FE governance leads the way—It’s time to say it out loud

Whisper it but we may be entering a golden age of governance in FE.

One indication was a recent invitation for me to attend an Office for Students event on the future regulation of HE governance. It was gratifying to see this part of government looking to FE as a potential model for where good governance practice lies, alongside their live consultation around effective governance in HE. I wasn’t expecting that.

Comparison can too often be the thief of joy and FE too often compares itself unfavourably to schools and universities, as the ‘sandwiched’ sector. There are good reasons for that of course, including stark funding disparities. However, with governance perhaps FE is knocking it out the park right now, at least in comparison with our institutional counterparts.

I don’t have an evidence base at my fingertips but I have heard some pretty hair-raising anecdotes about underdeveloped and under resourced governance support in some very large multi academy trusts. Similarly, I’ve had FE college chief executives express incredulity at my desire to serve on a university board. Apparently, many vice chancellors will prioritise almost anything in their remit above the effective governance of their own institution. Perhaps that’s one reason why so many universities have found themselves in such dire financial straits. A grossly unfair caricature I’m sure, and offered at a highly social meeting of senior FE leaders I attended. But it got me thinking.

The government, the FE commissioner, the Association of Colleges and the Education & Training Foundation all need to share some credit for having invested in developing FE governance in recent years. National Leaders of Governance are an excellent resource for colleges for example, whilst the AoC and ETF run many programmes designed to support and develop governors. Messages about the central importance of the ‘triumvirate’ of chair, chief executive and the director of governance role (increasingly designated by colleges as a ‘senior post holder’ reflecting its level of strategic importance) are really beginning to cut through.

So, whilst never complacent, it looks like a good story for FE governance right now.

But where do we go from here?

Well, firstly FE needs to shout about something that it’s doing well. Humbly shout, maybe, if that’s not a contradiction in terms – offering our support, insights, services and partnership to schools and universities.

Secondly, chairs and governors need to continue to join up with each other in local and regional areas to pool the message and evidence that good and active governance is helping to get ahead of future organisational and operational challenges. This message needs to be packaged up and communicated to government at official level, through the place-based teams and the FE commissioner and her team. This could be supported by the AoC’s National Chairs’ Council which I’m pleased to have recently joined as a member.

Thirdly, college chairs need to be paid. If you don’t pay them, you risk the hard-won gains that have been made in recent years slipping away. There are a whole host of arguments in support of paying chairs – they are important roles, with serious accountability for often large and complex businesses.  For organisations operating on the scale of most colleges in this country they need to be treated more like a part time job, albeit one without executive responsibility rather than in the spirit of community volunteering which is the prevailing attitude in many parts of the country. I hope that government says something about this sooner rather than later but colleges shouldn’t wait for ‘permission’ to proactively decide to pay their chairs.

If FE governance can secure for itself this strong and confident platform – reassuring government that it is actively supporting the sector’s resilience and effectiveness through periods of future growth and challenge – then it could seek to also have a national policy ‘voice’ alongside our principals and chief executives, advocating for positive change in the areas we are all familiar with including funding, qualifications and curriculum and the size and shape of the FE estate.

At that point you wouldn’t need to whisper that FE may be entering a golden age of governance – the noise would be so loud everyone would hear it!

Navigating Adolescence: Young Lives, Young Futures in a social media age

Aside from my day job, I’ve spent a wonderful decade volunteering with the Scouts. Helping young people develop confidence and a sense of belonging is rewarding and much needed. Youth organisations like the Scouts, cadet programmes, sports teams, and mentoring initiatives provide essential support systems. Yet outside these spaces, many young people turn to social media for guidance.

Netflix’s Adolescence dragged this issue into the public awareness with a powerful portrayal of how social media can shape young people’s lives with devastating consequences. The show’s popularity highlights concern that disengaged young people are retreating into online spaces with their own hierarchies and behavioural codes. Adolescence explores this to its most extreme and tragic conclusion. But why are young people going online in the first place?

A lack of positive role models

Sir Gareth Southgate is a rare example of a leader who has redefined masculinity through empathy and teamwork. He recently stressed that young boys especially need to learn that it’s ok to fail. He warns: “Callous, manipulative, and toxic influencers willingly trick young men into believing that success is measured by money or dominance, that strength means never showing emotion, and that the world, including women, is against them.”

It’s easy, and perhaps more palatable, to blame social media and push for smartphone bans. This might play a role. But any long-term solution must also involve listening to young people to understand the problem’s root causes.

Another part of the puzzle: Youth voice 

Too often in education, adults make decisions in policymaking echo chambers with little input from young people. Young Lives, Young Futures, a six-year ESRC-funded study led by King’s College London and Edge, aims to change that by putting youth voice first.

In our 2023 report, ’Schools for All?’, we examined young people’s experiences of alienation in the English secondary school system. Research revealed that nearly half of young people 15-16 found school neither enjoyable nor meaningful but something to be endured, with pastoral care taking a backseat to exam results. Most concerning was that young people from low-income and minority ethnic backgrounds, those identifying as LGBTQ+, those with SEND, and those reporting poor mental health felt the least seen by teachers.

More recently, Young Lives Young Futures  focused on the under-researched ‘missing middle’ – the 40 per cent of young people who are neither pursuing university routes nor classified as NEET (not in education, employment or training). This group faces unique challenges, typically leaving school at 16 to enter the workforce or take up apprenticeships. Unfortunately, the research again highlights issues at the intersections of class, SEND status, academic attainment, and geographic location and how these shape access to vocational education and employment. Young people who grew up in extreme poverty, act as carers, or have been involved with the criminal justice system often describe being written off as “the troubled kid who can’t be helped.”

If you faced all these barriers to success, wouldn’t you feel lost, angry, and alienated? It’s hardly surprising that online influencers resonate with young people by voicing their frustrations and offering easy solutions.

Shared responsibility – it goes beyond formal education

Young Lives, Young Futures focuses on areas like education, employment and access to opportunities. But the principle behind it – listening to young people – is relevant everywhere. Today’s young people face challenges greater than any in living memory. The legacy of COVID lockdowns, a highly volatile job market, and the most uncertain global outlook since WWII are creating huge disillusionment. Factor in the complexities of social media, and there are no easy solutions.

Crucially, our research shows that more affluent young people have better access to support. It’s perhaps not surprising, then, that social media is filling some of the gap for disadvantaged groups that lack consistent external support systems. In this sense, the problem of social media and the so-called ‘manosphere’ is fast becoming a class issue.

The education system needs change. But with influencers taking the lead online, that’s not enough on its own. Southgate uses his platform to push for healthier role models. I want to do the same in all aspects of my work. But to ensure young people – regardless of background – have equal support, we need teachers, youth workers, coaches, parents and mentors actively helping however they can.

It’s time to start listening – really listening – to young people’s lived experiences instead of assuming we have all the answers. We must also look at how our education system can better support them emotionally and socially. Finally, through mentoring and positive role modelling, we must help them feel valued, empowered and able to succeed. None of this is easy. But as Adolescence shows, the alternative is not an option.

Right-wing backlash against gender diversity could fuel conflict in FE

It’s no wonder last month’s Ofsted reform proposals put an emphasis on inclusion. Governors simply MUST check how leaders are translating values and intent into action, especially with transgender awareness and policies.

Exclusionary politics are emboldening direct discrimination against transgender people in particular.

Right now the world is a frightening place for transgender and gender divergent people, with global leaders effectively seeking to erase transgender rights and also intersex people – due to insistence on a biologically binary approach to sex, and gender. 

These are the T and the I in the LGBTQIA+ acronym.

Statistically, research shows that intersex, transgender and otherwise non-binary people account for approximately 4 per cent of the UK population, with scientific evidence showing they are biologically different, and historical evidence showing they have existed all around the globe forever.

That’s one in 25 of all people.

Furthermore, 23 per cent of the Gen Z population in the UK are using a they/them pronoun to one degree or another, according to one study.

This is clearly of significant importance in the FE sector, especially now with the radical political shifts in the US, coupled with the rise of the populist right here in the UK. There is a very real and significant threat to transgender and otherwise gender divergent students, and staff, that FE institutions must be prepared for.

What can be done?

Education is key. It is absolutely vital that when conflicts and tensions arise, teaching staff must be properly informed and have the confidence to intervene.

If there is any ambiguity on their part around policy and facts it could result in escalations and added complication, not to mention the additional distress a delay to step in would cause – both to transgender learners and to those of opposing belief systems.

We must remember that the sector has a responsibility to protect all learners from harm, not just those we agree with, regardless of their beliefs.

Sex, gender and belief are all protected characteristics.

If teachers are unsure of the facts, then ambiguity can be a barrier to effectively and calmly diffusing conflict. 

For example, if a cisgender learner complains that a transgender learner is using ‘the wrong’ bathroom, what is the college’s policy around this? How is this to be handled?

What happens when a learner misgenders another, and when challenged cites free speech? Or religious beliefs?

With all the current tensions – for example at the University of Sussex, which has just been charged a record £585,000 fine for not upholding freedom of speech – governors must ensure that leaders are asking, and answering, all of these questions. And they must ensure that ALL staff are adequately trained to manage these situations.

Given the lack of understanding around this topic, with only binary biology taught in early years education and many totally unaware of the prevalence and types of intersex, the whole arena is on shaky foundations. It really is a case of going ‘back to basics’.

It’s necessary to ensure that all staff revisit ‘what they think they know’ in order to have the levels of confidence required in this topic, and to adequately support learners.

When I speak to staff prior to my training, it seems many are confused and even conflicted, often wanting to be inclusive yet simply not knowing how to be.

Effective training can remedy this and it’s great to see staff empowered by facts.

Additional SEND focus

Ofsted said in their proposals that they will “in all cases include a new focus on inclusion”. Inspectors will “look at how well providers support vulnerable and disadvantaged children and learners, including those with SEND”. 

The specific reference to SEND is welcome, and there is an overlap between gender diversity and neurodiversity, with transgender people being three to six times more likely to be autistic.

This makes gender diversity especially important for colleges with SEND provision to understand.

Understanding and supporting learners appropriately is vital, which in turn means supporting staff to do so. Because the fine line between free speech and hate speech, and facts and misinformation, is getting harder to navigate.

If you would like to follow up with Che, visit www.viewfromadove.co.uk

Embed enterprise education into college curriculums

Enterprise education, which helps develop young people’s entrepreneurial skills, is not part of the national curriculum.

The experience of young people moving through our education system is therefore frustratingly patchy. We believe this has led to a huge, missed opportunity within an education and skills system that isn’t adequately preparing young people for entrepreneurship.

Our research at FSB, in association with Simply Business, finds that while nearly 60 per cent of young people express an interest in owning a business, only 16 per cent have done so. Young people have entrepreneurial ambitions but this isn’t being sufficiently recognised by the government. And that needs to change.

So how can we turn that aspiration into reality?

It’s vital that enterprise education is valued throughout the education system. At a time when changes to the national curriculum are being considered, we need the government to make sure enterprise education is embedded into it, starting from key stages 1 and 2.

The curriculum should be reflective of the education and skills needed in employment, self-employment and life. Initiatives can be brought in, such as adopting an ‘Entrepreneurship Month’ during the academic year, to celebrate UK entrepreneurs and include activities like careers talks, persuasive writing challenges and entrepreneurship competitions. Some schools and colleges already do something similar.

Supporting schools, colleges and employers to guarantee two weeks’ worth of mandatory work experience for every young person would give an early, positive introduction to the workplace and provide a flavour of what it’s like to run your own business. 

It’s important that we’re also equipping young people with the financial skills they need. Almost one-in-five young people say improved financial education in school and college would help them to set up or grow a business. We want to see the Department for Education making it compulsory for secondary and primary schools to deliver effective financial education at key stage 2.

The curriculum and assessment review is also an opportunity to consider whether those entering key stage 4 have basic digital skills and to review the current computing offering – which hasn’t been updated since 2013. We’d like to see the introduction of an applied computing GCSE, in addition to computer science, focussing on the digital skills required in the workplace and including the basics related to AI.

Role models can be a huge inspiration to pupils and students. We found that over a third of young entrepreneurs did not get guidance or support from local entrepreneurs coming into their school or college.

We know small business owners, including our members, love giving back to their community but often don’t know how to get involved. Giving business owners opportunities to share their experience can be so powerful in encouraging and inspiring budding young entrepreneurs. 

Our data suggests young people mainly receive enterprise education through studying for qualifications such as GCSEs, showing the importance of incorporating entrepreneurship through subject study. Interestingly, sixth form and further education colleges are less likely than schools to expose young people to enterprise.

The Careers and Enterprise Company must play a role by actively recruiting young entrepreneurs as enterprise advisers, who play an instrumental role influencing and designing careers programmes in schools and colleges.

At university level, many institutions provide support for their students, alumnus, and sometimes to start-ups in their local community. Over a third of young people who attended university say it provided them with the knowledge, guidance and support regarding setting up a business.

But this support is patchy depending on location. In London, for example, 52 per cent report exposure to enterprise compared to 18 per cent in the South West. There’s opportunity here to improve collaboration between universities that run student entrepreneurship programmes with those that offer little or no support.

Ultimately, providing these skills early in the education process, then cementing and expanding them in higher education, would help increase the number of fledgling young business owners growing the economy. We know the ambition is there amongst young people – they must be given the support to take the rewarding, yet sometimes daunting, step into entrepreneurship.

Everyone’s a writer nowadays, even if we don’t realise it 

When was the last time you went for a day without writing?  In December last year, I read an article about a Canadian linguist and writer Gretchen McCulloch. The gist of her opinion was that due to the internet and technology, we all write more than perhaps people would have a few generations ago.   

She claims we are all writers now.  

We are in contact by social media, text, email and other methods which means we write more than we think. She highlights “an explosion in informal writing” as a “vital part of our ordinary lives” in her bestselling book Because Internet – Understanding the New Rules of Language.  

McCulloch explains how our texts, chats and posts are quick, conversational and untouched by the hands of an editor.   

And yet, our own government has just removed the mandatory requirements for English and maths functional skills qualifications for apprentices aged 19 plus.   

Short term-thinking?  Well, yes, as the twin pillars of English and maths skills are essential to career progression. They are not going to be obsolete by the end of this year.    

What happened to talk of “driving up standards?” A default phrase commonly used by education ministers regardless of which political party they are aligned to.  

It is well known that low English and maths skills can also detrimentally impinge on education prospects and mental health, as well as employment opportunities.  

With whom did the government consult before making this decision?  

Surely, as a major international economic power and part of the G7, we need to raise our game on these crucial subjects. If we want to remain at the top table of global nations in increasingly competitive times, having staff well qualified in two of the most important subjects seems like a no-brainer.    

McCulloch’s authoritative voice should make even the most hardened politician reconsider their decision.    

This is not about turning learners into the next JK Rowling. But let’s be ambitious. A young person might have lofty goals and aspire to one day move from a construction site to running a company with hundreds of staff.  

At the initial stage of self-employment, a business plan and start-up loans might be needed. Both require competency in verbal and writing skills, and meetings with business advisors, bankers and accountants.     

The once young learner has developed into a mature managing director, responsible for the livelihood of their team. They cannot be the leader of the organisation without telling their team clearly what the vision and aims of the company are. They also need to excel at problem solving, communicating and making effective decisions.   

And those who work in industry with apprentice learners no doubt need to update their learner records on e-learning platforms, from reviews to individual learning plans, setting targets and more.     

It concerns me that future generations could have less developed English skills, which could be the difference between progression with higher earning potential, and plateauing, feeling stuck and unfulfilled.     

It is not essential to know what an adjective or a noun is. No one will get sacked for not remembering this from their school days. That said, thinking that you can leave school or college and no longer worry about your writing skills is pure folly. It is a skill that needs to be embraced and taken seriously.    

When was the last time that you wrote something?  

Probably within the last few hours, on your mobile phone.  

It would seem all of us are writers, even though we don’t know it.        

Ofsted: Schools and colleges must improve ‘poor’ careers advice

Schools and colleges have been criticised by Ofsted for “poor” levels of collaboration in ensuring students from disadvantaged backgrounds have good careers advice.

A new report called ‘navigating post-16 careers guidance: supporting learners from lower socioeconomic backgrounds’ also found many colleges offer “rudimentary” careers advice, with few deprived students receiving tailored advice.

Inspectors believe good guidance is an “essential tool” for opening doors to meaningful career opportunities for students from this group, who appear to be represented at higher rates in FE colleges.

But most students told inspectors and researchers they “could not remember” careers guidance at school, with most choosing FE colleges based on their peers’ choices or because of its convenient location.

College leaders also reported that more students than ever are enrolling “without any idea” of courses or careers they wanted to pursue, placing more pressure on staff to provide advice.

Despite the concerns, around four fifths of students felt “supported and well prepared” for their next step after college and said careers guidance made them “more confident and resilient”.

Careers advisors – both specialists and college staff – were “central” to them developing knowledge and skills for their next steps.

Lee Owston, Ofsted’s national director for education, said: “We know how beneficial careers guidance is for all students, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds who may need more support to achieve their career aspirations.

“It’s reassuring to hear that, despite the challenges, students were very positive about the guidance they received post-16.”

Recommendations include finding better definitions and guidance to help identify students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, further study of what careers guidance works best, improve collaboration with schools, and investigating less traditional work placements that would appeal to employers and benefit more learners.

The report is based on 28 research visits to FE colleges, sixth form colleges and secondary schools, holding discussions with principals, careers advisors, 250 students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and a survey of 241 parents from the schools and colleges.

It is the third in a series of studies of careers guidance that that DfE commissioned Ofsted to produce since 2022.

Here are a few key findings:

Go beyond ‘tick box’

The report praised colleges with an “overarching” careers strategy involving collaboration between employers, teaching staff and careers advisors, and found that careers guidance worked best when it was integrated into a course rather than an isolated provision.

However, it added: “For too many, the careers offer was ad-hoc and generic – more of a tick-box exercise than something designed to meet the career expectations of students, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.”

Even those with a more varied range of careers activities were often “rudimentary and lacked coherence”.

Those doing better work had a strategic plan that tended to successfully collect information about students facing “financial hardship” at enrolment and made strong links with students’ careers aspirations, meaningful work experience and work or study options after college.

In some cases, work experience included industry workers coming in to teach lessons or teachers returning to work in their industry as part of their professional development.

Information sharing woes

Colleges reported it was “difficult” to collaborate with schools their students come from, making it harder to identify students from lower economic backgrounds.

The report said: “College leaders were particularly concerned about limited data sharing from schools, which they told us sometimes prevents effective collaboration.”

But inspectors found that none of the college leaders were aware of the Department for Education’s get information about pupil (GIAP) service and few matched postcodes with deprivation data to assess which students could benefit from more support.

Lower socioeconomic backgrounds not always priority

Many colleges told researchers that they did not have specific careers guidance for lower socioeconomic groups because they considered most 16- to- 18-year-olds are “disadvantaged in some way”.

While some do target some specific groups that are “disadvantaged” – such as those with special needs or have been in care – these learners often benefitted from additional funding streams.

Some leaders were also concerned about labelling students “and potentially lowering expectations”.

But researchers Ofsted are “concerned” that many students are only receiving “generic careers guidance” which is “of variable quality” and does not meet students’ expectations.

Recruitment 

However, colleges and local authorities are “struggling to recruit” qualified level 6 careers advisors due to a shortage of staff, so find other ways to “plug the gaps” such as through untrained but experienced staff.

Work experience

Most colleges reported a shortage of work experience placements for level 1 and 2 courses or T Levels due to the timing and supply in the local area.

This put students from a lower socioeconomic background “at a further disadvantage”, as they often struggled to afford to travel further from the college, live in areas with fewer placements and lack family members with knowledge or contacts to organise relevant placements.

Since the Covid pandemic, many businesses have moved to virtual working making it even harder to find placements.

The report praised colleges that have moved away from “box-ticking” work experience to more flexible ways to involve employers, such as careers fairs, guest talks, alumni-run workshops and visits to workplaces.

‘We will strengthen careers education’

A spokesperson for the Department for Education, which guides national policy on careers guidance and funds both the National Careers Service and the Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC), said: “This government is determined to break down barriers to opportunity for all our young people and transform their life chances.

“This will help open up more opportunities for people from all backgrounds to access the skills and training they need to succeed.

“We’re determined to change the fact that many young people leave school without accessing work experience and expert careers advice.

“So we will offer two weeks’ worth of work experience for every young person and improve careers advice in schools and colleges. 

“Through our new Youth Guarantee every 18-21-year-old in England will have help to access an apprenticeship, quality training and education opportunities or help to find a job.”

A spokesperson for the CEC, which supports schools and colleges to deliver ‘21st century careers education’, said: “For our part, we will continue to work to strengthen careers education in FE through careers hubs (which have been shown to make a difference) and wider partners.

“We will also seek to develop initiatives targeted at disadvantaged young people, like the Effective Transition Project, which has helped learners find secure destinations.”

‘Inadequate’ blow for newcomer to care home manager training

An adult care apprenticeship provider has been judged ‘inadequate’ by Ofsted in its first full inspection – partly due to employers’ reluctance to release apprentices for training.

Franhen Consultancy, which provides the level 5 leader in adult care apprenticeship for 13 workers in care homes in Birmingham and Leeds, was handed the lowest rating in a report published this morning.

Ofsted criticised the provider’s oversight of the quality of education, a lack of preparation for apprentices’ end-point assessment, as well as low attendance to its lessons which are delivered online.

Dennis Ofinam, CEO of Franhen Consultancy, told FE Week that the provider had been delivering apprenticeships for just over a year and feels the ‘inadequate’ rating is “not a fair reflection of what our centre is about”.

He said: “We have partnerships with employers in the care sector, and we know there is a short fall of leadership in that area, so we wanted to plug a gap by training leaders and managers.”

Ofsted said apprentices’ attendance was too low and as a result many do not benefit from “collaborative problem-solving activities”.

The watchdog did highlight that staff catch up one-to-one with apprentices who miss work.

Ofinam said the low attendance was due to the healthcare industry being “quite challenging” in getting staff out of work to come in for training.

“We identified attendance was about 80 to 85 per cent there about during the time of the inspection,” he said.

“People are either at work during the time of lectures, or they are getting ready to get to work because they work late in the evening or and they come back in the morning and then are quite tired. Especially at that level of management and leadership, it was challenging getting learners on board.”

Ofsted’s report also claimed teachers at Franhen Consultancy did not sufficiently prepare apprentices to complete their end-point assessment. 

“Consequently, too few apprentices have the confidence to give formal presentations or participate in professional discussions as part of their apprenticeship,” inspectors said.

Ofinam suggested the leadership criteria in the end-point assessment was “very technical”, which was challenging for the provider.

Ofsted initially found ‘insufficient progress’ in Franhen Consultancy’s apprenticeship provision in a monitoring visit a year ago.

The report criticised the provider after finding too few apprentices who are well prepared to undertake a managerial position in the sector.

Today’s full inspection report also found gaps in the provider’s assessment for improving the quality of education. Inspectors criticised leaders for not spotting the “fundamental weaknesses” in their provision.

“This means that most apprentices make slow progress and too few apprentices achieve their apprenticeship,” the report said.

Leaders “do not ensure that apprentices benefit from effective reviews of their progress”, inspectors claimed, adding that reviews focus on completing the diploma qualification in the apprenticeship but “not the skills and knowledge apprentices need to practise at work to complete their apprenticeship”.

Inspectors pointed out that advisory board members have the “appropriate” skills to hold leaders to account but that leaders have been “too slow” to respond to suggested improvements.

The report said: “Those they have implemented, such as tracking of apprentices’ progress, have not been effective in helping apprentices catch up with their learning and achieve. Board members recognise that their actions do not yet hold leaders to account sufficiently.”

Ofinam said: “We felt it [the Ofsted report] was not considerate enough, because all the learners have been supported with all their mandatory elements.”

Private training providers typically have their apprenticeship funding contract terminated by the government if they are dealt an ‘inadequate’ Ofsted judgment.

Ofinam said he hadn’t yet had a conversation with the Department for Education on the status of Franhen Consultancy’s apprenticeship contract.

Trainee teachers dumped in cafes and shops for work placements 

Trainee FE teachers did work placements at cafes, clothes shops and with dissolved companies – before their private training company closed itself down while under investigation.

Applied Business Academy (ABA), which had campuses in Luton and Canary Wharf, went into liquidation in October while being probed by the Office for Students (OfS), avoiding potential “significant penalties”.

The firm delivered the FE teacher training qualification, the level 5 diploma in education and training (DET), alongside degrees under franchises and validation agreements with Leeds Trinity University and the University of Buckingham.

A summary investigation report published this week outlined the OfS’ findings related to ABA’s DET courses, which had over 2,000 students.

The course, awarded by City and Guilds, required 100 hours on a teaching placement. OfS found only six per cent of placements for ABA’s 2,031 DET students “appeared capable of satisfying the requirements” of the course.

‘Gimme Gimme Gimme’ a proper placement

OfS investigators found “unsuitable” companies recorded for teaching placements, including organisations listed as dissolved on Companies House and others that had “no clear link to education”.

“We found examples of small cafes, childcare providers, clothes shops, freight firms and building firms among others,” the report said.

One company allegedly used to host 28 DET placements, clocking up 2,800 hours, had no employees of its own and a “low turnover”.

OfS was also unable to verify the qualifications of ABA staff who acted as mentors and observers for trainee teachers.

Investigators were “concerned” to find no evidence of “any quality assurance processes or oversight for those staff involved in the provision of DET course placements”.

The report said none of ABA’s DET students were able to qualify.

“In all cases there was not sufficient evidence for City and Guilds to confirm the qualification requirements had been met. City and Guilds has confirmed these outcomes to students and continues to respond to any queries raised,” it said.

The OfS said it was publishing its DET findings so other providers could ensure their placement offerings are up to scratch.

Philippa Pickford, director of regulation at the OfS, said: “Students signed up to these courses to become further education teachers yet found themselves on wholly unsuitable placements with little or no oversight.

“If ABA had not entered liquidation and we had found breaches of our requirements for quality, standards and governance, we would have likely imposed significant penalties.”

Pruthvi Raj Gillella, the sole director and owner of ABA, was approached for comment.

Spotlight on franchises

ABA became an OfS registered higher education provider in March 2020. The company also delivered apprenticeships at that time. In May 2021, Ofsted inspectors chastised the company for training apprentices who did not have jobs, alongside leadership and safeguarding faults at the provider.

In 2022 it received a ‘requires improvement’ full inspection result and in 2023 was found to be making ‘insufficient progress’ in three out of four themes measured.

The company was removed from the apprenticeships register in early 2024.

Around that time, February 2024, the OfS launched an investigation into “potential concerns” over Leeds Trinity University’s subcontracting arrangements. ABA was listed by Leeds Trinity as one of its seven “academic partners”.

Then, in April, the OfS announced it was investigating ABA, specifically its management and governance. Data analysis during the investigation flagged concerns over its DET courses. The Department for Education told the Student Loans Company to suspend tuition fee payments to ABA around this time too.

By September 2024 ABA had de-registered itself from the OfS and appointed liquidators the following month.

Gillella remains an active director with seven companies, owning a solar-powered gazebo company, a cyber-security company, IT consultancy and a “maritime school”.

Pickford added: “’All institutions running similar courses need to ensure they are effectively run, are of high quality and that students are supported to gain teaching experience through their placements.

“Where courses are run as part of franchised provision, lead universities must also ensure the quality of courses remains high. We will continue to prioritise our work on franchised courses to ensure students can be confident that they will study on a high quality course that leads to positive outcomes.”

Let colleges finish the job started by the pupil premium

In England in 2025 there is still too close a relationship between family income and educational attainment – and yet financial support for our most disadvantaged young people drops off a cliff when they reach the age of 16.

Pupil premium funding was introduced in 2011 to enable schools to provide targeted interventions for young people facing disadvantage, but even though education and training up to the age of 18 was made compulsory in England a decade ago, there is still no 16-19 student premium to support young people in their final two years of education.

There is no reason why it should stop at 16 because the gap in attainment between young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers continues into post-16 education and beyond. Economically disadvantaged students are over three grades behind their peers across their best three subjects by the time they finish their 16-19 education, and the gap is wider for disadvantaged students in long-term poverty, who are almost four grades behind. Half of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds begin their post-16 education missing a standard pass in GCSE English, maths or both, and around a quarter complete compulsory education without these grades.

The attainment gap continues post-16

All of this limits options for progression to further study and employment and has implications for longer-term health and wellbeing. There are also clear economic and social consequences for the UK as a whole if young people aren’t given the support they need to catch up in post-16 education. Young people from the most deprived backgrounds earn over 10 per cent less than their wealthier peers by age 28; they are much more likely to become NEET (not in education, employment or training); and even high attainers are less likely to progress to university than their wealthier peers.

Up until the age of 16, the pupil premium enables schools to provide additional evidence-informed interventions designed to support school-aged children with their academic attainment and progression to further study. Following its introduction, the disadvantage gap at key stage 4 at age 16 had narrowed until the pandemic.

The absence of pupil premium funding past the age of 16 compounds wider funding inequalities. Between 2010-11 and 2019-20, spending per student aged 16- 18 fell in real terms by 14 per cent in colleges and 28 per cent in school sixth forms.

Spending review submission

The AoC and Get Further are now working with a coalition of 13 organisations – including The Access Project, Association of Schools and Colleges, The Brilliant Club, Fair Education Alliance, Runway Training, Sutton Trust and Villiers Park – to campaign for a 16-19 student premium to support disadvantaged learners in post-16 education. We have submitted a joint spending review submission around the urgent need for such targeted funding post-16. With the evidence base we now have, we know that of the different funding options available for closing the disadvantage gap (including, for example, direct cash transfers such as the education maintenance allowance), a premium is the best option.

Thanks to work by the Education Endowment Foundation, the Education and Training Foundation, the Learning and Skills Research Network and others, we know that a 16-19 student premium would fund evidence-based interventions such as tuition, professional development for college staff, and promote engagement with and progression in learning. It would also provide additional opportunities and incentives for the development and testing of new approaches to supporting young people post-16.

With the right level of investment, post-16 education can close the gap in attainment and progression between young people from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers. That fits well with the DfE focus on a system that works for some becoming a system that offers excellence for all. A post-16 premium would ensure that all young people are supported to access further opportunities in education and work.