‘Wonderful’: DfE simplifies residency rules for adult learners

Adult education providers will only need to ask the residency status of learners under simplified eligibility rules released this week.

From August 1, adult learners signing up for non-devolved adult skills fund (ASF) courses will be eligible if they can prove they are ordinarily a UK resident on the first day of learning.

Initial ASF rules for 2025-26, which came out in April, listed a long set of learner residency criteria, including where they were from and how long they had lived in the UK.

But the Department for Education this week simplified residency requirements for courses taking place in England.

That means learners who have been temporarily living outside the UK, Irish citizens, learners who have applied to extend their visas, EEA nationals and non-UK nationals could have eligible residency status from day one of their course.

Funding experts hailed the DfE’s move as “wonderful news” but different rules still apply for mayoral combined authority areas, and visa changes could make it difficult for providers to prove a learners’ eligibility status.

An updated version of the funding rules will be published early next month.

Sue Pember, policy lead at HOLEX, said: “This is really good news. We could have done with it 10 years ago, but it’s still really good news.”

Referring to combined authorities with devolved powers she added: “I’m hoping they just all adopt DfE rules now.”

Funding and data expert Steve Hewitt told FE Week: “Whilst it is wonderful news that DfE are making these long-needed changes, it is a shame they’ve only announced it because they’ve been forced into it due to the removal of dates from visas in the Prove Your Immigration Status system, leaving providers with no way of checking a learner’s status.

“It is even more of a shame that this leaves apprenticeship funding rules even further out of step and even more discriminatory to learners on visas who now find themselves in the Kafkaesque situation of knowing they are legally here but being unable to prove it to the satisfaction of the DfE, despite them doing everything the Home Office has asked of them”.

The DfE confirmed it would not be changing adult education course requirements for asylum seekers. 

Asylum seekers are only eligible for central adult funding if they have lived in the UK for more than six months while the Home Office is considering their claims.

The DfE has maintained bans on access to ASF funding for those on student visas, on holiday or on restricted-residence permits.

Alex Stevenson, deputy director at Learning & Work Institute, said: “Increasing flexibility in adult skills fund eligibility is helpful in supporting more learners, including migrant communities, to access learning. 

“But the bigger picture is that nine million adults have low essential skills, and tinkering with eligibility criteria does nothing to reverse over £1 billion of cuts to adult skills investment since 2010, which have resulted in 2.1 million fewer adult learners gaining essential skills like literacy and numeracy.”

Marples trial: ‘Resentful’ funding agency ‘spooked’ 3aaa buyer

A multi-million-pound buyout of 3aaa was sabotaged after a top skills official “spooked” the buyer, Peter Marples told the High Court as the government’s barrister ran through his history of believing public servants “resent” his wealth.

The apprenticeship giant’s co-founder was also put to task about data manipulation accusations that led to his company’s ultimate collapse, describing multiple whistleblower accounts and investigators’ conclusions as “absolute garbage”.

Former Derby County FC joint-owner Peter Marples, 61, spent almost two full days on the witness stand.

He and other family members are seeking damages of at least £37 million plus interest from the government after the collapse of Aspire Achieve Advance (3aaa) in 2018.

Marples, his wife Sarah, son Thomas and his nephew Lee Marples, claim the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) Skills Funding Agency (SFA) “maliciously” foiled the planned sale of 3aaa to private equity firm Trilantic Capital Partners (TLP) in 2016 by refusing to agree to a change in control over 3aaa’s large publicly funded contract.

Non-levy impact

The government announced in 2015 it intended to launch an apprenticeship levy in April 2017. This would be paid by large employers and have a significant impact on the way apprenticeships in small and medium-sized employers (SMEs) were funded – who were then known as non-levy payers. 

James Segan KC, for the DfE, claimed the only reason the 3aaa change of control was refused in December 2016 was because the business plan from TLP was “premised on an assumption” of significant growth of non-levy business.

This was “far too optimistic in view of the impending changes in the funding environment” – namely a proposed initial £5 million cap on non-levy contracts for training providers set to come in from April 2017.

3aaa’s contract at this point was worth £31 million. TLP’s business plan assumed revenue would double between 2016-17 and 2018-19, with 70 per cent of that income coming from non-levy employers, despite the cap.

Marples claimed there would be no impact from the cap on 3aaa in the medium term because the company had £18 million carryover funding, it was ramping up its subcontracting with colleges as well as apprenticeships with large employers, and they operated in the 16 to 18 age group.

No impact would be felt until 2018-19, which was not part of the contract held by 3aaa in 2016 at the point of sale, Marples said. 

He added that this was also TLP founding partner Joe Cohen’s view before then SFA chief Peter Lauener “had clearly spooked Mr Cohen by informing him in essence non-levy funding would come to an abrupt end”.

Segan relayed a draft email from Cohen following a meeting with Lauener who said there is a “strong likelihood that there may be no money or at least substantially less money in the SME market over the next few years”.

Segan told Marples: “I suggest to you that was not TLP’s view. They clearly did not think there was no risk to business from the current funding environment.”

Marples replied: “They believed there was risk to the business based on what Mr Launer had told them. Quite clearly Mr Launer spooked them and that is why we are here today.” 

He added that his view of no impact “became reality” because the cap was never introduced and non-levy funding did not significantly reduce.

Segan also read out a text exchange between Peter Marples and his operations director after the SFA refused the change of control.

Marples said: “SFA said no, too reliant on SMEs”. After the operations director questioned how this could stop the TLP purchase, Marples explained: “In essence the business plan TLP sent the SFA showed continued growth and reliance on SME funding. The SFA letter says they cannot agree to a change of control TLP with the assumption SME funding will continue.”

The operations director replied: “Oh that makes more sense.”

Segan said this showed “you both understood the reasoning, yes?” Marples explained he was “simply telling [the operations director] on a text what had happened”.

Lauener offered TLP the chance to submit a new business plan and reconsider the change of control, but Cohen pulled out in the New Year.

History of ‘resentment’ 

Marples’ witness statement said he “felt certain”, as far back as the 1990s during his time at KPMG, that three senior individuals within the government’s then Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) “resented the success and dominance of the firm and in particular my leadership”.

This continued following the sale of his first training provider ASSA to Carter & Carter that earned him over £25 million. Around this time Marples felt “it had become personal” with government officials.

He was also part of a consortium that bought Derby County FC which “didn’t help with my reputation” with the then named Learning and Skills Council, partly because his wife flew and owned a helicopter, Marples said. He later sold his stake in Derby County FC for a “successful” sum.

Segan said: “By this point, nearly twenty years ago, your own wealth was already in the tens of millions?”

“Yes, but then I had a divorce”, replied Mr Marples.

“You are saying, as I understand it that, the SFA had a personal dislike for you because you’d made a substantial amount of money from the sale of ASSA?”, asked Segan.

“Correct”, answered Marples.

Segan said: “I assume that is because you assume public officials – as we’ve seen on two previous occasions – must resent you for your wealth?”

“There is evidence to support my conclusion”, replied the apprenticeships tycoon. 

Defence rejects ‘malice’

Despite perceived hostility over his wealth as a private sector boss, Marples accepted that the size of 3aaa’s public funding “grew significantly” from 2012 after being awarded its first direct contract by the SFA – reaching £31 million by 2016.

Funding from the SFA earned 3aaa a gross profit margin of 49 per cent in 2014, and the aim was to increase this margin to 78 per cent.

The court heard of sales presentations for 3aaa included that talked of “excellent revenue and profit visibility protected by high barriers to entry” and described the company as a “cash cow”.

In early 2016, the SFA commissioned KPMG to investigate 3aaa’s data submissions. The report, code-named Project Vanilla, said investigators “have not identified any evidence of deliberate circumvention of funding rules by the provider”, but there were dozens of overclaims which resulted in £300,000 clawback.

During the investigation, the SFA suspended payments to 3aaa.

The court heard that within weeks 3aaa was warning it was running out of cash. 

3aaa’s board decided to put the company into administration two months after suspension of payments. 

After hearing of this decision, Lauener did what Segan described as a “favour” by expediting a £3.6 million payment to keep the company afloat. Marples said this decision left him in “tears”.

Segan pointed out this was in the same financial year that Marples had taken £2.4 million out of the business. Marples claimed this amount was owed to him by 3aaa and he invested it into property and therefore did not have it to hand to save the business. Marples said he put in what he could, which was £200,000.

Segan said Marples was “already a very wealthy man” and referred to his “nine-bedroom house in Florida” and “Grade 2 listed” Manor House in Derbyshire.

“You could in fact have solved the company’s problems that you say you were in tears about”, Segan said.

Marples replied: “You are incorrect – I didn’t, if I had I would have done.”

Shares were not ‘worthless’

The Marples family claims that their shares were rendered “worthless and unsaleable” after the December 2016 change of control refusal. 

Segan said this was “absurd” to suggest, considering there were talks of another buyer purchasing 3aaa later in 2017. This sale did not materialise. Segan added the “real cause of any diminution of your shares” followed in 2018 when the government investigated 3aaa again, which led to termination and liquidation of the company.

Marples rejected this.

Manipulation ‘garbage’

The 2018 investigation, which led to 3aaa’s closure and resulted in a referral to the police but no further action, was discussed at length by Segan. 

He said the ESFA, which was under new CEO leadership at this point after Lauener had retired, found manipulated data to enhance qualification achievement rates (QARs), retained over £1 million in Apprenticeship Grant for Employers (AGE) funding that should have been paid to employers, and there had been changes to planned end dates to demonstrate how data was being altered and manipulated to trigger ESFA funding.

Marples said dodgy data claims “absolutely did not happen”, adding that there may have “human error” but no manipulation. 

Segan listed off numerous whistleblowers from inside 3aaa who came forward with accusations of data manipulation. 

This included 3aaa’s chief operating officer telling the ESFA that he recalls a meeting with “large numbers of staff” the Friday prior to the 2018 Ofsted inspection where Peter Marples said “we must strive for ‘outstanding’”. 

In reference to this and “in front of everybody, Peter Marples told Lee Marples he should work on the QAR that weekend to make it ‘outstanding’”. Lee Marples’ alleged response was “leave it with me”.

Peter Marples said this was “absolute garbage”.

An explanation for the data errors identified in the 2018 investigation was provided to the ESFA by Peter Marples, other co-founder Di McEvoy-Robinson and Lee Marples. 

Derek Mapp, ex-chair of 3aaa, who Marples described as a bully during his cross-examination, later told the ESFA that once Peter Marples and Di McEvoy-Robinson resigned, he undertook a review of 3aaa’s response and “decided the quality and substance was not appropriate”.

The new management of 3aaa also claimed “it is clear the anomalies have existed well before 2016-17 although they are similar in nature”.

Segan also used his cross-examination to bring up allegations of data manipulation at Peter Marples’ former training provider, ASSA. 

Marples drafted expert’s evidence

Segan ended his cross-examination by bringing to light a “matter of the utmost seriousness”. 

He said Peter Marples personally and directly drafted all 150 “purported” contributions of the claimants’ accounting expert, who was a Mr Vivian Cohen, to the first draft of the experts’ joint statement. 

This included lengthy passages of purported opinions of Cohen “on matters about which Mr Cohen accepts he knows nothing, and yet Mr Cohen then adopted those contributions as his own”.

Segan’s documents state that the “draft speaks for itself: the position is as fundamental and far-reaching as it is unacceptable. It undermines, quite inevitably, any confidence in Mr Cohen’s report as his own independent analysis”.

Marples said he had “no intention to interfere in the joint statement or put words into the mouth of Mr Cohen”.

The defence told the court that preparation of the experts’ joint statement “must not be influenced by the instructing parties, and that any substantive involvement by the parties or their representatives in that process is a very serious breach”.

The trial continues.

FE Commissioner: Beware of ‘hero’ principals and ‘dominant’ chairs

Outgoing Further Education Commissioner Shelagh Legrave has warned college governors to be wary of “hero principals” and “dominant chairs”.

In one of her final conference appearances before her term comes to an end in October, Legrave told delegates at Natspec’s annual conference this week she was “still seeing” boards of college governors “surprised” when their institutions run into significant financial or quality troubles.

Legrave’s keynote address on day two of the conference covered what she saw as key governance challenges facing colleges and came in the wake of her damning report into significant governance failures at Weston College earlier this year which saw £2.5 million in payments go undeclared to its former principal Paul Phillips. 

“You need to have transparency between your boards and your senior executives,” she said. “I still deal with colleges who run out of money, or who receive an ‘inadequate’, very occasionally, when it was a surprise to the governors. They haven’t asked the right questions, and you need to have the right board expertise”.

The commissioner restated her previous warning that governors spending too long as members of college boards can also be major risks. 

“I often talk to people who say, ‘why is it that terms are limited to normally terms of four years for board members?’ If you have served on the same board for 25 years, you’ve got a too cozy relationship, so don’t go there”.

She added: “Don’t have a dominant chair who doesn’t give you the opportunity to ask any questions. Don’t have a hero principal who does whatever they like and then you find that perhaps they’ve done something they shouldn’t have done”.

A major financial risk for specialist colleges is late payments from local authorities, with most colleges receiving funding from multiple sources. Lynette Barrett, CEO of National Star College and chair of Natspec, asked Legrave what the government could do to address the problem. 

Legrave agreed that “some local authorities are more efficient than others… we need to work with the Department and link with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government”.

She added: “It’s ridiculous that if you work with 48 local authorities [like National Star] they’ve all got different [funding] approaches. I’m really with standardising this stuff”.

White papers to give answers on EHCP and post-16 plans

The government’s SEND adviser has called on specialist college leaders to “respond vigorously” to two government white papers featuring post-16 reforms amid mounting speculation over the future of education, health and care plans (EHCPs). 

Dame Christine Lenehan told the Natspec annual conference that Labour’s “intended approach” to SEND reform will be set out in a schools white paper in the autumn. 

But the sector is also expecting a separate white paper on post-16 education and skills, expected as soon as July, leaving specialist college leaders concerned that 16-25 SEND provision could fall through the net.

Lenehan said the “evidence-based reforms” will be “about trying to move away from a system at the moment that is incredibly angry, into a system where we can collaborate and where everyone does not feel like they are fighting to get the support children and families need”.

The government’s starting point is that post-16 institutions “tend to do inclusion better than schools” and there “should” be a role for specialist colleges in supporting mainstream settings to be more inclusive. 

Natspec chair Lynette Barrett asked Lenehan if there were any guarantees over the future of EHCPs for post-19 students. This comes as FE Week’s sister paper Schools Week revealed last month that officials were considering options that could reduce the number of EHCPs. There is also speculation that the EHCP system could be scrapped altogether.   

Lenehan told the conference EHCPs were “the most challenging aspect” of SEND reform. 

“We’re looking at an EHCP system that uses so much resource that actually we don’t have the educational psychologists and speech and language therapists to work with children because they’re filling in the EHCPs, and where schools are telling us whatever the EHCP says, that’s not how they run the curriculum,” she said.

“In terms of post-19 in particular, government has to look at the whole age span. Some form of statutory planning process will remain, but that has not yet been agreed.” 

Lenehan urged delegates to “respond vigorously” to the white papers on post-16 and schools if “any parts you do not feel have addressed your particular needs”.

Dame Christine Lenehan

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 501

Amanda Scott

Director of Human Resources, Leicester College

Start date: March 2025

Previous Job: Director of Human Resources, LiFE Multi-Academy Trust

Interesting fact: Amanda loves setting a new personal challenge each year. This year’s goals include competing in a 10K race, completing a Wolf Run, and (if she can muster the courage!) finally doing a sky dive!

Donna Wiggett

General Secretary, Association of Educational Psychologists

Start date: September 2025

Previous Job: Senior education psychologist, Education Authority Northern Ireland

Interesting fact: Donna is a 7th Kup grade in Taekwondo (yellow with green stripe belt) and has completed over 50 park runs. She turned 50 earlier this year and her mission is to do 50 great things (of which one is becoming general secretary)

For Access to HE students, bills now matter more than books

Access certainly does transform lives; it did mine and I have seen it with countless other students during the course of my career.

I have been involved with Access to HE for well over 30 years, first as a student and then as a tutor, co-ordinator, quality assurer and finally quality manager for Laser Learning Awards.

We are one of the nine Access validating agencies licensed by the QAA to approve centres to deliver Access to HE qualifications.

In Fabienne Bailey’s recent article for FE Week, she advocates for a blended approach as it allows for the benefits of flexible delivery, which sits well with students’ often busy lives, and allows them to gain the real benefits of working within a community of learners and supporting one another.

I could not agree more, as the challenges Access students face are significant and multifaceted.

As an exercise to understand the impact of demographic factors upon achievement and grading, I have been analysing data for the last nine years. 

The impact of factors such as postcode deciles and ethnicity on graded achievement has been a constant during this time.

Less affluent students in the worst case are 15 per cent less likely to achieve an all-distinction profile (the highest attainment), and this intersects with other factors such as ethnicity and gender to condition the chances of success for students.

Black students have a higher probability of achievement but significantly lower chances of gaining all-distinction profiles.  

I wanted to understand why and how these factors impacted through students’ own perceptions. So we undertook a survey to which around 10 per cent of the students in our centres responded.

These responses contained very stark messages for those of us involved in the delivery of Access to learn from. And the uniformity of responses was striking.

Two thirds of students perceived their main barriers as falling entirely outside of the classroom. The main and most frequent barriers to engaging with their programmes, experienced by well over 40 per cent of respondents, related to economics. This was a constant across all demographics.

Black students were slightly more likely to note ‘scheduling work’ as the most frequent concern, as opposed to financial issues (such as paying bills) for white British students.

But the overarching message across all groups, regardless of social class, gender and ethnicity, was that economic factors formed the most frequent perceived barrier to progression. 

The percentage of more affluent students noting the perception of these concerns as ‘frequent’ fell in comparison with less affluent student perceptions, suggesting the challenges were experienced differently. Importantly though, the perceptions of barriers remained alarmingly constant for all groups.

In the new reality of flexible working, it is difficult for students to fit the pressing requirements of their employers to work when they need them (shout out to the impact of zero-hours contracts here), with fixed programmes of study. 

Conventional programmes of study don’t fit around realities more aligned to Heraclitus’ notion that ‘All is flux’. You might be free on a Tuesday afternoon when you start your course, but this may not be the case for its duration.

Engaging with a blended model to help the student fit the course around their lives is key.  Supporting them via flexible models of delivery and scaffolding when students cannot engage is not ‘good practice’; it is the new ‘necessary’. 

The Covid era has given us a rare moment to engage with new tools to support and scaffold learners. In my view, we must embrace these tools to full effect whilst also retaining the esprit de corps which makes Access the jewel in the FE crown.

The driving force must be to balance flexible delivery with face-to-face support. It will not be easy, but to ignore students’ lived experiences inevitably will lead to decline.

Students told us that they remain confident they will succeed thanks to their tutors’ support.  In my view we need to listen to them to reshape Access for a new era.

The country needs us so why treat ITPs as second-class providers?

Having spent over 15 years in the college sector and many more across education and skills, I find it frustrating that independent training providers (ITPs) are still treated like second-class citizens.

Yes, some ITPs have been associated with poor practice, but that’s not the whole picture. Today, we face very different challenges: record numbers of young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs), critical skills shortages, and adults needing to retrain for a rapidly changing economy.

ITPs are part of the solution

ITPs are well placed to respond – if given a fair chance. Their flexibility, responsiveness and entrepreneurial energy enable them to meet diverse learner needs, often at pace and scale.

We’ve seen the benefits of both learner and employer-led funding in apprenticeships since 2017. But outside of that, funding decisions still often prioritise institutions, not learners or employers.

For example, combined authorities in Leeds and Manchester received an additional £10 million, on top of £320 million nationally ringfenced for colleges. But only general FE colleges were invited to bid – despite many ITPs, such as SCL Group, having facilities ready to deliver.

Unequal access and missed opportunities

This exclusion extends beyond capital. ITPs are barred from incentives like the £6,000 recruitment bonus for teachers in high-demand subjects such as maths, English and construction. All other providers can access this – why not ITPs?

A persistent belief lingers that commercial providers are less trustworthy. But this stereotype is outdated. Poor practice is not exclusive to ITPs, and quality assurance already exists through Ofsted and awarding bodies like Gateway Qualifications, which rigorously assess outcomes for NEETs and adult learners.

Adding value, not competition

ITPs bring innovation and investment – often more rapidly than traditional institutions. They fill critical gaps in provision, especially for disadvantaged learners who some colleges struggle to support. We’re not here to compete with colleges; we want to complement them.

The question is not who delivers, but who delivers best for learners and communities.

Devolution and its consequences

Devolution has made the landscape more difficult. National ITPs have lost significant funding as Adult Education Budget (AEB) allocations pass to combined authorities, many of which favour local or familiar providers.

At SCL, we’ve lost £800,000 from our national contract because some delivery falls within newly devolved regions like the East Midlands. Now, we must re-bid without certainty for funding that we’ve already proven we use well.

This risks replacing trusted delivery with untested alternatives.

Some combined authorities openly state they only contract with colleges or charities. That approach locks out high-performing ITPs – hurting learners most.

Policy changes we urgently need

If we’re serious about a funding system that prioritises learners, not institutions, here’s what must change:

  • Equal access to capital investment, so all learner-facing capacity, not just college infrastructure, is used.
  • Allow top-performing ITPs to access funds reallocated from underperforming or underspending providers.
  • Pay providers for actual delivery, removing the 97 per cent tolerance rule on the adult skills fund for grant-funded providers.
  • Ensure equal contracting terms on growth funding, virement, innovation funds, and tailored learning across all provision types.
  • Recognise that many ITPs serve learners that traditional institutions don’t, especially NEETs and adults needing flexible pathways.
  • Support quality subcontracting, where ITPs can add agility and innovation to larger delivery frameworks.
  • Create a fair and transparent approach to devolved procurement, giving national and local ITPs an evidence-based chance to compete.

A call for collaboration, not competition

This isn’t about criticising general FE colleges – they play a vital role. But the sector must acknowledge what ITPs could achieve with equitable access to funding and opportunities. ITPs are not the villains of the skills system; we are vital partners.

How FE can be a force for hope in an increasingly polarised world

With the rise of right-wing politics and media, young people are facing big challenges – whether it’s misinformation, inequality or the pressures of social media. As educators, we have a responsibility to ensure that our students and staff feel supported, valued, and prepared for the world ahead.

I recently had the privilege of attending an important discussion in parliament, hosted by MP Dawn Butler and anti-discrimination lawyer Lawrence Davies. We spoke about the impact of race, education and social media on young people today, and how colleges can take meaningful action.

Leaders from BMet College, Suffolk One, University College Birmingham and the Association of Colleges’ director for diversity Jeff Greenidge were in the room. It was an inspiring conversation that reinforced the importance of equity in FE.

So, how can we as educators and leaders support our students and staff during these difficult times? Here are a few key things we can all do:

Make EDI training a priority

EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion)training isn’t just a tick-box exercise – it’s essential. Training should go beyond the basics, helping staff create truly inclusive learning environments where every student feels safe and heard.

Use media to spark conversations

TV and social media play a huge role in shaping young people’s views. Netflix shows like [ITALS] Adolescence have highlighted important conversations around gender, class and the impact of social media.

These are real issues that young people face every day. Instead of ignoring these influences, we should be using them as learning tools. Colleges can create workshops and discussions around these topics, helping students critically engage with what they’re watching and how it relates to their own experiences.

Create safe spaces for honest dialogue

Whether it’s race, identity or mental health, having dedicated forums or student groups can make a difference. When colleges provide these spaces they show a commitment to listening, learning and taking action.
I’ve witnessed and supported staff at colleges such as West Suffolk creating their own EDI TV shows and podcasts. Inspire Education has started an [ITALS] It’s Not Banter campaign developed by EDI lead Charlotte Akester. Part of this journey is working with our communities, as Inspire has done.

We don’t have to do this alone; closely collaborating with community leaders is key. Colleges should be building partnerships with local organisations, advocacy groups and experts offering support and resources. The more we connect with our communities, the stronger our support systems become.

Ensure staff are trauma-informed

Many students come to college carrying personal struggles – whether that’s discrimination, family pressures or mental health challenges. Having trauma-informed staff means we can support students in a way that acknowledges their lived experiences. This isn’t about having all the answers, but creating an environment where students feel supported.

Use data to drive change

Data is one of the most powerful tools we have. When used correctly, it can highlight gaps, track progress and help us make informed decisions.

Colleges should be looking at student outcomes, retention rates and staff diversity data to ensure they’re meeting the needs of all students.

But data should be used to create positive change, not just a report that sits on a shelf.

Help students become global citizens

The world is changing fast. Colleges should be preparing young people for diverse workplaces by teaching global awareness, cultural competency and inclusive leadership.

This isn’t just about getting them ready for jobs – it’s about helping them become thoughtful, engaged citizens. Turing scheme trips abroad are a great starting point.

Moving forward together

FE needs to create places of hope, empowerment and action. My goal is to support colleges in embedding inclusive practices, fostering safe and welcoming environments, and making a real difference in the lives of students.

The road ahead isn’t always easy, but by working together we can ensure that every student – regardless of background – has the opportunity to succeed.

I know how apprenticeships can fail… these reforms can fix that

I’ve always believed in the power of apprenticeships to change lives – mine included. But as I’ve become more involved, I’ve seen how gaps in the system can leave learners feeling unsupported, uncertain and at times, completely on their own.

That’s why I was encouraged to see the latest changes to apprenticeship funding rules announced last month.

They address some of the very issues that I and many others have faced – from unclear employment timelines to missing out on support we didn’t even know we were entitled to.

These changes are a step in the right direction. But unless they’re backed by genuine commitment from employers and training providers, apprentices will continue to fall through the cracks.

Enforce employment

One of the most important updates is that apprentices must now be employed for the entire duration of their programme, including the end-point assessment (EPA). This might sound obvious, but it hasn’t always been the case.

I’ve personally experienced what happens when your employment ends before your apprenticeship does. You’re still expected to complete the EPA, but without access to the support, tools, or workplace learning needed to succeed.

Ending an apprentice’s employment before they’ve finished their EPA is not just disruptive – it can be deeply demoralising. This rule change could prevent others from going through that uncertainty. But it will only make a difference if employers understand that an apprenticeship doesn’t end when the classroom learning stops. It ends when the apprentice is qualified, and not before.

Extend agreements

Another welcome addition to the funding rules is the requirement to extend apprenticeship agreements if the programme itself is extended.

Many apprentices face delays, whether due to illness, exam resits, or issues with training delivery. Without a formal extension to their agreement they risk being left without clarity over their pay, their responsibilities or even their legal employment status.

This change rightly closes a loophole that has caused confusion, and real harm for apprentices.

But implementation is everything. Employers need to treat agreement extensions as more than just a compliance task. They should speak to apprentices directly, explain what’s changing and why, and make sure support is in place during any extended period.

Clear, direct communication during an extension is essential. Apprentices in this situation are often already feeling anxious about falling behind.

Giving them certainty and reassurance can make a real difference to their confidence, motivation, and likelihood of completing the programme.

Support care leavers

I’m also pleased to see the new requirement for training providers to make eligible apprentices aged 16 to 24 aware of the £3,000 care leaver’s bursary. This may seem like a small administrative detail, but it could make a big difference.

Too often, those who need financial support the most are the least likely to know it’s available.

I’ve spoken to apprentices who were care leavers, but had never heard of the bursary until long after they started their programme, or missed out on it altogether.

Raising awareness should be the bare minimum. Employers and providers should go further: helping apprentices to apply, understand how it works, and use it to support their training journey.

Especially with the rising cost of living, financial support like this can mean the difference between completing a programme and dropping out.

Behaviour must change

These changes are necessary. They address long-standing gaps that apprentices and advocates have raised for years. But they’re also only as good as the commitment behind them.

Employers and training providers have a responsibility not just to comply with the rules, but to embrace their spirit.

Apprenticeships can transform lives. But to do that, they need to be underpinned by fairness, clarity, and care. That means ensuring employment is stable through to the end, that support is communicated early and clearly, and that learning time is respected and protected.

The new rules are a step forward. Now, it’s up to employers to take the next one.

The AI hallucination: Why tech will add problems, not solve them

If you missed last week’s AI-in-education announcements, AI ‘Testbeds’ will share £1 million across colleges. Yes, the Department for Education – which couldn’t set up the Multiply website with £110m – thinks £5,000 per college will have us competing with Silicon Valley.

What’s more, the government launched ‘Techyouth’ – basically ‘I Call App Britain’ from The Thick of It. And finally, the DfE’s embarrassingly-overdue AI guidance arrived.

I asked Gemini (Google’s AI) to estimate how many hours England’s colleges, schools and training providers had spent drafting their own policies while waiting for the DfE.

“They may have collectively spent around 1 million hours,” it replied. Don’t hold your breath for back pay.

It’s pretty obvious AI will increase teacher workload. Here’s why:

1. New technology never reduces workload

One word: Email. It’s consistently criticised for adding to teacher workload and stress.

The march of technology is rarely managed well. Early in my career in the 2000s, I saw energy drain from an exceptional English team as the unsustainable expectation of producing new Powerpoints every evening stole away their joy of teaching.

In the 2010s I worked in an ‘Apple School’ where smashed, locked, or low-battery iPads were a far trickier barrier to overcome than a forgotten pen ever was.

2. AI has already devalued teacher time

When I saw the Curriculum and Assessment Review asking for respondents to engage with over 40 huge questions in its consultation, I realised two things: First, there was no way anyone would read the inevitable thousands of submissions.

Second, the perceived value of teachers’ time had fallen off a cliff.

In 2021 when I was working on education recovery policy for the DfE, we were not allowed to put out a short survey to ask how long school days were, because the 30 seconds it would have taken to reply was seen as too great a burden to put on teachers.

When the DfE confirmed AI was to be used to read the Curriculum Review responses, the shift suddenly made sense. With civil servants no longer doing their own jobs, they assumed everybody else was dialling it in with AI too.

Those assumptions will soon filter down. It doesn’t matter if you are a skilled, conscientious teacher. Your AI-enthusiast colleagues are busy convincing everyone that you don’t need non-contact time because AI can do your planning, marking and feedback.

3. Government wants to cut costs, not workload

Government defences of piss-poor education funding have focused on the possibility of “efficiencies”; a euphemism for cuts and redundancies.

Let’s imagine the dream of AI is realised and teachers find it saves them 10 per cent of their time. We’re not going to find ourselves with increased leisure time that machines have always teased. Either the 10 per cent will be filled with the things on your list you never got to before, or – given widespread deficits – one in 10 teachers will be let go.

There are already concrete examples of AI adding to workload without any compensation. The new DfE guidance demands a CPD focus “on identifying and responding to online risks, including AI-generated sexual extortion”.

Teachers are also expected to navigate a data privacy minefield, which one college leader says is now an inset focus itself because “it would have been easy for [teachers] to think it would be OK to put a class set of data into the open source models”.

So what gives way to make time for AI CPD? Do we cut the time spent on subject specialism, or safeguarding, or actual pedagogy? No. Experience tells us that it will be an additional expectation.

AI is a shiny distraction from college funding. Workload is not the issue. The issue is 16-19 year olds aren’t funded for three months of the year, and consequently colleges struggle to match school contracts. So bring on the workload! Increase study programmes to something less internationally embarrassing, like 1,000 hours.

It’s important to remember that over the last decade of decline in funding for post-16 students, the DfE has doubled its headcount. Having been both a teacher and a civil servant, I know well which profession could actually be replaced overnight with the Windows 95 paperclip. Let’s get that money back into classrooms.