Latest news from FE Week

The gender gap in engineering starts at home

There is a significant gender imbalance both in engineering apprenticeship starts and, in the interest expressed by young people in progressing towards an engineering career. Official data shows that 51 per cent of the school age population is male, but they make up over 90 per cent of all apprentices starts in engineering and manufacturing technologies according to the most recent government data, up from 80 per cent in 2024-25.

In research commissioned by our High Value Manufacturing Catapult, young people in school years 10 to 13 were surveyed on their interest in apprenticeships. The results were depressingly predictable when it came to gender imbalance. However, one interesting indicator emerged that may provide a focus for addressing this in a different way.

Our survey data showed, as expected, that male learners were much more likely to be interested in pursuing further learning in engineering and manufacturing, transport and logistics, and agriculture. Female learners were more likely to be interested in health and science, education and early years and care services. The data started to get more interesting when it explored their intentions. Male learners were more likely to be aware of apprenticeships and taking proactive steps towards investigating them. Female learners were much more likely to report that they are not aware of apprenticeships at all.

On the face of it this seems obvious given that male learners are more likely to progress to apprenticeships. However, there is no immediately obvious reason why female learners reported a lack of awareness. To explore this further, we looked at how often apprenticeships are discussed in different social contexts; school, at home, in peer groups and in other social situations.

The data showed that learners who reported higher numbers of discussions about apprenticeships in a wider range of social contexts were also the learners that were more likely to be aware of, and be taking positive steps towards, apprenticeships as a progression pathway. The data also suggested that discussions at home were most impactful. This is very important as there is a significant difference in how male and female learners are impacted by this.

In the school environment there is virtually no imbalance in access to information about apprenticeships, with those reporting five or more conversations about apprenticeships at school being 47 per cent male and 45 per cent female. The difference comes when looking at the different social contexts. Over a third of males report discussing apprenticeships at home and in their peer groups five times or more, but only one in five females report the same. There is therefore evidence to suggest that a lack of discussion of apprenticeships in the home may be having an impact on female progression into apprenticeships.

As our data shows that female learners are much less likely to discuss apprenticeships outside of the controlled environment of school, this may be directly causing their lack of progression into those roles. It seems that whilst the education system is giving access equally, the rest of society is not.

This is not a simple thing to change. The responsibility for encouraging families to explore apprenticeships equally cannot fall on an already overburdened education system. But approaches like government-backed publicity campaigns, social media engagement and effective role-modelling might reach female learners and their families, and get the conversation going. Whilst there are no easy answers, it is clear that if we really want to address gender imbalances in engineering apprenticeships then we really do have to talk.

This isn’t just a funding gap, it’s a planning crisis

The recent DfE confirmation of a 0.5 per cent increase to the 16-19 funding rate has created a growing sense of dislocation across the post 16 education sector. While the figure may appear, on the surface, to represent continued investment, the reality within colleges and sixth form settings is far more complex. For many providers, this settlement is not simply lower than expected. It is fundamentally out of sync with financial planning assumptions that underpin responsible budget setting.

In recent years, providers have been asked to plan strategically, often over multi-cycles, to ensure stability, sustainability and appropriate growth. These plans are built in good faith on established funding trajectories, workforce expectations, and policy directions. In many cases, institutions had reasonably anticipated a 2 per cent uplift, reflecting historic patterns and the broader policy narrative around skills development, technical education and regional growth.

The shift to 0.5 per cent has therefore not only reduced real-terms funding but has disrupted the basis on which financial planning decisions were made. This creates significant challenge – budget setting processes that are designed to be forward looking are now being forced into reactive calibration. In practice, this means revisiting staffing models, renewing curriculum plans and reconsidering previously board approved growth strategies, often part way through the academic and financial year.

For some educational organisations, this has already resulted in substantial funding gaps. These gaps are not theoretical, they are material, immediate and operational. They translate into the use of reserves, delayed investment decisions and increasing constraints on the ability to respond to student demand. Where growth had been planned, particularly in areas of high needs or rising student populations, providers are now having to pause or scale back activity.

This creates a wider systemic tension. On one hand, policy continues to emphasise the importance of skills, progression and expanding access to post 16 education. On the other, the financial framework within which providers operate is increasingly restrictive. The result is a growing mismatch between expectation and capacity: ambition at policy level is not always matched by the resources required to deliver it on the ground.

The implications of this are particularly acute in relation to staffing and curriculum breadth. Colleges are already operating in a highly competitive labour market for teachers and support staff. Real-terms funding erosion places additional pressure on recruitment and retention. This risks narrowing the range of subjects and pathways that can be viably offered. Over time, this reduces learner choice and limits progression opportunities, particularly in technical and vocational routes.

Alongside these immediate pressures sits a broader question of system coherence. Recent DfE messaging has placed increasing emphasis on strong governance and organisational health across education providers. There is a clear expectation that schools and colleges should operate within robust, well-structured, and financially substantiable organisations.

However, this raises a fundamental question: how can we demonstrate long-term organisational health when the cost funding mechanism underpinning our operations are increasingly unstable? Financial resilience is not solely a matter of internal efficiency. It is also directly shaped by the adequacy and predictability of funding settlements.

If funding assumptions shift significantly after budgets have been set in good faith, the result is not just operational difficulty but structural strain. Education providers are then required to absorb volatility that originates outside their control, while still being held accountable for delivering stability, quality and growth. This creates a challenging environment in which strategic planning becomes increasingly difficult, with long-term investments decisions constrained.

The system then moves into a cycle of short termism, where planning horizons shorten and decision making becomes more reactive than strategic. This is particularly concerning in a sector where continuity, progression pathways and curriculum coherence are central to student success.

I’m not suggesting that fiscal constraints are not real, or that tough decisions are avoidable. But there needs to be alignment between policy intent, funding mechanisms and operational reality. Without this, structural pressures accumulate in ways that are not immediately visible but have long term consequences for capacity, quality and ease of access.

As the sector continues to adapt, there’s a growing need for honest dialogue about the relationship between funding levels, policy ambition and delivery expectations. Providers are ready to engage in that conversation, but it must be grounded in the reality of what is happening in institutions today, not just in high-level policy aspirations.

Creativity and collaboration helped us secure local T Level industry placements

Finding high-quality industry placements for T Level learners can be difficult. For the media, broadcast and production T Level, providers across different regions face common challenges, but those located on the doorsteps of industry ‘hubs’ such as Manchester and London do have a headstart. For those of us based further away from obvious opportunities, we have to get creative. But the results can be fantastic for our learners.

Richard in Norfolk

We want learners to gain genuine exposure to their industry on their placement, building their skills and fueling their enthusiasm. We don’t want them to spend hours just running the photocopier and doing tasks that could be done anywhere. My learners at City College Norwich specialise in being events and venues technicians as part of their media, broadcast and production T Level, so local theatre venues are one option for placements. However, other less obvious local opportunities have also produced invaluable placements. While we have had to be flexible in our course delivery to accommodate the industry’s seasonal and project cycles, the outcome is well worth it.

One example is our local folk festival, Folk in the Field. Initially, our learners were asked to design some festival projects, which were judged by the festival’s organiser. Impressed by the work, he invited our students to join his festival on a two-week residential this summer, running their own stage. They will be involved in all parts of the process from putting up fencing and organising logistics to working with staff on the main stage.

Another opportunity arose after attending one of the Education Training Foundation’s (ETF’s) Industry Insights days for T Level delivery staff. Visiting the Royal Opera House, I connected with their staff who lead on education partnerships and we are now working together on a distance learning project pilot. This offers learners the balance of visits to the opera house with the ability to complete many placement hours remotely within college. This flexibility particularly supports us in ensuring each young person has a placement that suits their individual needs.

Chloe in Berkshire

At Kennet School in Berkshire, we’ve taken a proactive and collaborative approach to helping students access high-quality placements. Like Richard, setting up placements for our students has meant focusing on removing barriers, especially ensuring placements are local enough to be affordable. As a school, we put a great deal of energy into building strong relationships with employers. We spend time preparing organisations for placements and setting clear expectations, which means that students and employers consistently have a positive experience.

Our students specialise in content creation and production for their T Level and we’ve benefited from the flexibility of working with an additional supply-chain employer to support them in completing placement hours. We’ve developed a process where our students begin with an ‘umbrella’ placement that introduces them all to production, including access to a real set, which they’ve been genuinely thrilled by. They then go on to pursue their own placements across supply-chain areas, such as lighting, sound engineering or film dubbing. The confidence they develop after these experiences is remarkable.

Although much of the work in this industry is project-based and seasonal, this has still opened up some fantastic opportunities. One example is a local film festival for young people, Evolve. Our students will be attending in June and helping with recording and producing promotional material for social media and the website – an experience that gives them real industry credits and hands-on production work.

Crossing regions

Industry placements are a challenge for most providers, so cross-regional collaboration and learning from others is great for sparking ideas. We were introduced to each other following ETF’s T Level leadership mentoring programme, which supported us with reflecting on challenges and trying new things, including building our social media presence to support with forming employer partnerships.

Solidarity with other practitioners and shared learning has boosted our confidence, and that has fueled our ability to think outside the box when it comes to placements and our wider practice. It is ultimately our learners who then reap the benefits with placement opportunities that leave them excited about their course, and much better prepared to join the workforce.

Colleges are losing learners before they even enrol

Colleges and ITPs do a lot around learner recruitment. Campaigns, open days, outreach. There’s no shortage of effort going into getting people through their doors.

They’re not short of interest or visitors to their websites. They lose prospective learners after that.

A website visitor asks a question. It might be about funding, eligibility, or whether they can fit a course around work. It might come late in the evening, between shifts, or while they’re looking at other options on their phone.

In my experience, around 60 per cent of enquiries arrive outside standard working hours, when most institutions have nothing but a contact form or a voicemail waiting.

What they get back is usually a form they have to fill in, or a message saying someone will respond later.

That is where things start to break, because the context FE is working in has changed.

Right now, close to a million people are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Some have low-level qualifications or none at all. Many have already disengaged once and some won’t try again.

At the same time, colleges are dealing with more adult learners coming back into education, more learners with additional needs, and more people trying to fit learning around unstable work or caring responsibilities. It’s a fragile pipeline.

For all these learners, that first interaction carries such a lot of weight. If someone is unsure whether they qualify, or worried about cost, or just not confident asking the question, they are not going to push through a slow process. They are not going to fill in a form and wait for a reply. They are deciding whether education is for them at all.

If the answer isn’t there for them, they don’t follow it up. They drop out before they’ve even started.

Colleges work with many learners for whom English isn’t their first language. The enquiry process often assumes a level of confidence in written English, in forms and in systems. If the first step depends on that, some people won’t take it. That’s a barrier sitting right at the start of their journey.

And it doesn’t show up properly in the data. It happens before enrolment, before conversion is measured, before there is anything to report. But it has a direct impact on who comes through the doors, and who never does.

Colleges already invest heavily in reaching these learners. Outreach, partnerships, community work, employer links. The grassroots effort is there; I’ve seen it. But it is being lost at the point of contact. That’s where a significant drop-off sits.

It’s easy to point to funding or staffing. Those pressures are real. Teams are stretched and demand is rising. But this is also about how the system is set up.

Most enquiry processes still assume there is time. That the learner will wait, that someone can come back to them later.

This is 2026 and that assumption doesn’t hold anymore.

People are comparing options. They are making decisions quickly. They are doing it outside standard hours, often while juggling everything else in their lives. If they ask a question and don’t get an answer, they move on. Not just to another college or ITP, but sometimes out of learning altogether.

If the sector is serious about widening participation, this is the point that needs to change.

Not just how we attract learners, but how we respond when they reach out.

We must remove the friction, making it easier to ask a question, easier to understand the answer and easier to take the next step.

At AskEd, that’s what we’ve focused on – making sure that when someone asks a question, they can get an answer straight away in a way that works for them, including in different languages and outside standard hours. Because that moment someone decides to look at your website is more important than many admit.

Get it right, and someone takes the next step. Get it wrong, and they’re gone.

AI can help learners think like examiners, if we use it properly

T Level learners often understand their subject. The real challenge for them is showing that understanding in extended exam answers.

In my finance classroom, learners were regularly struggling with 9-12 mark questions based on case studies. They could identify key ideas in the scenario but their answers often stayed descriptive. Points were repeated, evaluation was thin and arguments lacked structure. In other words, they knew the content but did not always know how examiners expected them to write.

This is not unique to my classroom. Extended responses in technical qualifications demand something quite different from many learners’ previous exam experience. Instead of recalling knowledge, they need to interpret information, analyse options and justify decisions.

That is a big leap.

Many learners tell me that the questions feel vague. Words like “analyse” or “evaluate” appear in exam papers, but learners are not always sure what those words actually look like in a strong answer. Mark schemes emphasise analysis and evaluation, yet students rarely see examples of high-band responses that show how these skills are applied.

So I tried something different.

Instead of treating artificial intelligence purely as a risk to assessment integrity, I wanted to see whether it could help students understand how examiners think.

Over the course of a half-term, I introduced what I now call an AI examiner feedback cycle.

Students first answered extended-response questions independently. Only after completing their answers were they allowed to use AI tools such as ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot.

They would upload their response and ask the AI something like:

“Act as a T Level examiner. Assess this response and explain what would be needed for it to reach the highest mark band.”

The feedback highlighted strengths, pointed out missing evaluation and suggested ways to strengthen the argument. The learners then asked the AI to generate a high-band model answer.

The crucial step was not copying that response. Instead, learners compared it with their own work and analysed the differences.

Where had the model used case-study evidence more effectively?
Where had it justified decisions more clearly?
How had it structured the argument?

Students then attempted another extended-response question and repeated the process.

After several weeks, the change in how they approached these questions was noticeable.

Answers became more structured. Learners began introducing points, applying case-study evidence and then explaining or evaluating the implications. They also became more confident using evaluative language and considering alternative outcomes within a scenario.

Perhaps most importantly, learners said the process helped them understand what examiners were actually looking for. Instead of seeing mark schemes as abstract criteria, they could see how those expectations translated into real answers.

This experience also made me reflect on how we talk about AI in education.

Much of the conversation focuses on preventing misuse. That concern is valid, but it can also lead us to overlook the ways that AI might support learning when used carefully.

In further education classrooms, teachers often struggle to provide detailed written feedback on extended responses as frequently as learners might need. AI cannot replace teacher expertise, but it can offer an additional layer of feedback that helps their learners to practise and refine their thinking.

Used thoughtfully, AI can help learners unpack assessment expectations and develop stronger analytical writing.

The real question for the FE sector isn’t simply whether AI should be allowed in classrooms.

It is how we use it to strengthen learning.

And sometimes, the most powerful use of technology is simply helping learners to see their work through the eyes of an examiner.

HMRC drops VAT appeal but warns colleges over tax reliefs

HMRC has ruled out an appeal to the Supreme Court over a long-running VAT battle with Colchester Institute.

In a policy briefing published this week, the tax agency confirmed it will not appeal last month’s Court of Appeal ruling that paved the way for colleges to reclaim VAT on pre-2010 building projects.

Officials now plan to “consider the terms of the judgment” in consultation with stakeholders before publishing updated guidance.

However, colleges that have chosen to apply the same VAT discounts on large building projects as Colchester Institute “may” fall under the same tax rules as private schools, HMRC has warned.

The dispute brings an end to a complex nine-year court fight between HMRC and the Essex college over what tax discounts can be claimed on a large building project it started in 2008.

It is understood to impact an estimated 20 to 30 colleges with similar claims – made using a rule known as the ‘Lennartz mechanism’ that was withdrawn in 2010.

Judges have repeatedly accepted Colchester Institute’s arguments that government grants paid to colleges are a “business activity” for tax purposes, because funding agreements suggest they are for delivering approved courses to eligible students.

HMRC argued grant funding agreements were for more “general” financial support.

The tax agency’s decision means colleges with Lennartz claims can continue to recoup VAT paid on certain pre-2010 capital projects.

But the ruling has also cast uncertainty over college sector finances, as they could lose access to charitable “reliefs” worth millions, such as zero-VAT rate for new-build construction projects and 5 per cent tax rates on fuel and power.

Await further guidance

The HMRC briefing confirmed that colleges that have not followed the Colchester Institute can continue to use these reliefs until new guidance is issued on “a future date yet to be announced”.

It also warned colleges which have followed Colchester that they “may be” within the scope of private school fees legislation and should ensure they understand “all the VAT obligations and financial consequences that would follow”.

Socrates Socratous, VAT consultancy partner at accountancy firm Buzzacott, said it is very important that colleges claiming reliefs will not face any “retrospective impact” when the rules change.

He added: “It is however noted that HMRC refers to the multi factorial analysis of the court and the need to review the funding agreements.

“This might give an opportunity to limit the potential wider effect of the decision, hence the reference to further consultation.”

An HMRC spokesperson said: “We have accepted the Court of Appeal’s judgment and will now consider its implications with stakeholders before announcing any policy changes.”

The case highlights long-running concerns from colleges that the sector is losing hundreds of millions of pounds because, unlike schools and academies, they cannot reclaim VAT on purchases linked to education and training.

In December, the prime minister pledged to “have a look” at the issue and “talk to the Treasury”, admitting that further education needs “more resource”.

Downing Street did not respond when asked for an update this week.

Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive at the Association of Colleges, said: “The HMRC update seems to provide clarity on a very complicated area of VAT, but individual colleges may need to check with their tax advisors and/or use the non-statutory clearance request process to ascertain their position.

“Colleges and their students benefit from the VAT reliefs on energy bills and zero-rated new building costs but still pay a net cost of more than £200 million a year.

“Unlike schools and other public sector organisations, they cannot reclaim these costs and, as a result, there is less money available to be spent on further education and equipping the next generation with the skills they need to help the UK thrive.”

DfE gets softer on English and maths resit entries but tougher on results

Colleges face lighter sanctions and greater freedom over when students resit English and maths, but risk tougher penalties if results slip.

Fresh accountability plans, published as part of a consultation today, follow commitments made in last year’s post-16 education and skills white paper to better recognise the progress students make towards achieving level 2 in English and maths.

Around 40 per cent of students begin post-16 study without a GCSE grade 4 in English and/or maths. The current condition of funding policy forces 16 to 19-year-olds without a grade 4 in English and maths to continue studying the subjects. It is often criticised by colleges for driving endless resits.

Ministers accept that progress towards level 2 in the core subjects happens in a “complex environment” and is not always captured by blunt exam outcomes. The government is now proposing changes designed to make greater “fair representation” of student progress while “reinforcing high standards” to sharpen accountability.

Here’s what you need to know.

Relief on exam entry penalties

The most immediately welcomed proposal is likely to be a softening of the penalty applied when students are not entered for English or maths exams.

Currently, any resit student who is not entered into an exam for an approved qualification contributes a score of -1 to a provider’s progress measure – regardless of how long they have been enrolled, even if it is one year. This has been criticised for incentivising premature resit exam entry.

The Department for Education said it wants to “recognise there may be valid reasons to enter a student for an exam after only one year but want to ensure providers who delay entry in a student’s best interests are not penalised in the progress measures for doing so”.

Under the proposal, that penalty would only apply after a student has spent at least two consecutive years at a provider. Those who leave or complete a one-year programme without sitting an exam would no longer count against performance scores.

Officials said they envisage this change will support providers to enter students into exams “when they are ready to make progress” and do not anticipate the change will drive behaviours around off-rolling or restricting entry to exams.

But this flexibility is paired with a tougher shift elsewhere. The consultation proposes lowering the floor on negative progress scores from -1 to -2.

Tougher scoring for declining performance

At present, students who achieve a lower grade post-16 than they did at GCSE are capped at contributing -1 to a provider’s score, even if their performance drops by more than one grade. Under the proposed system, that cap would move to -2 where a student achieves two grades lower.

The DfE argues this will “more accurately reflect” student progress and discourage inappropriate exam entry. In tandem, the penalty for not entering a student for an exam if they have been at a provider for two or more consecutive years would also be set at -2.

Winners and losers

Officials plan to make these methodological changes to the English and maths progress measures published for students completing 16-to-19 study in the 2027-28 academic year, which is the data due to be published at provider level in spring 2029.

Government modelling suggests around a quarter of providers would have seen an overall improvement in their progress scores if the new methodology had been applied previously, because “for some providers” the removal of penalties for one-year students outweighs the stricter grading cap.

Prior attainment fairness

A third proposal aims to offer fairer representation of the progress students make based on their prior attainment.

Alongside headline progress scores, the DfE plans to publish additional breakdowns by prior attainment – specifically for students entering with GCSE grade 3, and those with grade 2 or below. Data on exam entry rates and the proportion improving their grade would also be included.

This will provide a “more rounded and transparent picture” of provider performance, the DfE argued, particularly for lower-attaining students who are often hardest to support.

Questioning qualification achievement rates

Alongside progress measures, ministers are also mulling changes to English and maths qualification achievement rates (QARs).

The measure currently credits providers for achievement even when students repeat a qualification and secure the same or lower grade.

The consultation seeks views on whether QARs should better reflect genuine progress, particularly in light of concerns about the negative impact of repeated resits on student morale, highlighted in Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review.

Latest available data shows that 16.1 per cent of young people did not achieve level 2 English by age 19, rising to 20.3 per cent for maths in 2023-24.

Of those who had not achieved by age 16, 74.7 per cent of students did not reach level 2 in English between ages 17 and 19 and 83.5 per cent did not reach level 2 in maths.

The consultation asks providers how they think QARs could be made clearer to show when a student achieves a higher grade than they did previously, as well as how the current English and maths measures “influence provider decisions about qualification pathways, curriculum planning, and exam entry for students subject to the maths and English condition of funding”.

The consultation closes on 21 July.

16-19 performance measure shake up: What you need to know

Ministers have announced plans to bolster 16-19 performance measures after admitting public accountability data misses the outcomes of nearly one third of young people.

A Department for Education consultation, published this afternoon, said its current headline accountability measures for schools and colleges’ 16-19 provision only cover around 68 per cent of students because many vocational and technical qualifications are excluded.

This means the data is “not equally useful” for all providers, “in particular further education colleges where much of the 16-19 activity that is not captured in performance measures takes place,” the consultation said.

New performance measures are set to be created for V Levels that are “broadly” in line with reporting requirements for A Levels and T Levels.

And the two new level 2 pathways, alongside level 1 and below provision for the first time, would also be brought in scope for “consistent” performance reporting, with attainment, progress, retention and destinations proposed as the baseline minimum measures.

Colleges face lighter sanctions and greater freedom over when students resit English and maths, but risk tougher penalties if results slip. Click here for a separate story on the English and maths accountability proposals.

DfE also wants to scrap two of the three current student retention measures, making ‘retained and assessed’ the sole headline retention metric on new school and college profiles from this autumn.

Here’s what you need to know.

Why change?

Information about school and college performance on 16-19 education doesn’t give students and parents a full picture, DfE argued.

Courses currently in scope include A Levels, some other academic qualifications, applied generals, tech levels and level 2 technical certificates.

But many vocational and technical qualifications are left out because they do not meet old performance table criteria or because of a moratorium on new qualification approvals being in place since 2018.

DfE said this has left the tables too narrow, especially for further education colleges.

The department now wants headline performance measures that are more consistently applied across 16-19 provision at each level. Having one single set of measures covering all 16-19 learners has been ruled out as this would not capture the “nuance” of different levels and qualification types.

Instead, the government wants comparable measures within each level, which is particularly pressing as new mainstream qualifications, like V Levels and new level 2 foundation and occupational certificates, enter the game.

V Level performance

V Levels are due to be rolled out gradually from 2027 and will eventually replace many existing level 3 vocational and technical qualifications. The government’s aim is for students to choose A, V or T Levels, or a mix.

DfE wants V Level outcomes to be reported alongside A Levels and T Levels and said the measures should be “broadly consistent” across the three routes. They propose this should include attainment, progress, and retention, along with destinations and English and maths progress where relevant.

The earliest provider-level V Level performance measures could be published is spring 2030.

DfE is asking the sector how V Level performance can be reported alongside A Levels and T Levels, recognising that some students will combine A Levels and V Levels in their study programme.

Level 2 pathways will be measured

As set out in the post-16 education and skills white paper, the government’s aim is for the foundation certificates and occupational certificates to become the mainstream level 2 pathways for school leavers.

At the moment, level 2 performance measures are only reported for technical certificates approved before 2018.

DfE wants level 2 measures to be broadly consistent with level 3 where possible, using similar measures such as attainment and progress. But as the foundation certificate will be designed for students to progress to level 3, DfE is consulting on whether an extra progression measure should be included for those courses.

Like V Levels, the foundation and occupational certificates will be first taught in 2027 and rolled out gradually.

The first foundation certificate results will be out in 2028 so will first appear in provider-level performance tables in spring 2031 following a two-year level 3 course.

For occupational certificates, the first results are due in 2029 so will appear in provider-level performance measures for the first time in spring 2030.

Level 1 and entry-level courses

DfE is also proposing to create new performance measures for level 1 and entry-level learners

Currently, these learners are included in destination measures, and relevant English and maths qualifications can count towards English and maths progress measures. But their wider qualification outcomes do not count towards headline attainment, progress or retention measures.

Around 6 per cent of 16-19 year olds in education studies at level 1 or below in 2023-24.

Just over a third of level 1 learners are recorded as having SEND or an EHCP. For entry-level learners, that figure was 57 per cent.

DfE said it was not proposing to copy the level 2 and level 3 model for this cohort because “we recognise that students may have quite different end goals from their peers at level 2 and above — whether that is progressing into further study, moving into employment, or developing essential life and work skills.”

The consultation doesn’t specify a set of measures for level 1 and below, and instead asks for views on what they should be.

Headline retention measure replaced from this autumn

DfE wants to scrap the current headline retention measure and make a bolstered version of the ‘retained and assessed’ the sole metric published on schools and college performance profiles.

At present, the headline retention measure shows the percentage of students retained to the end of their core aim.

DfE also publishes a ‘retained and assessed’ measure, which shows whether students stayed to the end of their course and were assessed.

A further ‘retained and returned for a second year’ measure is still published in underlying data, although it has already been removed from the public-facing digital service.

DfE wants this to become the only headline retention measure on new school and college profiles from autumn 2026.

Importantly, DfE will, from 2026-27, take the ‘assessed’ element from ‘retained and assessed’ from awarding body data, rather than from schools and colleges. They said this was to prevent data errors that have in the past distorted retention scores.

Another methodological change will mean students on a level 2 core aim that are assessed at level 3 will count as retained and assessed.

In the longer term, DfE is seeking views on whether students who leave a level 2 or level 3 course to start an apprenticeship should be counted as ‘out of scope’, rather than negatively, in the ‘retained and assessed’ measure.

The consultation closes on 21 July 2026.

FE teacher training probe widened after ‘café placements’ scandal

A review into an FE teacher training course has been escalated after investigations found certificates were withheld and some students did placements at restaurants.

The Office for Students (OfS) announced it will examine the outcomes and associated student loan tuition fee funding paid to higher education institutions delivering the level 5 diploma in education and training (DET).

The regulator’s probe will span the final three academic years the course was delivered: 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24.

In 2024, the Department for Education replaced the course with the diploma in teaching (further education and skills) to “better align teacher training with contemporary educational needs and standards”.

The DfE and OfS have cracked down on initial teacher training in the FE sector in recent years after finding “persistent” poor-quality provision.

This appears to be the first ever review of outcomes and payments for an individual HE course by the OfS.

Teaching placements in clothes shops

The sector-wide DET review follows alarming findings at the Applied Business Academy (ABA), which taught the course to around 2,000 students at campuses in Luton and Canary Wharf.

A key required element of the course was 100 hours on a teaching placement.

Investigators found only 6 per cent of placements for ABA’s students “appeared capable of satisfying the requirements” of the course, with trainees logging placement hours in non-educational settings including cafés, clothes shops, freight firms and building companies.

ABA went into liquidation in October 2024 while being probed by the OfS, avoiding potential “significant penalties”. None of the provider’s DET students received certification at the time of closure.

Concerns deepened following a separate OfS investigation into London-based Brit College, which enrolled a total of 1,174 students on the DET across five cohorts between September 2022 and September 2023, receiving over £5 million in tuition fees over the period.

None of those students were awarded the qualification, an OfS report published last November revealed.

Investigators found similar placement issues to ABA at the Brit College, with trainees listed with “inactive” organisations and other firms with no clear link to education, such as small restaurants.

During the investigation, Brit College stopped offering student loan-funded higher education and left the OfS register of providers. It became insolvent in February.

Show me the money

It is not clear how many affected students at both ABA and Brit College, now saddled with student loan debt, have been able to complete their courses at alternative providers.

The DET course at both institutions was awarded by City & Guilds.

Based on the findings of the ABA and Brit College regulatory reports, the OfS said it is “now launching a review into outcomes for students and the associated amount of student loan tuition fee monies paid to institutions delivering the DET course”.

A spokesperson said: “The report is expected to include the amount of Student Loans Company tuition fee funding paid to institutions for the delivery of this course, the number of students registered to study this course at individual institutions and subsequently formally enrolled with relevant awarding organisations, completion rates, and the final number of certificates awarded at each institution.”

Without providing specific figures, the OfS told FE Week that providers in scope of the investigation were chosen based on numbers of students enrolled on the course during the three years. Providers with a “small number” of students on the DET course were excluded from the review.

Awarding bodies will not be in scope of the review as they are regulated by Ofqual.

The OfS has not yet set out a timeline for the review’s conclusions.