Latest news from FE Week

From clawbacks to giving back: David Withey, SGS College

David Withey is a rare example of a senior government official crossing the floor to run a further education college.

He negotiated peace treaties with prime ministers, oversaw funding to local and devolved national governments for the Treasury, led a Covid taskforce in Australia and then sat atop the UK’s education system as chief executive of the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).

Then when the ESFA disbanded last year he switched direction and became CEO of South Gloucestershire and Stroud (SGS) College, because he believes FE is “the most dynamic, exciting, scalable sector”.

He greets me with a warm smile but appears, alarmingly, to have been punched in the face.

No doubt Withey made enemies due to the unpopular funding clawbacks the ESFA dished out during his three years at the helm. However, he says his black eye was not from a disgruntled accounting officer, but from dropping his mobile phone on his face while checking the time in bed.

His communications team are scrambling to find a make-up artist to conceal the bruise and make Withey look presentable when launching his college’s five-year strategy later in the day.

As a former Treasury deputy director, I expect Withey to exude the aura of a penny-pinching bureaucrat who is obsessed with data. But he is much more interested in discussing people and ideas than numbers and budgets.

“This stuff” (being interviewed) makes him “slightly uncomfortable”, but he comes across as effortlessly personable, nonetheless.

Withey grew up in a Dorset commuter village with lofty dreams of becoming a sports centre manager (his mum was a sports centre receptionist). So it seems fitting that he now leads “one of the country’s best sporting colleges”.

SGS has six campuses, and we meet at SGS Wise, which specialises in sport and arts.

When he started, Withey relinquished the office allocated to him on campus so he could spend as much time as possible “experiencing what it’s like to be here”.

David Withey in 2022 when he was CEO of the ESFA

Advice for Blair

Withey’s career trajectory started with rocket boosters attached, as his first job after studying history at the University of Nottingham saw the fresh-faced youngster “in the room, giving advice to prime ministers”.

Withey had followed a cousin into the civil service fast stream and been posted to Belfast to work on constitutional policy.

Following the 2006 St Andrews agreement (which restored power-sharing in Northern Ireland after years of political deadlock), Tony Blair wrote him a thank-you letter that Withey still cherishes.

He later became head of constitutional policy “a brilliant training ground” for communicating policy ideas, and was up until almost sunrise knocking heads during the 2010 Hillsborough Castle Agreement to get devolution back up and running in Northern Ireland.

In 2011, he had to have his “arm twisted” when he was asked to join the Treasury because of its reputation within the civil service for “very ambitious young people stabbing each other to get ahead”.

Although there was a “very strong contingent” of public school-educated Oxbridge graduates, he “never felt in any way disadvantaged” by his state school background.

A place in the sun

He led the Treasury’s local government spending team at a time when austerity loomed over budgets.

One dreary October morning at 1 Horse Guards Road, an email caught Withey’s eye asking if anyone wanted a secondment to Sydney to run the spending team for the New South Wales (NSW) government justice department.

He envisioned a relaxed life down under where civil servants clocked off at 4pm to head for the beach. But the reality was his working day was much the same as it had been in London, although he and his family appreciated the sunshine.

The plan was to stay for a year. The family ended up staying for seven more.

Withey ran NSW’s Covid economic taskforce at the start of the pandemic, which he laments as “six months of my life I’ll never get back”. He then had his first foray into education as chief operating officer for NSW’s Department for Education.

Withey appreciated being “closer to the frontline” in working for a state rather than a national government; At Whitehall, he had felt at times “a lack of proximity to the real world”.

But power was “quite centralised” at state level, making him an “even bigger fan” of more place-based devolution for England.

During the pandemic, Withey’s mum developed a brain tumour, and global travel restrictions made it hard for him to visit. So the Withey family decided to return home, with their kids (now aged 14, 11 and eight) by then “sounding like Crocodile Dundee”.

The family established themselves near the site of Glastonbury Festival, and I am aghast to hear that although he gets free tickets (for living so close), he has never been. “I’m quite happy sitting in my chair at home listening to the sound of music drifting our way”, he says.

ESFA chief executive David Withey at the AELP autumn conference

Not so wild

When Withey arrived in his next role to run the ESFA in 2022, he was “pleasantly surprised” to find that his perceptions of “appalling behaviour” during the education sector’s “Wild West” days were over.

The agency was facing upheaval as it had been stripped of its policy role and its staff count was subsequently halved. But Withey believes that during his time at the helm, the ESFA did “lots to make sure we were positioning ourselves in central government conversation in a way that enabled us to be the voice of the sector”.

Now that many of his former colleagues have been moved across to the Department for Education, Withey believes the DfE “has got better at thinking about that delivery piece”.

“There are some really good people around now who take delivery really seriously,” he says. “I’m not sure that was always the case.”

David Withey at his SGS Wise campus

Prickly clawbacks

ESFA clawbacks were the thorn in the side of many FE finance teams, but Withey is quick to defend them and is proud of having taken his responsibilities as the accounting officer for £80 billion of public money “very seriously”.

“If people were misusing money there had to be consequences… I’d have got a kick in by Parliament if that hadn’t been done.”

Where a clawback related to activity that had taken place several years earlier, Withey was “really clear” that the process and timeframes had to be managed “in a really supportive way that didn’t totally break the organisations we were talking to”.

He believes that “more often than not” the agency “got the balance right”.

The ESFA was also the funding arm for multi-academy trusts, and Withey worked closer with ministers on the school side, particularly Baroness Barran, than with then-skills minister Robert Halfon.

His biggest regret is not having done more to build “cyclical certainty” into funding allocations.

The FE sector is “still having to be too responsive to late funding allocations”, which is “unhelpful for big organisations trying to plan and manage fairly tight margins,” he says.

Withey wishes he had done more to get “the whole of the government machine” to understand this, but the DfE is “at the mercy of Treasury” which is “at the mercy of ministerial decision making”.

“Too often we’re at the back end, then having to scramble to make decisions,” he says.

David Withey watching a football match on SGS Wise campus

Enjoying life

His visits “out in the sector, looking at how the money was being spent” were the element of his job he enjoyed most, but he also “fell into the trap” of believing the FE sector was “more homogenous than it actually is”.

He tells me his “mind has been blown” since arriving at SGS by the “variety of provision and innovation happening at college level”.

Withey arrived with the notion that a fierce sense of competition between education providers could be problematic, and spent his first months in office “trying to get rid of all the sharp-elbowed nonsense” by working in partnership with local colleges and universities.

The City of Bristol College has campuses nearby, which Withey says is “fine” because “in this new world we’re all best mates”.

“The funding system drives some of the natural focus on numbers, but at least until 2030-odd there’s enough [money] to go around to mean that we don’t really need to worry too much, right?”

SGS will be riding the wave of the teenage population surge for the next four years, and after that, “massive housebuilding on our doorstep” in the form of one of the government’s biggest new-town developments of up to 30,000 homes is likely to keep demand high.

Withey suggests one solution to the capacity squeeze on colleges could be expanding timetables rather than teaching space.

He recalls how, when he worked for the education department in New South Wales, plans were put in motion to change school timetables so one pupil cohort started early, and another finished late, meaning buildings could be used for more students each day.

Although the idea ultimately proved too difficult to deliver because of “massive workforce challenges”, Withey believes colleges “need to think a bit more creatively about how we use our space” – either because of financial constraints or population demand increases.

He is in discussion with local partners in the public and third sectors, about allowing them to make use of the college’s “amazing facilities that sit unused for 18 weeks a year”.

SGS has done “lots of work around bringing learner voice into the decision-making process”, with new learner leadership team members each paid a small amount for their role.

SGS has “undoubtedly” seen a spike in young people with mental health concerns, which Withey partly blames on the “constant connectivity” of social media “rewiring people”.

Vaping is another topic of “big debate” at SGS because of the challenges involved in implementing the college’s vaping ban. Instead, Withey is considering allowing vaping in some outside areas.

“I don’t have any interest in setting all of my teachers up to fail in terms of implementing a policy that frankly is not implementable,” he says.

David Withey with some of the man on SGS’s inter sports programme that helps recovering addicts and those leaving prison to finds jobs in the fitness industry

Sporting chances

Withey takes me for a tour of his vast campus, with its two football pitches, 12 five-a-side pitches, a rugby pitch where England’s Red Roses women’s rugby union team trained during last year’s World Cup, an Olympic-size athletics track, an indoor astroturf stadium and sports hall, and the only dedicated fourth-generation American football pitch in Europe.

Withey knows SGS is fortunate to boast such impressive facilities, and acknowledges it would probably be impossible for an FE college to take on such spacious grounds today.

He is “totally committed” to the college’s academy programme, which gives those with a passion for sport the benefits of “elite coaching” without taking a course in a sport-related subject.

Its former students include Manchester City player Antoine Semenyo, but the college is “not trying to sell a false dream”. “We’re saying to our learners, ‘Come to us, do the sport you love, but you’ll also get proper pathways to future careers’,” Withey says.

Our next stop on the tour is the campus gym, to meet men who were previously in prison or receiving treatment for addiction, and are now retraining as fitness instructors and personal trainers.

By the end of this year, this programme, which launched five years ago, will have supported 55 people, including 44 directly from prison. Only one has since returned to jail. This is an impressive result, given that nationally, 29 per cent of people leaving prison are proven to have reoffended within a year.

He modestly admits to being “not the most emotional man in the world”. But the annual awards celebrating these learners’ achievements proved to be a real tearjerker moment for him.

“This is exactly what FE is about – addressing some of the barriers to learning for some of these guys who otherwise would be at risk.”

His words reflect the reasons why he made the move into the FE sector in the first place.

“I care a lot about equality of opportunity,” he says. “I went to a comprehensive school and got lucky. I want everybody to be able to access that quality of teaching and learning that we seek to deliver here.”

Waltham Forest College names Jane Button as next principal

Waltham Forest College has appointed Jane Button as its new principal and CEO.

Button will take over this summer from Janet Gardner, who will retire in August after six years in post.

Button will depart her current role as principal of Southwark College, part of NCG, after spending around four years at the helm.

Gardner said earlier this year it was the “right time” to stand down now the college was in a healthy position.

She joined when Waltham Forest College was in early financial intervention. Under her leadership, the college was awarded an ‘outstanding’ Ofsted grade in 2024 and now has ‘strong’ financial health.

The college is expected to achieve a ‘good to outstanding’ financial health grade this academic year, according to its 2025 accounts.

Paul Butler, chair of governors, said: “This is an inspiring new chapter for the college. Building on the outstanding leadership of Janet, we are thrilled to welcome a new principal and CEO who embodies our vision and dedication to excellence.

“With the college in a position of great strength, we are confident this leadership will champion innovation, sustain our momentum, and create lasting impact for our community.”

Button began at NCG in 2020, where she joined Lewisham College as vice principal learner experience and resources.

She became principal of Southwark College in 2022 when previous principal Annette Cast left to lead Stanmore College.

Button has spent 20 years leading and managing post-16 education in several London boroughs.

She started her career as a media and English teacher at Newham Sixth Form College before moving into her first management position at BSix Brooke House Sixth Form College in Hackney.

Button said: “I am absolutely delighted to be appointed as principal and CEO of Waltham Forest College. It is a privilege to take the lead of such an important anchor institution, which has been guided with great integrity and commitment under the leadership of Janet Gardner.

“While I will be very sad to leave the college where I currently serve as principal, I am deeply honoured by the opportunity to serve the staff, students and communities of Waltham Forest College. I look forward to working together to continue to uphold the values, aspirations and future success of this inspirational college”.

Gardner added: “Waltham Forest College is a truly special place, and I am extremely proud of everything we have achieved. I am delighted on Jane’s appointment and I am confident that her leadership will not only take the college forward but also contribute to the continued success and reputation of the further education sector.”

Manufacturing has moved on, and so has our training

The world of advanced manufacturing in the UK is evolving rapidly, and with it, curriculum must move fast to keep pace with the demands of a dynamic and increasingly technical industry. Too often, training feels disconnected from the realities of the workplace – delivering theory without context, and qualifications without confidence. When we launched our skills Bootcamps at the Textile Centre of Excellence, our goal was simple: to give learners real, hands-on experience that they could immediately apply, while helping businesses develop the skilled teams they need to thrive.

The programme was designed off the back of feedback taken directly from UK manufacturers, and we turned those insights into a first-class curriculum offer that reflects what the industry actually needs – not what it needed a decade ago.

Over the past two rounds of funding, part-supported by the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and managed locally by Kirklees Council, the programme has helped over 120 learners gain practical skills across the textile sector. From sourcing raw wool through to production, quality control, and finishing, participants don’t just learn about the processes – they see and take part in them. There’s a noticeable difference in confidence and capability when someone can connect classroom knowledge to real-world work. That connection is where genuine learning happens.

Running these Bootcamps hasn’t been without challenges. Coordinating with manufacturers, adapting training to reflect rapidly evolving industry needs, and ensuring accessibility for unemployed learners or those returning to work have all required careful planning and flexibility. Timetables shift. Industry priorities change. Learners arrive with very different starting points. Each challenge has reinforced a lesson we return to time and again: meaningful skills development requires genuine collaboration between educators, employers, and learners – and a willingness to adapt when circumstances demand it.

The success of the programme is pivoted on its technical inclusion, rather than just focusing on traditional manufacturing operations. Learners see first-hand how new, innovative approaches to manufacturing are being implemented across the sector, giving them a broader and more future-focused perspective on the industry they’re entering or returning to. That wider view matters. The textile industry is not standing still, and neither should the people who work within it.

The team leaders and supervisors Bootcamp has been especially rewarding to deliver. Leadership in textiles isn’t just about managing production – it’s about inspiring teams, solving problems on the spot, and creating an environment where people want to stay and grow. These are skills that can’t be learned from a textbook alone. Seeing delegates put these capabilities into action and then share their successes with peers is one of the most fulfilling aspects of this work.

Opportunities have emerged in equal measure. Businesses have seen tangible benefits, as the Bootcamps have widened the horizons of their staff, increased their knowledge of the industry as a whole, and enabled them to apply newly learned skills directly in the workplace. For many employers, this has strengthened teams, improved performance and opened new avenues for innovation within their operations. The return on investment – in human terms as much as commercial ones – has been clear to see.

For learners, the experience opens doors, not just in advanced textile production but in broader manufacturing and creative sectors where practical skills are valued. It’s exciting to see people who might have struggled to find employment suddenly gain the confidence to pursue a meaningful career. That transformation – from uncertainty to capability – is what drives everything we do.

What makes these Bootcamps special is not just the curriculum or the funding that makes them possible. It’s the chance to bridge the gap between education and employment in a way that benefits everyone involved. I’ve seen learners transform, employers embrace new ways of developing their people, and a local industry strengthened by individuals who feel capable and inspired. The industry is vibrant once again, and the complexity of the technical textile supply chain is buoyant with potential.

As we continue to deliver these programmes, my focus remains on keeping them responsive, practical, and deeply connected to the needs of both learners and employers. For anyone considering similar initiatives, my advice is simple: involve the industry at every step, listen to your learners and never underestimate the impact of hands-on experience. The results speak for themselves.

AI translation tools are reshaping ESOL, but not for the better

I’m marking a set of entry-level ESOL writing tasks.

The prompt is simple: Write about your daily routine.

It’s a task I return to often because it reveals the development process of learning writing. At entry level, writing begins with limited vocabulary and partial understanding. Learners test what they know, approximate what they don’t, and build meaning step by step. A first draft is rarely accurate, as it’s not meant to be. Instead, it shows how a learner is thinking through language.

But as I read through the scripts, it becomes obvious.

The sentences are structured with precise grammar. Ideas flow in a way that doesn’t match what I know of the learner’s current level. The writing is both fluent and accurate but the problem is it’s not their own.

When I ask how the work was produced, the answer is direct: a translation tool.

AI translation tools are not neutral supports in ESOL classrooms. When they shift from supporting learning to completely replacing it, they disrupt the messy, essential processes through which language is truly acquired.

There’s no doubt these tools have value. In multilingual classrooms, they can support communication, reduce isolation, and help learners access meaning quickly. When used carefully, they can help build confidence — especially at lower levels, where linguistic barriers are highest.

The issue therefore isn’t that learners use them but what they significantly replace in the process of language acquisition.

In practice, what begins as support can quickly become the default. Many ESOL learners are adults managing complex lives: long working hours, caring responsibilities and limited study time. Faced with these pressures, the efficiency of a translation tool is understandably appealing. But pedagogically, it comes at a cost.

In the moment that a learner would normally search for a word, attempt a sentence, or make an error, that fundamental part of the process is being skipped.

The learner is no longer forming the sentence for themselves, and meaning is no longer being worked out step by step. The authentic mistakes that they can connect their understanding to through feedback are never made, which creates a significant gap in opportunities to learn from.

This pattern isn’t limited to writing. In class, smartphones are ever-present. I encourage their use for soft support: to check meaning and aid participation. Yet it’s increasingly common to see tasks mediated entirely through translation apps. Learners photograph texts and instantly translate them. Speech is also recorded and converted before it’s even attempted. The space where learning would normally happen is not only erased but the confidence needed for any speaking activity is crippled.

Language learning is uneven and uncomfortable. It depends on repetition, hesitation and error. These aren’t inefficiencies – they are the process, and every learner needs reassurance that it is normal. When that process is removed, it becomes very hard to track and evidence real development.

This is why recent claims that AI tools or apps like Duolingo could replace ESOL provision are misguided. There’s no doubt these technologies can support vocabulary and basic interaction, but they don’t replicate the relational, developmental heart of language learning.

ESOL classrooms are more than spaces where language is delivered. They’re environments where learners practise, receive feedback, negotiate meaning, and build confidence. They’re also sites of connection – often vital for those facing isolation from their wider communities.

A translation tool doesn’t know its learner and can’t build interpersonal exchanges, see hesitation, spot error patterns or respond contextually to learners’ needs. It also can’t assess progress meaningfully. In formal ESOL settings, teachers must evidence development over time. That requires visibility of a learner’s own language production, including its limits. When learning outputs are generated externally, it becomes harder to recognise or measure what a learner can actually do for themselves.

The question, then, isn’t whether AI tools are positive or negative but how they’re positioned. When they are used selectively, they can support understanding and skills development. However, we must also acknowledge that they risk displacing the very processes that make language learning possible when used uncritically. Instead of outrightly banning them, the task for educators becomes ensuring they remain scaffolds for language learning, not substitutes.

In ESOL, progress is found in the gradual, imperfect work of building language, one uncertain step at a time. That work cannot be outsourced to produce perfect sentences that are void of the messy, sometimes awkward but meaningful language found in authentic learner work.

When CAMHS fails, the classroom becomes the front line

It was when the student walked slowly behind me that I felt most intensely afraid. We were almost through the lesson; it wasn’t a particularly exciting lesson, that’s true, but that wasn’t any reason to act like this. The student had closed his book a few moments before and pushed it away from himself on the desk. He then stood, silently, slinging his bag over his shoulder. He was static for a second, as if listening for something no one else could hear. This young man had not been formally diagnosed but had all the behaviour patterns of schizophrenia with paranoia.

Schizophrenia is a label that can still strike alarm. Newspaper headlines scream it freely, then sell copies on the back of stories about yet another stabbing in the street. It’s an alarming diagnosis. Imagine a doctor telling you that about yourself. Imagine you’re confused by what is going on. People are looking at you and talking. They must be plotting against you. Everyone wants to hurt you, even the doctors. And inside a voice is telling you to act, or something terrible will happen.

The fear that stirs in you then is bound to force anger to the surface, anger that is always a secondary emotion to help us keep powerlessness or fear or shame at bay. The teacher is right there; the focus of the room. He’s the target now. The teacher knows that someone suffering with such a problem is most of all dangerous to themselves. But right here in this classroom, this situation is undeniably dangerous to me.

The rest of the class is confused by the sudden outburst. I keep calm, so the students stay calm. The situation, although still unfolding, must be ok if the teacher is calm. After all, the teacher sets the weather in the room. And the teacher is right there, sitting at the desk and speaking calmly and slowly and clearly as the disturbed young man towers over him and then stalks slowly behind his chair, having already issued his out-of-the-blue threats.

I know this young man has a history with knives and assault. He’s clearly not well. Every person in that room has to be careful, with their cue coming from me.

A teacher’s role is an odd one. I’ve had to stand between fighting teenagers, both stronger than me. I’ve been squared up to by young people who’ve gone on to kill, been sworn at, screamed at and blamed.

As a result, I’ve asked the questions such an experience must raise. Why was he there in the classroom at all? Why was he not receiving help? It’s simple. CAMHS is creaking under the weight pressing down from outside.

It’s sometimes said that the true measure of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. I was vulnerable as that young man threatened me. More importantly, my students were vulnerable too, even if they were not aware. But the most vulnerable person of all in that room was the young man himself. His illness was affecting us all. Because what each of us does affects all of us. That, in a nutshell, is why some of us are teachers, doctors, nurses, police officers or mental health care professionals, because we know that what we do can affect the whole.

When our young people are allowed to carry on without the treatment they need, it inevitably affects others. When that turns into something more violent, it might hit the headlines. But most of the harm – self-directed, silent, and hidden behind the closed doors of too many ordinary homes – will never ever be known. What should be hitting the headlines and causing a scandal but does not is the shocking paucity of our society’s impoverished approach to CAMHS.

My student’s mother is scared. She is watching her son decline, desperate for help. The social worker or mental health worker has a ridiculous caseload, all of them urgent, and paperwork piling up. More than half a million young people in our country are waiting for mental health help and assessment. The wait to be seen can be a lingering hell of months or years, even. What happens to such young people while they’re waiting? If they remain in education at least something is ok, so they can’t be such a priority, it seems to be thought. So the buck is passed and down the triage list they slip. But in an emergency, sometimes you have to look for the silent ones first. Someone screaming is still breathing. So what about those who are not crying out, but suffering in silence still? Do we wait for them to start screaming too? That will be way too late.

I got over the encounter in the classroom in about twenty minutes, albeit with a few days off later in the week. In the immediate aftermath, a cup of tea and supportive colleagues put me back on my feet. For the young man involved, a cup of tea isn’t really going to do the trick.

Who will piece back together the shards of his shattered soul?

The heroes working in our system are up against the odds. Years of cuts, decades of neglect, misunderstanding, dismissive social attitudes even, have left their services buckling and young people suffering. That should be in bold headlines on the front page. Instead, that young man is back at home now. Hidden away in his room and out of education again. His mother remains scared for him and of him, and afraid for her other children too.

The measure of our society must remain how it treats its most vulnerable members. Ask any teacher who those vulnerable people are; every one of us could show you a few.

Apprenticeship reform is squeezing the very SMEs it needs most

The government’s apprenticeship reforms are being positioned as a deliberate pivot towards young people and SMEs. But when we look more closely a different and worrying picture begins to emerge, and one subgroup risks being squeezed out altogether.

The point at which employers become levy-paying employers – having a pay bill greater than the £3 million threshold – has not changed since 2017. For the 24-25 financial year around 37,000 employers paid the levy, compared to just 22,000 when it was introduced. This is a direct result of fiscal drag and wage inflation, which has significantly extended the ‘tail’ of the levy. This has created a large group of “marginal levy payers” who by their very nature are the same SMEs that the government supposedly wants to enlist to help employ and train more young people. These are employers doing the right thing. They are engaged, investing in skills, and often recruiting young people into the labour market. Yet under the current reforms, they risk becoming the biggest losers.

Positively, there will be a new hire £2,000 cash incentive coming from October 2026 to support small businesses. Originally, the government headline announced this as an incentive for SMEs; however, the detail now says it’s an incentive for non-levy paying employers (typically SMEs). If you are a marginal levy-payer, then sorry, there actually won’t be an incentive for you. Strike one.

Also from August, there will be fully-funded training for new starters aged under 25 in non-levy paying employers. This is a welcome move, removing unnecessary barriers for smaller employers. However, co-investment arrangements for levy payers are conversely shifting from 5 per cent to a sharp 25 per cent surcharge for all age starts from August 2026. That’s all ages, including under 25 – the exact group the government wants to do more for, which is somewhat bizarre. And which employers will feel this quicker and sharper than anyone? Yes, you guessed – it’s the marginal levy payers who spend their fractional levy pot and will flip into the new 25 per cent co-investment model. Strike two.

Historically, levy transfer has been the fiddly mechanism to offset co-investment costs. However, providers tell us that levy-payers have become more cautious in the last 12 months about gifting, primarily as they wait to see the art of the possible with apprenticeship units. In August, the government will cut the 10 per cent top-up levy payers get and cut the expiry period of funds from 24 to 12 months, plus transfers become more costly due to the switch from covering 5 per cent to 25 per cent of the cost. All three of these factors are likely to result in levy payers being even more cautious about gifting levy funds.

From April, apprenticeship units will start for adults aged over 19, and they will be fully funded for both levy payers and generously for non-levy paying employers too. However, there is a catch. Where levy-payers exhaust their levy funds, then in the period of April to July a 5 per cent co-investment cost appears, which is highly likely to increase to 25 per cent from August. Again, who will be the first segment to feel the burden on this? Yes, you guessed it, marginal levy payers. Strike three.

We are already seeing signs of this in specific sectors. Take dentistry. Most levy-paying dental employers fall into this marginal category. They operate on tight margins and rely heavily on apprenticeships to bring in new talent. Under the proposed changes, employer contributions for a level 3 dental nurse apprentice could rise from around £400 to £2,000. For a level 4 Oral Health Practitioner, from £450 to £2,250. Around 80 per cent of dental nurse apprentices are aged 16-24, many entering directly from school or from NEET (not in education, employment or training) backgrounds. Faced with higher costs, employers may instead recruit already-qualified staff or turn to privately funded qualifications with no off-the-job training requirement.

If marginal levy payers are crowded out, the system loses some of its most committed SMEs, and with them, thousands of opportunities for young people. That would be a high price to pay for reform intended to achieve the opposite effect. As a minimum and in line with wider stated government objectives, there should be no co-investment for 16-24 year olds in both non-levy payers and also when levy payers exceed their levy. This is an ask that AELP will continue to make of the government.

NEET rise raises the stakes for qualification reform

The challenge of youth disengagement is becoming harder to ignore.

In the UK 957,000 16-24 year olds are currently not in education, employment or training (NEET), with 411,000 unemployed and 547,000 economically inactive.

These are the conditions in which post-16 reform is unfolding, shaped by intersecting pressures pushing too many out of education, employment, or training.

Health is a defining factor. In 2024, 27 per cent of 16-24-year-olds in England disclosed a health condition, with over half (51 per cent) of NEET young people reporting one.

Layered over this is a demographic shift. England is projected to have 838,000 more 16-24-year-olds in 2034 than in 2022. And regional disparities are stark, with eight of the 10 local authorities in the North and the Midlands having above average NEET rates.

Necessary but risky

Meanwhile England is leading the transition to a three-route model built around A Levels, T Levels and V Levels, with the aim of simplifying post-16 qualifications.

The Department for Education will start to remove funding from existing qualifications covered by V Levels from 2027 onwards, with further defunding ahead as part of a phased, route-by-route review.

The government has moved away from a blanket removal of “overlapping” qualifications to a more pragmatic, evidence-led approach that retains funding for 157 qualifications for longer than originally proposed, explicitly acknowledging learner and labour market need.

Most existing vocational qualifications for 16-19-year-olds will be defunded as V Levels go live. They are designed to align with employer defined occupational standards and sit alongside A Levels and T Levels. Early-stage rollout, however, will involve limited subject coverage, and employer familiarity takes times.

At level 2, new pathways aim to create clearer progression towards level 3 or directly into work and apprenticeships. Yet these must remain flexible for learners requiring modular progression, pastoral support or the ability to switch pathways without penalty.

The strategic intent behind the reforms is understood, but risks arise from the way and the speed with which they’re implemented.

Where NEET risks emerge

NEET rates rise predictably at key transition stages, such as the move from year 11 to post-16, year 12 to 13 and from level 3 into employment.

The introduction of new qualification pathways adds decision points and, in some cases, reduced subject availability. These additional pressures raise the likelihood of disengagement among young people who already find transitions challenging.

Many of the qualifications due to be withdrawn support learners who succeed through applied, modular or portfolio-based routes. If provision is removed before new programmes are ready, learners may face gaps, raising the risk of disengagement and reduced progression.

While the reforms aim to simplify the landscape, employer understanding of V Levels will develop gradually. This lag will likely be most acute where employer demand for young workers is already limited, potentially affecting the early labour market value of the new qualifications.

Employers are offering fewer entry level roles and placing increasing emphasis on prior experience. In this context, continuity and stability in learners’ education pathways are essential. Turbulence could make it harder for young people.

Minimising NEET risks while delivering reform

Defunding should proceed only once V Levels or reformed alternatives are fully approved, staffed, timetabled and supported by employer engagement. A phased and evidence-based approach will protect continuity and enable a smoother transition.

The new level 2 pathways should allow flexible movement between routes, including access to funded bridging modules where required. This flexibility is essential to ensuring level 2 functions as a progression point rather than a limiting track.

Where learners may be displaced due to reform timelines, providers should receive targeted funding to support additional teaching hours, pastoral support, and tutoring. These measures are critical to preventing disruption and maintaining engagement.

Structured work placements, industry aligned programmes and pre-apprenticeship pathways can play a central role in supporting progression. Regions with higher NEET rates stand to gain most from targeted employer collaboration.

Early, coordinated communication about V Level standards, assessment models and progression routes is vital to building employer understanding and confidence. This helps avoid delays in recognition that could affect early employment outcomes.

The measure of success

Reform must not be judged on the elegance of the qualification map, but on whether fewer young people fall out of the system at each transition point.

A successful outcome will mean falling NEET numbers, continuity of provision despite change, and strong employer recognition of new routes.

We need smooth learner progression through level 2 and Level 3, and a system that is ready for young people, not one that expects them to carry the turbulence of reform.

Bauckham issues first rebuke over exam forms blunder

Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham has issued his first formal ‘rebuke’ to an exam board over ‘serious failures’ between 2019 and 2025.

WJEC was found to have failed to collect and monitor centre declaration forms for four of its Eduqas GCSE, AS and A Level qualifications over six years, which are offered in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Ofqual rebuke was first introduced as an enforcement tool in October. It is used for cases deemed serious enough for an awarding body to be publicly held to account, but that do not warrant a fine.

A WJEC spokesperson said the exam board regretted the instances of non-compliance, and that measures had been strengthened to prevent them from happening again.

The declaration forms are required to show that centres have complied with the subject content requirements.

WJEC admitted it had failed to make relevant staff aware of the requirements related to the declaration forms.

The qualifications affected included GCSE drama, AS and A Level drama and theatre, GCSE geography, and GCSE computer science.

‘No evidence for adverse effect on learners’

Bauckham said the rebuke “demonstrates our commitment to taking action to protect students and uphold public confidence in qualifications”.

He added: “The circumstances of this case include that there was no evidence to indicate any actual adverse effects on students.

“However, these failings by WJEC represent serious breaches of Ofqual’s conditions across multiple subjects and years.

“The failures had the potential to prejudice students and undermine public confidence in the validity of regulated qualifications.”

In its report, Ofqual acknowledged that WJEC had “taken steps to rectify its processes and prevent reoccurrence”, but that the failures “undermined essential assurance mechanisms”.

It added that the rebuke served as a “formal expression” of concern and set an expectation for WJEC to ensure it has “a strong regulatory compliance culture, systems and oversight to prevent similar incidents recurring in the future”.

The WJEC spokesperson said: “We take full responsibility and acknowledge that we did not meet the high standards expected of us.

“We have cooperated fully with Ofqual throughout this process and have undertaken a comprehensive review of our procedures.

“We have implemented strengthened measures to ensure this does not happen again, and we want to reassure learners and centres of our ongoing commitment to maintaining the highest standards.”

WJEC has entries for more than 4,200 centres in England, and accounted for 7.1 per cent of GCSE exams and 6.2 per cent of A Level exams in 2024-25.