a rhetorical question. Who? Perhaps politicians, whose everyday existence is predicated on conflict, don’t quite know what to do when there is no conflict.
The third and final truth is about the ‘how’ they should spend on skills.
Trying to be too targeted does not work. It is like heating a room: you cannot just heat the corner of the room you want to sit in, you have to heat the whole room. Similarly, you cannot just get better skills in one corner of the economy – you have to improve skills across all of it. And all the precision comes at a cost. For example, is all the faff required to channel the £600 million announced for construction precisely going to deliver a better outcome than a simple increase to apprenticeship and bootcamp funding bands in the construction sector? It definitely won’t be quicker.
The prize is huge and it is within government’s grasp; every government department wants more skills investment. Every business. Every family. Every council and every mayor. It is dead cheap – hundreds of millions, not tens of billions. It starts to deliver returns within 3-6 months if done through existing mechanisms. The provider and assessment base is raring and ready to go, to convert those extra funds into extra precious outcomes. Skills investment will transform lives and earnings prospects for hard pressed families and individuals, creating a political dividend; it will unleash ‘animal spirits’ across firms and investors, economically gearing and compounding that initial extra spend. Productivity, growth and the tax base goes up. Borrowing costs go down.
In this, the 500th edition of FE Week (congratulations to everyone!), this is as close to a no-brainer as one will ever see in public policy.
