Spending review marks yet another failure for adult skills

The lead-up to this spending review started with hope. For once, it seemed we had won the argument. It was fantastic to see that the importance of adult reskilling was recognised across government.

Strategies like the industry strategy, the Department for Work and Pension’s connect to work, migration plan and initiatives from departments responsible for health and defence, all highlighted skills as key to their goals.

However, this recognition hasn’t translated into investment from the Department for Education or in the spending review itself.

Despite a modest 2.3 per cent real-terms increase in departmental budgets and £1.3 billion pledged for young people and apprenticeships, this still leaves the DfE short.

Children’s services are the clear winners, and while few would argue against investing in children, adult skills have once again been left behind.

This is not just short-sighted, it is reckless. At a time when skills are vital for economic recovery, growth, and national resilience, neglecting adult learners means ignoring those who will help deliver national renewal.

The DfE still has no adult skills strategy. How could chancellor Rachel Reeves agree on new investment without one?

Although the funding to DWP for employment support is welcomed, the spending review settlement is likely to continue weakening a fragile adult skills system. The UK faces pressing shortages in sectors such as construction, health, digital, and green energy, yet instead of preparing the workforce, current policy choices risk long-term damage.

Once the adult education infrastructure is dismantled and staff made redundant, it’s slow, costly and often impossible to rebuild.

Instead of fixing failing schemes or learning from what works, the DfE continues to back underperforming legacy programmes. Short-term politics are being prioritised over long-term reform. This leaves behind 30 per cent of adults with low qualifications, nine million people lacking basic literacy and numeracy, and many who are economically inactive but ready to re-engage if only they had the support.

The result is a fragmented, exclusionary system. It benefits those already doing well and neglects those in greatest need. Adults with low skills are offered piecemeal, bolt-on training that provides little chance for real progression, while young people access structured pathways to meaningful qualifications. A two-tier system is emerging – one that risks widening inequality.

Case for investment

To return adult learning participation to 2010 levels, at least £5 billion additional investment is needed. This still wouldn’t close the full gap identified by Skills England.

Instead, funding is being channelled into costly legacy technical programmes that do not meet the outcomes they promised. These are often rigid, costly and poor at helping adults progress into sustained employment.

What works is flexible, local, community-based learning that meets adults where they are both geographically and in terms of their life circumstances.

This kind of provision is accessible, responsive and rooted in trust. It helps people who have been excluded from the education system, those with low prior attainment, caring responsibilities, insecure work or health challenges to re-engage, build confidence and gain the skills needed to progress. It supports social inclusion, wellbeing and economic participation.

Yet despite strong evidence of its impact, resources are instead being diverted to more rigid, centralised schemes that often fail to reach those most in need. This risks widening the gap between the education system and the communities it should serve.

Reframing adult education

This spending review misses the bigger picture. Instead of positioning adult skills as a driver of growth and opportunity, it reduces skills to short-term programmes scattered across different government departments which fail to build long-term capability, stronger communities or individual self-reliance.

We must reframe adult education as a long-term investment in people – the people who will build homes, deliver green jobs, and reduce NHS backlogs.

Sweden, Singapore and China are all increasing their investment in adult learning because they know it drives both national progress and individual hope.

The statement promises further details of government plans in a strategy for post-16 education and skills later this year.

Let’s hope this is a bold adult skills strategy with clear roles for employers, the state and individuals. This isn’t a luxury, it is an economic necessity.

If the UK wants to build 1.5 million homes, decarbonise the economy and reduce waiting lists, it must start with the adults who will do the work.

‘Reckless and ridiculous’: Ofsted’s report card plan delay slammed

Union leaders have blasted a “reckless” move by Ofsted to delay revealing its report card plan until September – leaving schools, colleges and training providers facing a “nonsensical” timeline for the roll-out of new inspections. 

Ofsted had planned to publish its response to the consultation to reform inspections in the summer, before introducing the new inspections in November.

But the watchdog said today it will not be ready to publish its response until “early September”. 

Ofsted had mulled delaying inspections, but has confirmed it will stick to its plan to roll out new report card inspections in November – leaving education settings with potentially just weeks to prepare.

‘Leaders need comprehensive understanding’

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson told Ofsted chief Sir Martyn Oliver in a letter the delay was “disappointing”.

She warned Oliver he must also “give education providers a comprehensive understanding of the new arrangements before they are introduced”, and ensure “in depth” training of the Ofsted workforce.

You can read Martyn Oliver’s full letter to Bridget Phillipson here. Phillipson’s letter in response is available in full here.

But Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, said the delay will place “immense” pressure on education providers. The announcement was “symptomatic of an organisation and a process in disarray”.

“This decision is bordering on reckless and could do real damage to the health and wellbeing of staff,” he added.

Pepe D’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, added: “The introduction of a nonsensical inspection framework is now compounded by a nonsensical timetable.

“The idea that schools and colleges can prepare for a complete change in the inspection system on this scale in two months is, frankly, ridiculous.”

In its consultation document, Ofsted said its original timeline would ensure “a notice period equivalent to one term between the publication of our post-consultation response and inspection materials and the start of education inspections”.

This would allow the inspectorate to “ensure that providers and inspectors feel well prepared for the new inspections”.

Timeframe ‘cut in half’

But D’Iasio said the delay means the “already ambitious timeframe has now been cut in half”.

He said it would “make far more sense” to postpone the introduction of the new inspection system, and “even better” to start from scratch and create a new framework.

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union urged Ofsted to delay inspection reforms until September 2026 and to carry out a “proper consultation” to “get change right”.

“Martyn Oliver needs to slow down and be transparent about what the consultation has shown,” he added.

“Imposing a new model on the profession and failing to offer adequate time to digest what is now required, is simply unfair. With teacher and leader retention still at such challenging levels, this is reckless.”

Delays ‘disappointing’, says Phillipson

Oliver informed Phillipson of the delay in a letter today.

He said Ofsted “fully intend to make improvements” to its proposed inspection framework, but they “need a little more time to complete our analysis of the responses we have received”.

The online consultation questionnaire received over 6,500 responses from parents, education professionals and representative bodies. 

He described the delay as “regrettable” but said he believes it will “result in a better and more effective inspection regime”.

After publishing its response in September, Ofsted said it will begin “a comprehensive training programme for inspectors and an extensive programme of engagement and preparation for those we inspect. This will allow us to introduce the revised framework in November as planned.”

But Phillipson was displeased, adding it was “important that Ofsted delivers to the expected timescales, to build confidence in the inspectorate and avoid additional challenges for headteachers and leaders”. 

She noted Oliver’s “absolute commitment” to introduce the revised framework in November as planned.

New chair to bring ‘strong challenge’

Phillipson also used her letter to announce the appointment of former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert as the new Chair of Ofsted, as first revealed this morning by FE Week’s sister title Schools Week.

The education secretary said Gilbert will help ensure the “successful delivery of these reforms by bringing the strong challenge and support that all organisations need”.

Spending review 2025: What the chancellor announced for FE and skills

The chancellor has promised an additional £1.2 billion “record investment” for skills a year by the end of this parliament – but most of it has already been announced. 

Rachel Reeves delivered her spending review today and said this investment would in part support “over a million young people into training and apprenticeships”.

She told MPs that it “cannot be right that too often” the ambitions and potential of young people are “stifled” when those who want training find courses that are “oversubscribed and are turned away at the door”.

“We’ve seen growing businesses eager to recruit, to look elsewhere. Potential wasted and enterprise frustrated,” Reeves added.

“So today I am providing record investment for training and upskilling – £1.2 billion a year by the end of the spending review to support over a million young people into training and apprenticeships so that their potential, their drive and their ambition is frustrated no longer.”

Spending review documents go on to clarify that the government is “providing £1.2 billion of additional investment per year by 2028-29”.

This includes “funding to support over 1.3 million 16 to 19 year olds to access high-quality training, supporting 65,000 additional learners per year by 2028-29”.

It will also deliver £625 million between 2025-26 and 2028-29 to train up to 60,000 skilled construction workers, as announced at spring statement.

FE Week has approached the Treasury for further detail.

There was no mention of adult education funding in the spending review documents, but the government did say it will set out further detail “on its plans in a strategy for post-16 education and skills later in the year”.

Reforms to the SEND system will be set out in a schools white paper in the autumn.

Further education providers in England include 220 colleges and 1,300 independent training providers which currently receive over £12 billion from the government each year to support around 1.9 million learners. 

While predicted school pupil numbers are forecast to fall over the next four years, the number of 16 to 19 year olds is set to rise by 118,000. 

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, warned the extra funding for more 16 to 19 places “may not” be enough.

He said: “It is positive that Treasury has recognised the growing numbers of young people we estimate will be in post-16 education over the next few years with an increase to the 16 to 19 budget.

“However, the 65,000 extra 16 to 19 places will only just keep up with population growth, so the budget may not be sufficient if the improving participation we have seen in recent years continues.”

DfE efficiencies

The DfE’s overall budget, including capital, will increase by an average 0.8 per cent a year in real terms by the end of the spending review period, from £100.9 billion in 2025-26 to £109.2 billion in 2028-29.

Ofsted will get a £20 million funding boost to help staff inspections under its new report card plans.

But elsewhere in the spending review documents, the Treasury stated that the Department for Education has committed to delivering at least 5 per cent savings and efficiencies. 

This includes savings identified through the first zero-based review (ZBR) in 18 years, which includes defunding level 7 apprenticeships for those aged 22 and over.

Documents state that the DfE will work with the FE sector to “improve the value for money of government spend”, by providing FE Commissioner support to colleges and “other relevant providers, seeking opportunities for economies of scale arising from more 16 to 19 year olds moving into post-16 education and training, simplifying processes and reducing data collection burdens, providing greater certainty of capital funding to enable colleges with estate planning, and exploring commercial efficiencies”.

DfE also has worked with the Office for Value for Money to “identify £248 million of technical efficiencies”. These will be a combination of “non-frontline efficiencies” and “corporate initiatives”.

Documents state that DfE will become “smaller and more agile over the spending review period through a strategic workforce plan to improve its capability and operations”.

“This will include moving to more flexible resourcing, greater use of AI and digital tools, conversion of managed services in its digital, data and technology function to permanent civil servants, and reviewing all non-staff expenditure to identify areas for efficiencies”.

Hughes said college leaders will be “relieved” that there are “no more obvious cuts to adult spending“, but will be “disappointed that their biggest challenge of low pay for college staff will not be helped by these announcements”.

Integrated settlements

More mayors will receive funding through integrated settlements in 2026. These are budgets that combine funding sources from different government departments, including adult skills, into one pot, giving mayors more freedom to fund priority projects.

The spending review confirmed that the Greater London Authority and mayoral strategic authorities in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East and Liverpool City Region will receive integrated settlements from 2026-27.

Combining budgets in this way was part of the government’s devolution white paper, which announced the mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands would be the first “trailblazers” to get the integrated settlements for 2025-26.

Turing Scheme funding cut by 29%, DfE reveals

The government has cut next year’s budget for the Turing Scheme by almost a third.

The Department for Education today confirmed it has made £78 million available for the international placement scheme during the 2025-26 academic year, a 29 per cent reduction from £110 million last year.

DfE has also limited the maximum funding pot available per FE provider application to £205,000 and has almost halved daily living costs for students going abroad.

The trimming follows fears that Turing would be cut altogether. Reports emerged in March that DfE offered up the Turing Scheme to the Treasury as part of its cost-cutting proposal.

The 2025-26 academic year is a one-year extension for Turing, with the prior EU-funded Erasmus+ programme possibly making a comeback in the future.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith said last month that the government has begun negotiating to “work towards” rejoining Erasmus+.

Allocation changes

In the meantime, DfE has changed how it allocates this year’s Turing funding.

Guidance published today shows that FE providers will be limited to apply for a maximum of £205,000.

Consortiums can apply for up to £600,000 but no more than £205,000 will be given to each provider.

DfE said it will also “rank” providers’ applications by their assessment score, the relative proportion of placements that will go to students and apprentices from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“We assess that this will be the fairest way of allocating funding and will make it easier for providers to deliver all the placements they apply for,” the guidance said.

It also warned that Turing funding should not go towards things that are already covered by local authority funding, student finance or devolved governments.

Next year’s scheme will also have reduced living cost for groups going aboard by almost half.

Students and staff travelling to higher cost destinations will be funded for £55 per day for the first two weeks, and £40 per day after 14 days. Last year’s funding awarded £109 and £76 per day respectively.

The second group, going to lower cost countries, will only be funded a £50 daily allowance for the first two weeks, down from £87, and £35 per day after 14 days, a cut from £61.

The administration and implementation costs have stayed the same – £315 per student for the first 100 students, and £180 per student after that. The same goes for language support – each student will receive £135 for placements over 19 days to help learn the language.

In March, FE Week analysis found that FE providers had sent the most deprived students on placements than any other education provider since the scheme began in 2021.

Overall, further education providers have placed 22,483 disadvantaged learners, representing 60 per cent of all 37,342 participants.

The number of students coming from FE has increased in the four years of the scheme, garnering more than double the funding allocation to FE institutions – from £15.9 million on 2021-22 to £33.6 million last year.

Last year, 74 per cent of all FE applications in England were granted, 1 percentage point lower than 2023-24.

Locked out at level 7: Apprentices face an unexpected glass ceiling

The announcement on the future of level 7 apprenticeships has left many of us in the apprenticeship community disheartened. After years of effort to establish apprenticeships as a viable, equal alternative to traditional university routes, this decision feels like a significant step backward.

I speak from experience. At 23, I began my level 7 master’s apprenticeship just one month after completing my level 6 degree apprenticeship. That continuity was critical. It enabled me to deepen my knowledge, accelerate my development, and ultimately secure the role I’m proud to hold today. But under the new guidelines, future apprentices won’t have the same opportunity as only those aged 16-21 will be able to do a level 7 masters apprenticeship.

The restrictions now mean that unless a young person decides immediately after full-time education to pursue a level 7 apprenticeship and meets the stringent entry requirements set out by the universities, they’re effectively locked out. This assumes that every 18-year-old not only knows exactly what they want to do but is also in a position to meet graduate-level entry standards straight out of school. That’s unrealistic and unfair.

Yes, it’s positive that some can still begin a level 7 directly after school. The solicitor apprenticeship, for example, is one of the few still available for younger learners. And it plays a vital role in supporting social mobility. But these examples are rare. We should be expanding these opportunities, not narrowing them.

There is a solution. Skills England and policymakers must prioritise the introduction of integrated master’s degree apprenticeships, allowing learners to progress from Level 6 to level 7 within the same programme. These longer schemes, spanning potentially five or more years, may not be for everyone, but they offer a genuine, structured pathway for those who aspire to senior professional roles via the apprenticeship route.

The current policy also inadvertently punishes those who begin their apprenticeship journey after GCSEs. These learners typically progress through level 3 or 4 (2–3 years), then a level 6 (4–5 years) before being eligible for level 7, often at age 22 or older. Under the new age restrictions, they’ll miss out. How can we claim to support social mobility and lifelong learning when we block progression for those who have followed the apprenticeship route since age 16?

And what of those who discover their career path later in life? Or those who need more time to gain the experience and qualifications necessary to be accepted onto a master’s-level apprenticeship? These individuals, often from diverse and non-traditional backgrounds, are precisely the ones we should be supporting, not sidelining.

‘We’ve received a message that risks reinforcing outdated perceptions‘

I had hoped the government would offer a more inclusive funding approach, perhaps fully supporting those under 25, offering partial support for those 25–35 and scaling down from there. This kind of flexible model would encourage early uptake without shutting the door on adult learners or career changers.

Instead, what we’ve received is a message that risks reinforcing outdated perceptions: that apprenticeships are only for entry-level roles. And that university remains the only route to higher qualifications and professional status.

These new guidelines rely on employers having enough available funds to put employees through a part-time masters and be willing to support them working reduced hours to upskill, which many employers are unable to do.

We owe it to the next generation of apprentices to fight for better. Let’s not allow ambition to be capped by arbitrary age limits or funding structures. Let’s build an apprenticeship system that truly supports lifelong learning, real progression and equal opportunity at every stage of life.

Christine Gilbert set to be appointed Ofsted chair

Former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert is set to be appointed as the new chair of Ofsted, FE Week’s sister title Schools Week understands.

Gilbert, who served as chief inspector of Ofsted between 2006 and 2011, last year led the independent review into the watchdog’s response to the death of headteacher Ruth Perry.

FE Week also understands Ofsted will now delay publishing its consultation response until the start of September – rather than in the summer as originally planned.

Ofsted had mulled pushing back inspections, but decided to maintain rolling out new report cards in November. 

But delaying the consultation response – which will outline formalise inspection plans – means education providers will have even less time to see how inspections work before they face being inspected – a move likely to face strong criticism from unions.

Gilbert’s appointment is likely to be welcomed. Her damning report, published in September, found Ofsted’s response to Perry’s suicide was “defensive and complacent”.

Her appointment will begin on September 1, 2025 and will be for a period of three years. She will be paid £55,000 a year for working two days a week in the role.

Gilbert said: “It’s a privilege to accept this appointment as chair of Ofsted. I’m very much looking forward to supporting Sir Martyn Oliver and Ofsted in their determination to raise standards, increase opportunities and improve lives.”

Gilbert called for Ofsted board to be ‘strengthened’

Gilbert made a string of recommendations for Ofsted. The watchdog is currently carrying out a widespread overhaul of the way it carries out inspections. 

She found the Ofsted board “had little or no involvement in determining the strategy for dealing with the crisis and communicating to the media and stakeholders”. 

The board’s role “appears curiously limited, apparently leaving some of Ofsted’s most critical activities outside of its control”, she said.

“This degree of autonomy and entitlement for HMCI does not make for effective governance.”

Gilbert urged Ofsted to review its governance framework to “strengthen the role of the board with the aim of establishing constructive challenge to support Ofsted in its learning and reform”.

The chair role was previously held by Dame Christine Ryan, who left at the end of March following four-and-a-half years.

Star Academies chief executive Sir Hamid Patel has since been serving as interim Ofsted chair.

Gilbert previously spent 18 years working in schools as a teacher and headteachers. She has also served as director of education at Harrow council and at Tower Hamlets council, where she “led the dramatic turnaround in performance and quality of local schools” and rose to the role of chief executive.

She is also chair of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), and has been a visiting professor at UCL Institute of Education for more than a decade.

Gilbert has led and taken part in several service reviews, mostly in education but also including Baroness Casey’s damning 2023 review of the Metropolitan Police.

She was made a dame in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2022.

Cambridge sixth form college scores Ofsted ‘outstanding’ hat-trick

A large sixth form college in Cambridge has been awarded a third consecutive Ofsted grade one for its “exceptional” quality.

Hills Road Sixth Form College was given top marks by inspectors after they found high exam achievement rates and “outstanding” support for high needs learners.

The large sixth form had 2,902 students on a combination of A-level subjects alongside the extended project qualification (EPQ) during its April 1 to 4 inspection.

The college was first awarded an overall ‘outstanding’ judgment in 2007 and then again in 2022. The result comes in time for the college’s 50th anniversary celebrations.

Ofsted’s latest report said that students enjoy their studies “greatly” and take pride in the challenging and “stimulating” lessons.

Inspectors found attendance was high, even to the extra voluntary lessons to prepare learners for maths exams.

“Students attend well, arrive promptly to lessons and are eager to learn. They routinely go beyond what is expected of them,” the report added.

As a result, a “very high proportion” of students achieve A* to B grades in A Level exams and nearly all progress to further or higher education or employment. 

Principal Jo Trump said: “This report is a lovely recognition of all the fabulous staff and students who make up the Hills Road community.

“We are lucky to benefit from the dedication and care of our staff and the energy and enthusiasm of our students. We are proud of the outcome, and prouder still of our community that makes it all possible every day.” 

Curriculums are of “exceptional quality”, Ofsted said. 

They found that making students study the EPQ allows them to “showcase both their creative and academic potential” which prepares them well for university.

Meanwhile, teachers were highly praised for thoroughly checking learners’ understanding and reinforcing foundational knowledge before moving onto more complex topics.

Inspectors also pointed out that teachers at the college use “highly effective” questioning.

For example, psychology teachers use probing questions to support students to improve their understanding of the theories of attraction.

“Students then use their improved understanding to explain the limitations of each of these theories fluently and with confidence,” the report added.

For the 21 SEND students, Ofsted was wowed for teachers’ “outstanding” support, using inclusive teaching techniques in class, well-thought-out seating plans and specialist staff where needed. 

Inspectors were also impressed with the range of wellbeing services students have access to, such as drop-in session, a therapy dog and internal and external counselling sessions.

The watchdog also found the sixth form college made a “reasonable” contribution to meeting skills needs.

The report said leavers and governors have a good understanding of local skills needs and have put in place “strategic targets” to improve their contribution.

Governors were found to hold leaders to account “exceptionally” well and support them in the development of colleges policies like safeguarding practices and staff wellbeing initiatives.

AI guidance for colleges: 9 key findings for leaders

Colleges could use AI to help monitor attendance patterns, generate tender documents and come up with ideas for lessons, new government toolkits have said.

The guidance, published today and drawn up by the Chiltern Learning Trust and Chartered College of Teaching, also says college should plan for “wider use” of AI – including to analyse budgets and help plan CPD.

Government said the toolkits are part of a new “innovation drive”, which has also includes investment to “accelerate development” of AI marking and feedback tools.

A new pilot has also been launched today to trial tools in “testbed” FE providers.

The government has also previously produced guidance on “safety expectations” for the use of generative AI – artificial intelligence that creates content – in education, along with policy papers and research on the subject.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “By harnessing AI’s power to cut workloads, we’re revolutionising classrooms and driving high standards everywhere – breaking down barriers to opportunity so every child can achieve and thrive.”

Here’s what you need to know on the new toolkits (which can be viewed in full here)…

1. Marking feedback and ideas for lessons

For teaching and learning, the documents state generative AI may be able to support ideas for lesson content and structure, formative assessments, analysis of marking data and creating “text in a specific style, length or reading age”.

On assessments, the guidance says this could include quiz generation from specific content or offering feedback on errors. AI could also “support with data analysis of marking”.

It can also produce “images to support understanding of a concept or as an exemplar”, exam-style questions from set texts, and visual resources, like “slide decks, knowledge organisers and infographics”, a slide in one of the toolkits adds.

2. Draw up an AI ‘vision’

The guidance stressed “it’s essential” colleges “are clear with staff around what tools are safe to use and how they can use them”. Those included on the list should “have been assessed” and allows colleges “control over” them.

It recommended college leaders lead by example and use AI tools responsibly themselves and set boundaries for AI use so users can safely play around with tools.

When exploring AI use, the guidance encouraged colleges to invest in staff training and to collaborate with industry as well as creating an AI culture within the college community.

Chris Loveday, vice principal at Barton Peveril 6th form College, said his college used inset days to train staff in AI.

He said: “The public large language models were available and I think if we didn’t have clear guidelines to support staff, it would have been easy for them to think it would be okay to put a class set of data into the open source models without truly understanding that that was training the large language model that it was available in the public domain. So the first INSET was focused on AI safety.”

As part of this, the report also warned about two issues “inherent” in AI systems: hallucinations and bias.

The former are “inaccuracies in an otherwise factual output”. Meanwhile, bias can occur if “there was bias in the data that it was trained on, or the developer could have intentionally or unintentionally introduced bias or censorship into the model”.

It recommended to always have a human in the loop to double check what AI systems produce.

3. Reducing administrative burden

The toolkits also say technology could support cutting down time spent on admin, like email and letter writing, data analysis and long-term planning.

One example given for school leaders was producing a letter home for parents about an outbreak of head lice.

The toolkit also said policy writing, timetabling, trip planning and staff CPD were other areas in which it could be used.

A 2024 user research report by the DfE said teachers were most keen on using time saving AI tools for marking, data entry and analysis of pupil progress or attainment.

Colleges can also reduce the administrative burden by using AI to analyse attendance patterns and supporting home communications, whilst “bearing in mind that all outputs need to be checked for accuracy.”

4. Plan for ‘wider use’, like budget planning and tenders

But leaders have been also told to plan for AI’s “wider use”. 

The writers of the report said some “finance teams [are] using safe and approved” tools to analyse budgets and support planning. Business managers are also using it to generate “tender documents based on a survey of requirements”.

“By involving all school or college staff in CPD on AI, you can help improve efficiency and effectiveness across operations – ultimately having a positive impact on pupil and student outcomes.”

The guidance suggested “integrating AI into management information systems”. This can “can give insights that may not otherwise be possible, and these insights could support interventions around behaviour, attendance and progress”.

5. Adapt materials for pupils with SEND

According to the DfE, the technology “offers valuable tools to support learners with SEND by adapting materials to individual learning needs and providing personalised instruction and feedback”.

For example, it can “take a scene and describe it in detail to those who are visually impaired”.

But specialists and education, health and care plans (EHCPs) should be consulted to “help identify specific needs and consider carefully whether an AI tool is the most appropriate solution on a case-by-case basis”.

Meanwhile, many programmes are multilingual and “could be used with pupils, students and families who have English as an additional language”.

6. Critical thinking lessons, mending digital divide

As the technology becomes more prevalent, “integrating AI literacy and critical thinking into existing lessons and activities should be considered”. For example, AI ethics and digital citizenship could incorporated into PSHE or computing curriculums.

Some schools and colleges have promoted “AI literacy within their curricula, including through the use of resources provided by the National Centre for Computing Education”.

This ensures young people understand how systems work, their limitations and potential biases. Approaches to homework may also have to be considered, focusing on “tasks that can’t be easily completed by AI”.

The guidance added many systems “will simply provide an answer rather than explain the process and so do not contribute to the learning process”.

Loveday added that Barton Perveril is piloting its own bespoke large language model which has “enhanced safeguards” built into it that will not answer questions on misogyny or violence.

He said that provided the pilot is successful, it will be rolled out to all 5,000 students free of charge so there is equality in students’ access to the same model.

“If you give that same student access to a premium large language model, that’s no longer a digital divide, that’s a digital chasm, and we’re trying to make sure that we can help our students bridge that,” he added.

7. Transparency and human oversight ‘essential’

Colleges should also “consider factors such as inclusivity, accessibility, cost-effectiveness” and compliance with internal privacy and security policies.

A “key consideration” listed in the guidance is whether its “output has a clear, positive impact on staff workload and/or the learning environment”.

It is also “essential that no decision that could adversely impact a student’s outcomes is based purely [on] AI without human review and oversight”.

An example of this is “generating a student’s final mark or declining their admission based on an AI-generated decision”.

The guidance said: “Transparency and human oversight are essential to ensure AI systems assist, but do not replace, human decision-making.”

The toolkits also warned over mental health apps, which they said “must be regulated by the medicines and healthcare products regulatory authority”.

8. Beware AI risks: IP, safeguarding and privacy

There were also broader warnings about using AI.

The guidance notes that learners’ “work may be protected under intellectual property laws even if it does not contain personal data”.

To safeguard against this, colleges should be certain AI marking tools do not “train on the work that we enter”.

Copyright breaches can also happen if the systems are “trained on unlicensed material and the outputs are then used in educational settings or published more widely”.

Colleges should ensure AI systems comply with UK GDPR rules before using them. If it “stores, learns from, or shares the data, staff could be breaching data protection law”.

Any AI use must also be line with the keeping children and young people safe in education guidance.

Most free sites “will not be suitable for student use as they will not have the appropriate safeguards in place and the AI tool or model may learn on the prompts and information that is input”.

Child protection policies, including online safety and behaviour policies, should “be updated to reflect the rapidly changing risks from AI use” as well.

The guidance also said newsletters and school websites could “provide regular updates on AI and online safety guidelines”. Parental workshops “can extend the online safety net beyond school or college boundaries”.

9. Be ‘proactive’ to educate young people on deep-fakes

The “increasing accessibility of AI image generation tools” also presents new challenges to schools, the guidance added.

“Proactive measures”, like initiatives to educate students, staff and parents about this risk, have been identified as “essential to minimise [this] potential harm”.

Colleges have also been told to conduct regular staff training “on identifying and responding to online risks, including AI-generated sexual extortion”. These sessions should be recurring “to address emerging threats”.

“Government guidance for frontline staff on how to respond to incidents where nudes and semi-nudes have been shared also applies to incidents where sexualised deep-fakes (computer-generated images) have been created and shared,” the guidance continued.

FE providers wanted to become edtech ‘testbeds’

Ministers are asking schools, colleges and training providers to step forward to become edtech “testbeds” and help find scalable solutions to cut teacher workload.

Officials say the nine-month pilot – for which expressions of interest have opened today– has been launched to “build the evidence base on the impact and scalability of promising technologies”.

As part of a so-called innovation drive, government has also announced a further £1 million will be handed to AI firms to fund the development of classroom tools.

National Association of Headteachers general secretary Paul Whiteman said: “Government investment in future testing and research is vital as staff need reliable sources of evaluation – supported with evidence – on the benefits, limitations and risks of AI tools and their potential uses.”

Participants to receive ‘benefits’ 

The Department for Education said its “edtech impact testbed pilot” will “identify and evaluate innovative educational technologies that can enhance teaching and learning and reduce workload in schools and colleges”.

It will test tools that aim to reduce teacher and administrative workload, improve pupil outcomes and boost inclusion for children with SEND.

Staff in the participating schools and colleges “will receive training and support to effectively implement and use” the systems and connect with other institutions. Those trialling the software will “be able to access a set of benefits”.

DfE hopes the trial will “build the evidence base on the impact and scalability of promising” tech to help leaders “make informed decisions” on which to use.

The government expects up to 100 education providers to take part. It is inviting applications, open until August, from all primaries and secondaries, special schools and all FE providers.

DfE also revealed today that it is investing an additional £1 million to develop AI marking and feedback systems. This is on top of the £1 million split between 16 firms earlier this year to develop similar tech by April.

This comes as the government published earlier today teacher and leader toolkits detailing how to use AI in schools and colleges.