Coffey with Camden: Spilling the beans on Ofsted reforms

As Ofsted unveils a raft of reforms following the biggest consultation in its history, FE Week deputy editor Billy Camden seeks insights beyond the headlines with the watchdog’s chief operating officer Matthew Coffey. 

We saw Labour’s manifesto commitment in the run-up to the general election, and once the result was known, Martyn [Ofsted’s chief inspector] met with the secretary of state, and they explored this [removing single-phrase judgments]. 

We were asked to see what was the art of the possible. Everything in Ofsted is built around systems and we’ve had the overall effectiveness judgment for many, many years. 

These systems are old and creaky. They work, but it takes a lot of people underneath the bonnet to keep them going. It’s every letter, every report has got to be changed, and all the templates needed to do that is a huge, mammoth task.

So the question was, what could we really do to unpick this really quite quickly? And we came back and said we can do all reports in all sectors together for September 2025. If the education secretary wanted to do it now, we could only do schools. We responded openly, and the decision rested with the education secretary.

  • The Big Listen response talks about creating a “better tailored” inspection regime for the diverse range of provision in FE. Is Ofsted admitting that inspections are currently not tailored to different skills provision?

The public is telling us that the EIF [education inspection framework] doesn’t feel fit for purpose. I haven’t heard the strength of feeling previously that I heard in the Big Listen about it. So, I don’t think we’re admitting that it’s wrong. We didn’t hear people say this doesn’t look like it’s going to fit for us [during the EIF consultation in 2019]. If they had, we might have stopped and had a look, but we’re hearing it now. If you want something tailored, let’s have a look at how we achieve that as we start to consult. It will be massively helpful for FE people to engage in the upcoming consultation.

  • Will there continue to be a unified education inspection framework across all remits, or will each remit get its own inspection framework?

I can’t predict the future, but what we’ve heard very clearly in the Big Listen is that people really do want us to focus on the things that make their type of provision unique and in a way that they clearly believe the EIF doesn’t. 

We’ve committed to listen to that and consult fully as we move forward. So, it’s an important question, but we haven’t got that far yet. The aim is to introduce the reformed framework by September 2025.

  • Does Ofsted have enough inspectors, and can it recruit enough inspectors with specialist knowledge of the skills provision they’re sent to inspect?

We’ve got about 70 His Majesty’s Inspectors (HMIs) who come from a range of backgrounds including colleges and independent learning providers. We’ve got another 13 or 14 senior HMIs that oversee and manage them. We then have another 350 contracted Ofsted inspectors (OIs), and three-quarters of them are serving practitioners. They are people that work in the sector, they do their day job, and then they engage with us. This is how we get the specialisms. 

We’ve got a lot of people that are specialists. The challenge is getting them released from their day job. One of the big jobs of the Ofsted Academy here is to embrace that world of seeing the serving practitioners more fulsomely than we do now.

So in terms of just sheer numbers of people against the number of inspections, the answer is yes, there are enough. If it’s about wanting to get more and more, you know, kind of engagement with the specialist OIs and the precise nature of what they’re inspecting… that’s the issues that we grapple with.

  • The Big Listen response states that report cards will also be ‘tailored’ for FE and skills. Could we see unique-looking report cards for each remit Ofsted reports on?

I see a lot of commonality with different types of education providers, but I could see the opportunity for there to be, two or three areas where there’s some real difference. 

We’ve talked about classroom-based versus on-the-job training, there’s a big difference there. I’ve not seen any designs yet, but my deep knowledge of inspection frameworks tells me that while there’s a lot that’s common, I can see some space for there to be some differences.

  • Ofsted plans to introduce an area insights service, dubbed as an online portal that ‘captures the complexity of providers’ quality and performance’. Will this feature on Ofsted’s website and/or report cards? 

It is ambitious but it probably will. I want to see NEET figures in a local area, for example, which can lead to questions about whether there is a problem with careers advice in that particular area. Is there an insufficiency of provision of independent learning providers? Whatever it might be, I think it will help us to have a more grown-up conversation about the market, about the sector.

I hope the service is going to be designed to help providers in some of the decisions that they’re making about where there are gaps, where they could fill them, and where they could work more effectively.

  • Ofsted has five-day notice periods for ‘large and complex’ FE providers. Will the watchdog introduce this for all providers and colleges regardless of size?

We will consult on the right notice period. I remember when I was on a pilot inspection team at Exeter College, piloting no-notice inspections, and they all said it was wonderful because it just took the stress out. So we’ve got to get it right. It’s not as simple as giving all providers more notice. I’m long enough in the tooth to know that you can’t change your provision in five days. We’ve got to act with courtesy, empathy, respect, and think about people’s well-being, and giving more notice isn’t necessarily compatible with that.

So I don’t know what the right answer is, but we’ve got different approaches within the organisation that give us the opportunity to really help find the right answer.

  • You’re asking the government to allow you to inspect higher technical qualifications – why? Is this linked to what might soon see funded via Labour’s new growth and skills levy?

    That’s not what’s driving our thinking here [the levy], it’s quite a separate thing.

    HTQs are an important move introduced by the last government and we need to keep our eyes on them. When anything new, big and important is introduced, there’s every opportunity that it will either succeed or falter and potentially fail. If you’ve got an independent inspectorate that’s able to look at lots of other programmes that are similar in nature, we can tell government what is working well and what isn’t. We look at T Levels, we look at degree-level apprenticeships. We think it’s important to be able to look at HTQs as well.

    Twice as many students suspended in colleges since Covid

    College student suspensions have doubled since the Covid pandemic and exclusions are up 50 per cent, new data reveals.

    The figures obtained by FE Week shine a light on worsening behaviour in post-16 education – with sexual harassment, drug abuse, revenge porn and the killing of a sheep among the reasons for expulsions.

    FE Week submitted a freedom of information request to around 200 colleges for annual suspension and exclusion figures since the pandemic began.

    Of the 134 responses received, the data showed suspensions soared from 2,104 in 2019-20 to 4,173 in 2023-24.

    Exclusions ballooned from 981 to 1,526 during the same period (see table).

    While the Department for Education collects and publishes suspension and exclusions data for schools it does not collect figures from FE colleges.

    Colleges get tough

    FE Week’s probe found that colleges had proactively strengthened policies to manage misconduct on campus in recent years.

    The scale of issues including bullying, alcohol and drug abuse and racism in colleges across England has sparked concern from FE leaders who have pleaded for more investment to improve access to social care and mental health support.

    It has also prompted calls for the government to collect official figures from colleges so issues can be monitored.

    Responding to FE Week’s figures, the DfE said: “The number of suspensions and permanent exclusions puts into sharp focus the massive scale of disruptive behaviour that has developed in schools and colleges across the country in recent years – harming the life chances of our young people.”

    The department said there were no plans to extend suspension and exclusions data collection to colleges.

    Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said the government must work to tackle soaring suspension and exclusion levels.

    He added young people “are less likely to achieve good educational outcomes and to progress through education and into fulfilling careers – it is vital that we do everything possible to prevent this downward spiral”.

    The most common reason for suspensions stated by colleges in their FOI responses was violent or inappropriate behaviour, violence or assault, and drugs use and possession.

    Ben Beer, director of The Safeguarding Group which regularly audits colleges’ safeguarding data, told FE Week that colleges were being more “proactive” on issues such as misogyny, sexual harassment, assault and misconduct, and as a result bad behaviour now had “serious consequences”.

    He said: “Of course, with the wake of the pandemic still very present, and FE seeing young people entering their colleges who spent some of their very formative years in lockdown, it is no surprise this continues to be a challenge.”

    Earlier this year FE Week investigated the rise of bad behaviour in colleges.

    Behaviour concerns were underlined by research out this week from the Institute for Public Policy and Research and The Difference, which found 90 per cent of excluded secondary school pupils do not pass GCSE maths or English.

    A recent report from the Education Policy Institute also warned there was a “strong association” between suspensions during secondary school and young people not being in sustained education, employment or training (NEET).

    College leaders have maintained that suspensions are a “neutral act” and merely a “cooling off-period” pending investigation into a student’s conduct.

    Blackpool & The Fylde College, which suspended 93 students last year, said learners were given online learning materials whilst suspended for usually up to five days and were expected to reintegrate into college upon return “ideally with their behaviour changed”.

    A spokesperson added: “It is unlikely that suspensions cause poor outcomes. It is much more likely that underlying behaviours, if not effectively challenged and supported, lead to poor outcomes in school and afterwards.”

    ‘Last resort’ exclusions

    Permanent exclusions are typically seen as a “last resort” and colleges have multiple stages of disciplinary procedures in place – including a right of appeal for students – before they are expelled.

    In serious cases of gross misconduct, cases are accelerated. For example, last year Plumpton College in East Sussex expelled two students who were arrested after a sheep was attacked and killed on the South Downs. Two others treated as significant witnesses were “withdrawn from their course”.

    Colleges said exclusions were recorded as withdrawals on their system, many of which were due to non-attendance.

    Eddie Playfair, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said: “Post-16 college students commit to college attendance and behaviour policies which are based on an expectation of high attendance, safe, respectful and responsible behaviours. Withdrawal is absolutely a last resort.”

    Local authorities are required to find alternative education for excluded students under the age of 18 but have no obligation for over-18s. Excluded students are able to reapply to the same college in the next academic year.

    Holistic help needed

    Playfair said colleges would “definitely welcome” more data on exclusions and suspensions in FE from the DfE to allow them to see the “full picture and respond accordingly”.

    He added: “There is always clearly more that can be done, and it does require a collective approach from organisations across the further education landscape.”

    The DfE said that while it did not apply the same pupil information regulations to FE as schools, the department was “committed to supporting colleges in managing these challenges effectively”.

    Some colleges have strengthened policies and support teams to manage behaviour and promote student wellbeing.

    Nottingham College, for example, said it invested in a “strong wraparound network” including a wellbeing and behaviour team which the Association of Colleges recognised as a model of best practice.

    Last year the number of exclusions at the college doubled from 20 to 40 cases due to low attendance and unacceptable behaviour.

    Meanwhile, Lincoln College revealed it saw a large jump in exclusions in 2022-23, from two to 40, due to a combination of a “zero-tolerance approach”, a rise in student numbers and an increase in incidents on campus.

    It said: “In recent years the group has focused staff on the rigorous application of our disciplinary policies, particularly in relation to incidents like physical altercations, intimidating behaviour and malicious communications.”

    At Hopwood Hall College, in Rochdale and Middleton, Greater Manchester, the number of suspensions shot up from 95 in 2022-23 to 217 last year.

    The college, like many others, has adopted trauma-informed practices to holistically improve behaviour and implemented a free breakfast club and mental health access to address the potential causes of bad behaviour.

    It also carried out a transition project in 2019 which targeted 200 young people at risk of being NEET who is said ended up “thriving” in education.

    Beer added that college leaders shouldn’t lose sight of low-level disruptive behaviours, such as vaping, using phones in class and not wearing lanyards, as it could “chip away at the resilience and wellbeing of staff”.

    Private provider’s bankruptcy leaves north east IoT £3m out of pocket

    Millions in capital funds invested into an independent training provider to help grow one of the government’s flagship Institutes of Technology have been lost following its bankruptcy earlier this year.

    NA College (NAC), in Washington, Co Durham, fell into administration in June, four years after winning a £3 million grant to build a ‘smart factory’ extension and buy specialist equipment for apprentices.

    NAC was a key partner in the local North East Institute of Technology (IoT) and responsible for training around 270 apprentices working at Nissan’s Sunderland car factory.

    Thanks to its links to Nissan the company was one of only five private providers in England to win a share of £300 million in IoT capital funding provided by the Department for Education.

    The DfE did not respond when asked why it took the rare step of gifting capital funding to a private training company without securing any guarantee to recover its investment if the firm went bust.

    NAC’s property was auctioned off soon after its collapse and the company’s newly upgraded training centre, which was secured by a 20-year lease, is now available to let.

    Nissan is understood to have moved its apprentices to nearby Sunderland College, which is not part of the IoT.

    Scrabbling for capital funds

    The NAC failure, and the loss of its taxpayer-funded property, raises questions about the safety of investing capital funds into private businesses to deliver further education.

    FE private training providers frequently call for “fair access to capital funding”, arguing this could help solve capacity issues in post-16 education.

    But capital funding pots, such as the £1.5 billion FE capital transformation fund and the £230 million post-16 capacity fund, were only available to public education institutions such as general FE colleges.

    Ben Rowland, chief executive of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), which represents hundreds of training bodies, said: “It is always sad to see an independent provider cease trading, especially for the learners and staff affected.

    “NAC was not an AELP member and we are yet to know all the facts. What we do know is that there are so many independent training providers carrying out fantastic work right across the country delivering for hundreds of thousands of learners and employers.

    “As a result, we shouldn’t allow government policy to be determined by what happens in one or two cases – especially as we don’t yet know what happened to this particular provider.”

    What has been lost?

    With £3 million of IoT of funding, NAC built a new 390 square-metre “smart factory” extension for its training centre – reportedly completed in 2022 – and spent £1 million on specialist equipment.

    According to a freedom of information response, obtained following months of wrangling by FE Week after the DfE attempted to suppress details, the equipment included £400,000 for “internet of things” connectivity infrastructure, £249,000 of integrated assembly process kit, £160,000 of automated warehousing equipment and £34,000 in augmented reality technology.

    All this grant-funded equipment – which has an “uncertain” re-sale value – was owned by NAC at the time of its bankruptcy, the DfE confirmed.

    Neither the DfE nor court-appointed liquidator Begbies Traynor would comment on the fate of the publicly funded equipment, claiming the ongoing bankruptcy process prevented them from responding to questions about the case.

    Neither the DfE nor Begbies Traynor directed FE Week to a website that reveals the centre’s equipment was sold off at auction in late June.

    It is unclear how much was paid for hundreds of items including machinery, tools, teaching equipment and specific items that the DfE confirmed it funded, such as 3D printers and augmented technology headsets.

    New College Durham, the licence holder and accountable body for the North East Institute of Technology, declined to respond to questions about NAC, including whether any funding or equipment was recoverable.

    What happened?

    NAC was part of the North East Institute of Technology, one of 21 ‘institutes’ in England created through regional collaborations between 77 colleges, 35 universities and 99 employers.

    Set up in 2005, NAC had close links to Nissan, training hundreds of apprentices from the automotive giant’s huge factory in Sunderland each year. It received a ‘good’ Ofsted rating in 2022.

    In May, several shocked employees of the company took to social media to appeal for work after NAC abruptly closed its doors.

    According to Begbies Traynor the business had debts totalling £13.5 million.

    In its assessment of the financial difficulties, the liquidator said the company experienced “cashflow difficulties” in January, when one of its 15 subsidiaries tried to buy equipment but discovered there were “insufficient funds”.

    It then emerged NAC owed “several credit notes” to Nissan, which decided to move its apprentices elsewhere shortly afterwards.

    The report concluded: “Despite cost savings being implemented by the group, including a number of staff redundancies, due to the significant reduction in revenue as a result of the loss of the Nissan contract the company was unable to trade.”

    Wave 3 T Level contracts set to more than double in value

    A new round of next-generation T Level contracts could be worth more than double what was previously available when offered to awarding organisations early next year.

    A market engagement notice was published by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) this week giving awarding bodies advanced notice of a tender to take over the six qualifications that formed wave 3 of the T Level roll-out.

    The notice states the so-called “Gen-2” contracts to run three T Levels in engineering in manufacturing, as well as T Levels in management and administration, finance and accounting, are collectively worth an estimated £40.8 million – a near 150 per cent increase on Gen-1.

    Contracts to run wave-3 T Levels were first awarded in 2020 and totalled £16.5 million. City & Guilds won £12.5 million to develop qualifications in engineering, manufacturing, processing and control; maintenance, installation and repair for engineering and manufacturing; design and development for engineering and manufacturing; and management and administration.

    Pearson was awarded £4 million for T Levels in finance and accounting.

    Awarding organisations will be invited to bid to take over contracts in spring with deals being awarded in the autumn. First teaching of the new Gen-2 wave-3 T Levels will then take place in September 2027.

    Ahead of the full invitation to tender, IfATE told interested awarding organisations they would be required to update the qualifications’ content and assessment materials and develop training for teachers, assessors and exams officers.

    They will also be expected to quality control the qualifications, including running a complaints service, and promote the qualifications through marketing.

    IfATE hasn’t yet provided estimates for anticipated learner numbers but said they would be provided in the full invitation to tender and be based on existing volumes.

    Just under 2,472 students started one of the engineering and manufacturing T Levels in September 2023, and 1,747 started the management and administration qualification. 548 students started a T Level in the legal and finance route, which includes finance and accounting, but also includes the legal services T Level introduced last year which isn’t yet up for re-tendering.

    Interested awarding organisations have also been informed that “when IfATE ceases to exist” its functions as the contracting authority will transfer to a “new organisation.” It’s not clear whether this means Labour’s new quango, Skills England, will take over responsibility for T Level contracts, or whether this will be brought in-house within the Department for Education.

    First T Level relicensing winners

    This wave-3 relicensing round follows the awarding of Gen-2 contracts for waves 1 and 2 T Levels over the summer.

    NCFE was successful in retaining the licence to run the T Level in education and early years. It did not bid to keep two licences for digital T Levels, which went to Pearson.

    Similarly, City & Guilds chose not to re-tender for the two construction T Level licences it held. These were awarded to WJEC.

    Pearson also retained its licence for T Levels in design, surveying and planning for construction and digital production, development and design.

    These Gen-2 contracts were also worth substantially more than generation 1, which is believed to be in response to concern in the sector that the flagship qualifications have not been profitable.

    For example, the onsite construction contract increased by 96 per cent to £7.64 million from Gen-1 to Gen-2. Similarly, education and early years rose by 65 per cent and building services engineering for construction was up by 58 per cent.

    A separate procurement round took place for the T Levels in health, healthcare science and science, though the results have not yet been released.

    Phillipson meets with unions to plan new ‘partnership’ model

    Bridget Phillipson has met with unions to discuss a “new model” for government to work in “partnership” with the education sector.

    In an approach reminiscent of the “social partnership” pursued by the Blair government in the 2000s, unions and employers could be asked to contribute their perspectives to emerging policy at an “early stage”.

    The education secretary today met with leaders of the National Education Union, NASUWT, ASCL, NAHT, Community, GMB, Unison, Unite and UCU.

    It is the latest in a series of moves aimed at “resetting” a relationship that had become incredibly strained after 14 years of Conservative government.

    Unions had grown increasingly frustrated that they were informed about key government decisions once they had been made, rather than being able to give their view during the development stage.

    The Department for Education said today’s meeting was the “first stage in developing a new model for partnership working with core education stakeholders in the school and college space, by contributing staff and employer perspectives to emerging policy at an early stage”.

    Phillipson will also shortly meet with the Sixth Form Colleges Association, Association of Colleges, Confederation of School Trusts and Local Government Association “who we hope will provide important input from school and college employers into new partnership arrangements”.

    “We will confirm full and final membership, terms of reference and ways of working for the group in due course. We anticipate the partnership, once formed, will convene unions and employer organisations in a single body.”

    The Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which mostly represents private training providers in FE, and Holex, which represents adult learning organisations, were not included in DfE’s list of engagements for this first phase.

    Model ‘won’t replace pay setting process’

    The DfE wants the new arrangements to “provide a model for other education sectors in the future, building on existing arrangements and learning from the approach piloted by the school and college partnership”.

    But they will “not replace existing formal processes on pay setting in schools and colleges”.

    Phillipson said: “From day one in government we began our reset of relations with our workforces, and today I met with leading figures in the school and college sector to discuss a new model for improving how government works in partnership with the sector to deliver change.

    “Only by working together can we achieve what parents, families and workers are crying out for – high and rising standards that sever the link between children’s background and where they get to in life.”

    Daniel Kebede, leader of the National Education Union, said it was “positive that the secretary of state is engaging with unions on arrangements for future dialogue.

    “Decisions on education policy fundamentally always lie with the secretary of state. Future discussions on social dialogue are something I am committed to.”

    Association of School and College Leaders director of policy Julie McCulloch welcomed the government’s “commitment to working in partnership with the education sector”. 

    “Improving pupil outcomes, closing attainment gaps and dealing with educational challenges, including the current recruitment and retention crisis, can only be achieved through a collaborative process involving the expertise and insight of the education workforce.

    “Today’s meeting was an important first step in establishing that approach.”

    Ofsted names new ‘external reference group’ members

    Ofsted has named the members of seven new external reference groups that will offer “independent advice and challenge” as it embarks on wide-ranging reforms.

    Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver announced as part of his response to the “Big Listen” consultation this week that he had created the seven groups to “share ideas” and offer Ofsted feedback, including examining its frameworks, looking at training and inspection design and recommending improvements.

    Of the 80 appointments announced across the seven groups, just four have links to further education colleges, training providers or adult learning organisations.

    Adult learning network Holex chief Sue Pember is a lone FE voice on the curriculum, teaching and assessment group, while the behaviour and attendance group has no FE and skills representatives.

    Alun Francis, the governments’ social mobility commissioner and principal of Blackpool and The Fylde College is the only FE member of the inclusion group.

    On the well-being of leaders and staff group, training provider SCL Education and Training’s principal of education Stuart Allen, who is also an Ofsted inspector, is joined by Kirklees College assistant principal and DfE FE student support champion Polly Harrow.

    Ofsted said today: “His Majesty’s Chief Inspector (HMCI), Sir Martyn Oliver, is committed to working with the sectors that Ofsted inspects and regulates. He has invited external stakeholders with relevant experience to be members of one of 7 external reference groups.”

    The groups will meet three times a year, and between them will “discuss and challenge Ofsted’s data, research and evaluation plans” and act as “expert advisors on their specialism, sharing important updates and developments”.

    They will also advise on proposed developments around Ofsted’s areas of research interest, policy or practice, and support and assist with “translating insights into recommendations and improvements for policy and practice”.

    The groups will also advise on “maximising impact and dissemination of our research and evaluation outputs”, inform Ofsted’s strategic priorities and offer “feedback and challenge on Ofsted’s policy work to make sure inspections raise standards in education”.

    They will also give advice on aspects of training relating to leader and staff well-being.

    Here’s the full list of members:

    Curriculum, teaching and assessment

    • Co-Chair: Chris Paterson, Education Endowment Fund (EEF)
    • Co-Chair: Lee Owston, Ofsted
    • Andrew Percival, Stanley Road Primary School
    • Chris Winch, Kings College London
    • Clare Sealy, States of Guernsey
    • Harry Kutty, Cantell School
    • Jeffrey Quaye, Aspirations Academy Trust
    • Matt Hood, Oak Academy
    • Molly Devlin, ARK Start
    • Russell Hobby, Teach First
    • Sue Morris-King, Ofsted
    • Susan Pember, Holex

    Behaviour and attendance external reference group

    • Co-Chair: Rob Tarn, Northern Education Trust
    • Co-Chair: Lee Owston, Ofsted
    • Amanda Allard, National Children’s Bureau (NCB)
    • Catherine Roper, Wiltshire Police
    • Helen Matthews, Ofsted
    • Jon Chaloner, Confederation of Schools Trusts
    • Sarah Clarke, National Network of Parent Carer Forums (NNPCF)
    • Susan Tranter, Edmonton Country School
    • Tom Bennett, ResearchEd/Department for Education (DfE)
    • Tracey Campbell, The Academy for Behaviour Leadership

    Inclusion external reference group

    • Co-Chair: Mark Vickers, Olive Academies
    • Co-Chair: Lee Owston, Ofsted
    • Alun Francis, Social Mobility Commission
    • Amanda Allard, Council for Disabled Children
    • Cath Murray, Ambition Institute
    • Joe Collin, Youth Endowment Fund (YEF)
    • Kiran Gill, The Difference
    • Kirstie Fulthorpe, KLF Education
    • Matt Jones, Ark Globe Academy
    • Susan Douglas, Eden Academy Trust
    • Victor Shafiee, Ofsted

    Well-being of leaders and staff 

    • Chair: Matthew Purves, Ofsted
    • Alison Peacock, Chartered College of Teaching
    • Ann Graham, Haringey London Borough Council
    • Dominic Siwoku, Department for Education (DfE)
    • John Young, Ofsted
    • Laura Fordham, Bedford Academy
    • Lisa Telling, Katesgrove and Southcote Primary Schools
    • Neil Leitch, Early Years Alliance
    • Peter Fonagy, Anna Freud
    • Polly Harrow, Kirklees College
    • Sarah McIntosh, Mental Health First Aid England
    • Stuart Allen, SCL Education & Training Limited
    • Tim Coulson, Unity Schools Partnership and Schools Wellbeing Partnership

    Early years regulation and social care 

    • Chair: Yvette Stanley, Ofsted
    • Claire Dorer, National Association of Special Schools
    • Colum Conway, Social Work England
    • Harvey Gallagher, National Association of Fostering Providers
    • Helen Donohoe, Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years (PACEY)
    • Jo Fisher, Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS)
    • June O’Sullivan, London Early Years Foundation
    • Katharine Sacks-Jones, Become
    • Lisa Pascoe/Jayne Coward, Ofsted
    • Lucy Harte, Care Quality Commission (CQC)
    • Mark Kerr, Children’s Homes Association
    • Purnima Tanuku, National Day Nurseries Association
    • Rachel De Souza, Office of the Children’s Commissioner

    Insights and evidence (education)

    • Co-Chair: Tim Leunig, Public First and Onward
    • Co-Chair: Alex Jones, Ofsted
    • Carole Willis, National Foundation for Educational Research
    • Chris Wilson, ImpactEd Group
    • Emily Yeomans, Education Endowment Foundation
    • Ian Knowles, Department for Education (DfE)
    • Jo-Anne Baird, University of Oxford
    • John Jerrim, University College London (UCL) Institute of Education
    • Jon Andrews, Education Policy Institute
    • Josh Hillman, Nuffield Foundation
    • Lee Elliot Major, University of Exeter
    • Melanie Ehren, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
    • Sam Freedman, Institute for Government
    • Simon Burgess, University of Bristol
    • Sue Morris-King, Ofsted
    • Verena Bräehler, Ofsted

    Insights and evidence (social care)

    • Co-Chair: Dez Holmes, Research in Practice
    • Co-Chair: Alex Jones, Ofsted
    • Carlene Firmin, Durham University
    • Claudia Bernard, Goldsmiths
    • Delphine Robineau, Department for Education (DfE)
    • Gail Gibbons, Youth Endowment Fund (YEF)
    • Gillian Ruch, Association of Professors of Social Work
    • James Simmonds-Read, The Children’s Society
    • Jason Bradbury, Ofsted
    • Jo Casebourne, Foundations
    • Leon Feinstein, Rees Centre, University of Oxford
    • Lisa Harker, Nuffield Family Justice Observatory (FJO)
    • Lisa Holmes, University of Sussex
    • Lisa Pascoe, Ofsted
    • Maria Neophytou, National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC)
    • Maris Stratulis, British Association of Social Workers (BASW)
    • Nigel Thompson, Care Quality Commission (CQC)
    • Rick Hood, Kingston University

    Cumbrian college gets £1.5m emergency ESFA loan

    Shortfalls in T Level and adult learner recruitment have contributed to “serious cashflow issues” and triggered government intervention at a small college in Cumbria.

    Lakes College has been handed a £1.5 million emergency loan by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to alleviate “short-term” pressures.

    Aside from lower-than-expected enrolments the college’s financial woes have been caused by a “significant” upfront investment in the college’s STEM apprenticeship academy over the past 12 months – on top of sector-wide low funding rates and rising inflation on costs.

    In a government financial notice published yesterday, the ESFA told the college to prepare for an FE Commissioner stocktake visit in October, followed by a structure and prospects appraisal due to complete by the end of March 2025.

    The college’s latest accounts for the 2022/23 financial year show turnover of £15 million, a deficit of £2 million and an EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation) of -9.9 per cent against a target of 2.1 per cent. The FE Commissioner’s benchmark of education-specific EBITDA is 6 per cent or more of total income. 

    Lakes College, a founding member of the National College of Nuclear, was judged as ‘good’ overall by Ofsted in March this year. At the time of inspection, there were 900 learners on vocational programmes, 300 adults, 1,000 apprentices and 64 students with high needs.

    The college offers T Levels in health, education and childcare, digital, business, engineering and construction. It was 10 per cent below enrolment targets on the flagship new technical courses in 2023/24.

    Lakes College principal Chris Nattress told FE Week that the “relatively small” loan from the DfE is expected to be repaid in full by Autumn 2027. 

    He said the college now has a “revised, robust” financial plan which includes “an appropriate business model to ensure we continue to support all of our learners, apprentices and employer partners”.

    The college’s underlying position and arrangements going forward are also “solid and sustainable” as it has no other borrowings.  

    ESFA’s financial notice said the college’s financial recovery plan should explore staff savings and include a review of curriculum areas. Nattress said the college has not implemented a compulsory redundancy programme and will “continue to deliver necessary savings via increasing our operational efficiency”.

    Nattress added: “I am confident that the FNTI will have no direct negative impact on the day-to-day running of our Ofsted ‘good’ rated college, ensuring we continue to deliver our high standards of teaching and training to all our learners – and employers – as well as supporting continued growth within the college.”

    Ministers ignore last-ditch plea to pause BTEC defunding

    Education ministers have been accused of disrespecting principals and headteachers by failing to address concerns over the government’s partial-pause and review of defunding level 3 qualifications.

    Principals and headteachers from 455 schools and colleges signed a last-ditch plea from the Protect Student Choice campaign last week to delay the cull of qualifications by at least a year. 

    Shortly after winning the July general election, the new government announced it would only pause the defunding of a limited number of level 3 qualifications that were due to lose their funding in August 2024. By the end of December, a “focused review” will establish which, if any, of those qualifications, and others due to lose their funding in future years, will be available to students.

    It means that students and parents attending open days and making decisions about their post-16 options in the coming months now won’t know for sure if the courses they wish to take will be available to them in September 2025. 

    In a letter dated one day after the joint submission from schools and colleges, skills minister Jacqui Smith (pictured) restated the government’s position to pause the removal of funding for qualifications that had been deemed to overlap with T Levels for this year only.

    “We are pausing defunding for the duration of the review, and we will conclude and communicate the outcomes of this review before the turn of the year. Defunding decisions for 2025 onwards will be confirmed after the short review, and the curriculum and assessment review [led by Becky Francis] will reflect these decisions,” Smith wrote. 

    Smith’s response repeats previous correspondence from the education secretary Bridget Phillipson when campaigners first flagged concerns with Labour’s plans last month. 

    Phillipson defends ‘risible’ partial level 3 defunding pause

    James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association (SFCA), which has led the Protect Student Choice campaign, hit back at the government’s “disrespectful” response.

    He said: “The message from school and college leaders is clear: being told in December 2024 what qualifications they can offer in September 2025 is too late and will disadvantage some young people. 

    “It is disrespectful to respond to these concerns using boilerplate text that does not address the practical solution put forward by leaders, and impossible to square with the secretary of state’s recent commitment to the education sector to ‘listen, to draw on your wealth of experience and to act on your honest feedback’.

    “It is also misleading to claim in the response that ‘we are pausing defunding for the duration of the review’ when the pause does not apply to applied general qualifications, the focus of the leaders’ letter.”

    Schools and colleges have been advised by the government to make clear to students which courses may not be available next year.

    Analysis by SFCA’s member colleges found 30 colleges where at least 50 per cent of its level 3 provision is in scope of the government’s review, two of which have 100 per cent. 

    Kewin added: “The Protect Student Choice coalition will meet in the coming weeks to discuss how we can help schools and colleges to navigate an entirely avoidable period of disruption and uncertainty for them and almost 600,000 young people.”

    Ofsted’s Big Listen: The 8 policies FE providers need to know

    Ofsted has set out a raft of changes today following the biggest consultation in its history.

    These include reforming its inspection framework ahead of the rollout of report cards, which will be tailored to FE and skills, as well as a new academy for training inspectors.

    The ‘Big Listen’ consultation sought the views of teaching staff, education organisations and parents on schools, safeguarding, SEND, teacher training, social care and further education.

    Some 16,033 people responded to the consultation, almost 3,700 of which answered questions about FE and skills.

    Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief inspector, said: “You have spoken, we have listened, and now it is time to act.”

    Here is what you need to know…

    1. New framework and report cards

    Ofsted has pledged to consult “later this academic year” on creating a reformed education inspection framework (EIF) for schools, early years and FE and skills.

    This will heed lessons from the Big Listen and be necessary to accommodate the government’s pledge to rollout report cards from September 2025, replacing single-phrase overall grades. 

    Critically, both the reformed inspection framework and report cards will be “tailored to FE and skills” (full story here).

    Ofsted said it wanted to introduce “rubrics” – a type of scoring guide – that offer “clear criteria for inspections and can support leaders to self-evaluate their practice” as part of the reform.

    The inspectorate also wants to make inspection more collaborative and supportive, a key issue flagged through the consultation, by using these “rubrics” to guide chats between inspectors and leaders about a provider’s strengths and areas for improvement.

    Ofsted said its consultation will include the size of inspection teams and notice periods, to make sure these are “proportionate for different types of providers”.

    2. Reports will show ‘area insights’

    The report cards will include “area insights”. A new service will be launched to “visualise local area data” across all areas Ofsted inspects and regulates, to help inspectors understand local context.

    Ofsted wants the service to set out what it is like to be a child in any area, from childminder provision and both school phases, all the way up to a post-16 college or training provider. 

    The service will also help inspectors to judge how providers are contributing to meeting the skills needs of local, regional and national economies.

    3. HTQ and part-time 14-16 provision inspections?

    Ofsted said it will call on the government to amend legislation so that the watchdog can inspect providers offering higher technical qualifications – a major new skills qualification currently outside of Ofsted’s remit.

    “We should inspect these providers, who spend public money, so that they are accountable and standards are high,” Ofsted said.

    Legislation also currently does not allow Ofsted to inspect education for 14- to 16-year-olds delivered part-time in colleges (where the student is not a pupil registered at a school), despite full-time students of this age in colleges being in scope.

    The watchdog said these students will “often be some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable learners, including those excluded from school, unaccompanied asylum seekers and home-educated learners”, adding that it will discuss broadening its scope to inspect this part-time provision with government.

    4. Ofsted Academy to train staff

    The inspectorate plans to launch a service called “Ofsted Academy” this Autumn.

    It said this would collate all its induction, training, learning, development and “good practice work” in a single place and “transform” how it recruits and trains staff, “including improving our recruitment of inspectors from the FE and skills sector”.

    The resource will also include face-to-face training and development and will develop an “insights library” to share exemplary practice in the sectors it inspects and regulates.

    “As part of the Academy, we will introduce secondments for inspectors to spend time working in providers. This will make sure their practice remains current, especially focusing on working across groups of providers,” Ofsted said. 

    5. New national hubs and reference groups

    Ofsted said its current regional model had “created inconsistency” in how it carries out some of its work.

    So, it is setting up six national hubs, led by regional directors, each specialising in a specific area of its work.

    For instance, one hub will centralise all complaints about Ofsted, which will be investigated independently of their region of origin.

    Other hubs will focus on areas such as inspection welfare, support and guidance, quality assurance and professional standards and “provider intelligence and area insights”.

    Ofsted said it had also set up seven external reference groups, across areas such as curriculum, teaching and assessment, behaviour and attendance and inclusion.

    These will provide independent advice and challenge and share ideas and feedback, including on its frameworks.

    6. Sharing the evidence base

    In a bid to increase transparency, Ofsted said it will conduct user research to look at recording and transcribing the final feedback meetings and sharing these with leaders.

    Ofsted has also signalled a willingness to “better share the evidence that underpins our reports directly with leaders”, to help heads understand how it reaches its conclusions. 

    7. Complaint changes made permanent

    In response to allegations that its complaints process often felt like it was marking its own homework, Ofsted has piloted complaints panels for the schools and early years sectors. 

    These include external sector representatives and they review whether it has handled a sample of complaints fairly and in line with its policy. 

    Ofsted said it will make this a permanent feature of its complaints processes across all areas.

    8. Culture change needed

    The inspectorate said its “most challenging” Big Listen feedback was about its culture.

    A NatCen survey, commissioned by Ofsted, of 4,349 parents and carers, found a quarter disagreed that the inspectorate could be trusted. Just 49 per cent said it could be.

    And while over half (56 per cent) of FE providers said Ofsted could be trusted, 27 per cent thought the opposite, according to findings by IFF Research. 

    The inspectorate said that going forward, it will “foster a culture of integrity in which we always treat people with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect”.