Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Lasting progress depends on a connected, durable skills system

The value of technical education and apprenticeships has long been under-appreciated. Is this about to change?

It was hugely encouraging to hear the prime minister setting out a target for higher education and apprenticeship take-up during his speech at the Labour Party conference.

This feels to be a very significant step in levelling perceptions of the relative worth of academic and work-focused education pathways and hopefully it will become a clarion call that genuinely rebalances Tony Blair’s announcement of his ambition for 50 per cent of young people to enter higher education during a Labour Party conference speech in September 1999.

This became the flagship education policy of his government and was framed as part of a broader effort to modernise Britain’s economy and expand opportunity – and failing to recognise the critical importance of vocational and technical qualifications as a driver for prosperity and growth.

If followed through, the prime minister’s announcement has the potential to impact as deeply and have the same longevity – and it needs to.

Words into action

For now, it needs to be backed up with early and strong commitments to invest and make improvements; making immediate adjustments to the reporting and regulatory regimes for schools and colleges would be a good start. Whilst there are significant levels of ‘change fatigue’ in the skills system, there could be plenty of opportunities within the substantive and far-reaching announcements expected in the coming weeks.

There is often cynicism about the benefits of adjustments to departmental responsibilities. Whilst clearly a hastily made decision, the recent movement of adult education and apprenticeships to DWP has much potential as it strengthens the skills-to-work dynamic.

The changes have been welcomed by the awarding sector, and it is a genuine opportunity to create an agile, responsive and future-facing technical and vocational education system that powers more growth and opportunity. But we must guard against the temptation for ‘quick fixes’ and short-term outcomes focused that simply move young people into work. We must also hold onto the positive progress of recent years in raising standards and improving quality.

It will be important that we are not seduced into thinking that we can meet the needs of the economy by focusing exclusively on a single area or level of achievement.

Means and ends

Skills is a system, and we must address the industrial strategy priority sectors, as well as the more populous entry routes into work, if we are to ensure that the NEET totals do not spiral higher and for our system to be progressive and incentivising – a concept to which the attainment of qualifications is a significant contributor.

It seems inevitable that the curriculum and assessment review will result in more focus on level 3 qualifications and assessment. But we will not get at the NEET challenge if we do not similarly focus on all aspects of the offers at levels 1 and 2. We must support the movement through work as well as doing more to support younger learners into work.

This is where the post-16 strategy ought to help and bring bolder thinking about how we approach the needs of those who are in work and those coming into work. And for the latter, we must not lose sight of how important behaviours and essential cross-cutting skills are to competence. If we make the assessment of behaviours in apprenticeships effectively a bye, this will be a retrograde step and amount to lost learning from the frameworks era.

A cogent plan for the assessment of behaviours must not be lost amongst the reforms to apprenticeship assessment.

Collaboration calling

It is unrealistic to expect the post-16 education and skills strategy white paper and the curriculum and assessment review to get to this level of detail.

Moreover, an overarching and longer-term vision and clearly laid-out ambitions, supported by appropriate levels of funding, are overdue and should bring sought after certainty, transparency as well as, eventually, stability.

It will be good to see the detail, even where there are differences of opinion. But if we are to fashion the best-fit solutions that work for all components of the skills and FE system, we do need to have more opportunity for the expertise of all those involved in delivery to contribute their ideas.

Getting there will also require a genuine and positive commitment to discussion from all, as well as time. The skills eco-system is delicate, but we shouldn’t undervalue the contribution of those organisations who support the delivery.

The learning from recent policy developments is that, where this is underestimated, key stakeholders get left behind and important details get overlooked, causing problems and rolling-delays.

It is important that implementation is sensibly paced so that key stakeholders can balance their resources, to ensure that the benefits of change and improvement can be delivered by all those who have a stake in creating a truly world-class, technical and vocational education system.

The independence brought by awarding organisation members is trusted and valued both in the UK and internationally, and notably by employers. Awarding organisations play a key role in ensuring the quality of delivery and assurance that standards are valid and reliable.

When informed and empowered, awarding organisations move with precision and skill to translate policy into delivery in an environment that is established, regulated and understood by all.

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 510

Fliss Miller

Director of Skills and Employment, East Midlands Combined County Authority

Start date: September 2025

Previous Job: Director of Skills, South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority

Interesting fact: Fliss loves all things vintage with a special interest in pre 1940s’ Christmas decorations, and can often be found in charity shops and antiques fayres trying to find treasures of yesteryear

Sam Callear

Chief Executive Officer, GTA England

Start date: September 2025

Previous Job: Chief Operating Officer, GTA England

Interesting fact: Sam is a keen (yet novice) CrossFit participant. With 6am classes most mornings, he is now able to do pull ups

Principals scratch their heads over new improvement teams

Some sector leaders are sceptical about Labour’s plans for raising standards, arguing the FE Commissioner and existing support networks are sufficient.

FE leaders have warned that new “regional improvement teams” for colleges risk duplicating oversight already performed by the FE Commissioner (FEC).

Sir Keir Starmer pledged “higher standards in every college” in his Labour Party conference speech last week, promising to make further education “a defining mission”.

Downing Street has trailed policies expected in a white paper on post-16 education and skills, including “new regional improvement teams” (RITs) that will “support college improvement, including how they meet skills needs of their communities, and empower high-performing leaders to support others – driving attendance and standards”.

A new model of regional improvement teams, similar to the regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) teams launched for schools earlier this year, pairs experienced leaders with schools that have received consecutive poor Ofsted results.

College leaders have questioned whether the move is necessary, since similar support is already available from the FEC and national leaders of further education.

Darren Hankey, principal of Hartlepool College of Further Education, said the announcement has led some in the sector to “scratch their heads’.

He added: “I don’t know of a college principal who, regardless of their college’s Ofsted judgment, doesn’t want his or her college to improve and get better.

“I think there are fewer than 10 per cent of FE colleges with a less than ‘good’ Ofsted outcome, and those who do need a bit of support to improve do so via the FE Commissioner’s team, which has arguably been a force for good for the sector over the last decade.

“All in all, it begs the question, what is the problem this move is trying to solve?”

Practitioner expertise

FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave told FE Week her team of deputies and advisers will continue to bring practitioner expertise to all colleges.

FE Week understands that the FE Commissioner and “place-based teams” of civil servants have been developing a system to understand the key risks for the sector and which colleges are most vulnerable, which will inform how RITs work.

A DfE spokesperson said they were unable to comment when asked for further details behind the prime minister’s announcement, such as when RITs will be launched, how colleges could be targeted, or how they would fit into existing support.

Further detail will be provided in the soon-to-be-published white paper, they confirmed.

All RISE

Funded by £20 million this year, RISE teams carry out “mandatory and targeted intervention” in schools that are defined as “stuck” after receiving a ‘requires improvement’ at their most recent inspection and graded below ‘good’ at their previous one.

Under Ofsted’s incoming five-point scale for grades, officials will class schools as stuck if they are graded ‘needs attention’ in leadership and governance and previously graded below ‘good’.

RISE teams – made up of civil servants, school leaders and experts who are paid up to £600 per day – agree an improvement plan based on the school’s performance and Ofsted’s concerns.

DfE recruited 65 RISE advisors earlier this year. Most have recent experience in academy trusts, while some are from councils or maintained schools.

RISE teams also offer a universal service available to all schools seeking help with driving up attainment and attendance.

The government has also confirmed that, following a consultation on school accountability reform, it will broaden the scope of RISE teams to engage with schools that have “low or concerning” attainment levels.

Apart from plans to commission support from other trusts, councils and federations, specific examples of improvement actions are yet to be shared publicly.

Jo Higgins, chief executive of Dudley Academies Trust, which is waiting to offer support to other schools through RISE, said actions included in an improvement plan could include training teachers, teaching assistants and leaders to deliver and monitor the quality of a new curriculum.

Other support could include implementing a new behaviour management system, she added.

Speaking to FE Week’s sister title Schools Week earlier this year, Sheffield headteacher and RISE team member Paul Haigh said devising action plans will be collaborative, rather than a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am”.

Schools Week has identified 639 schools that fall under the DfE’s ‘stuck’ definition and, according to figures published last month, 396 have entered the intervention programme.

Few colleges in scope

The 213 colleges in scope represent a tiny number against more than 22,000 state-funded schools that the DfE funds and oversees.

Only two of those colleges appear to trigger the same ‘stuck’ Ofsted grade as schools, although DfE is yet to confirm whether it will apply the same intervention trigger to the college sector.

Neither of the two colleges with consecutive ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted grades are in FE intervention.

One of the colleges that falls under the schools’ definition of ‘stuck’ due to two consecutive ‘requires improvement’ Ofsted grades, New College Swindon, said it already receives “incredibly helpful” peer support from other colleges.

Deputy principal for curriculum and quality, Lynne Plested said: “Through the FE Commissioner’s active support team, we are already proactively working with Exeter College as our allocated partner, and other colleges to help us refine where our focus is needed. For example, we have worked with Exeter to specifically improve our A-level and ESOL provision, as well as our personal development models and data reporting.”

Just 9 of England’s 213 colleges have a live notice to improve, triggering FE Commissioner intervention due to poor education quality and/or financial health.

Karen Redhead, who led Ealing, Hammersmith and West London College out of financial intervention in 2023, said: “Like the majority of new announcements, the devil is in the detail.

“The majority of colleges are already rated as ‘good’ under the old Ofsted framework, so we need to be sure that something actually needs fixing before committing scarce public funds to it.”

Support lines open

Currently, college oversight is carried out by DfE civil servants known as ‘place-based teams’, who also manage day-to-day relations with college leaders.

According to the DfE’s current ‘college oversight: support and intervention’ policy, these teams monitor performance areas such as education quality and finance, as well as estates strategy.

When colleges are placed under formal intervention, the place-based teams, which are grouped into three regions for the whole of England, initiate intervention actions and monitor recovery. Meanwhile, the FE Commissioner’s team is dispatched to assess the college’s problems, recommend and then monitor changes.

The FE Commissioner also offers colleges an ‘active support’ service, including informal conversations, “health checks”, leadership mentoring, curriculum efficiency and options appraisals for restructuring.

There is also a group of ten national leaders of further education who have a “strong track record” of improvement from ‘good’ and ‘outstanding’ colleges that can be deployed to mentor or direct support struggling leaders.

Redhead added: “We need to be clear about how [regional improvement teams] would sit alongside existing forms of intervention.

“Having experienced intervention inside out, I believe that it is far more likely to be effective if it is supportive, motivational and energising for those on the receiving end.”

Weston freed of ‘traumatic’ NTI – but finance probe continues

Weston College is now free of the financial intervention triggered a year ago when multi-million pound payments to ex-principal Sir Paul Phillips were exposed.

A separate probe, by the government’s counter fraud team, continues.

The south west college’s financial notice to improve (NTI) was officially closed this week following its latest visit from the FE Commissioner in the summer.

College leaders proved they have strengthened governance and audit procedures, and remuneration processes for senior staff.

Principal Pat Jones, appointed in July 2024, said the saga has been “traumatic for colleagues” and moving out of intervention is a “significant step in the journey of putting this behind us”.

However, the Department for Education told FE Week its investigation into “other aspects” of the college’s historical finances is ongoing.

Weston College was placed in intervention last May after fraud investigators found governance failures around the disclosure of financial information including high pay packages to Phillips after his retirement.

DfE sent auditors from BDO to examine “other aspects” of financial controls at the college.

College leaders said they have “fully cooperated” with BDO during its probe and Jones said its focus was related to “past issues dating back to a period concluding in summer 2023”.

‘This has been traumatic for colleagues’

In 2023 FE Week revealed that Weston College’s governing board had created a “presidential” role for Phillips ahead of his retirement.

The revelations triggered a government probe, causing board chair Andrew Leighton-Price to step down and FE Commissioner adviser Tim Jackson taking the helm as interim chair. Jackson remains in post.

FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave’s long-awaited report earlier this year detailed how £2.5 million was paid to Phillips and kept off the books over a six-year period through a combination of bonuses, allowances and benefits, including a £909,000 retention payment.

Legrave also revealed the board circumvented standard payroll procedures to directly pay Phillips and provided partial information to external auditors.

Legrave made 13 recommendations to the college, including putting in a “formal” scheme of delegation for the board or committees to approve senior pay approval and banning the remuneration committee chair being the same individual as the board chair.

“Significant” changes were approved by the board after the FEC’s visit in June 2024 to strengthen governance, improve oversight and due diligence.

Jones said she was “thrilled” and called the NTI closure a “significant step” to putting the scandal behind the college under a new executive leadership team and governing body.

“Competent, transparent and strong governance is the best assurance for any public institution (colleges or other) in avoiding anything like this in future,” she said.

“We hope that all colleges use the lessons of our past to validate their own governance arrangements and organisational controls.”

Jones added: “On behalf of all within the college, I extend my sincere gratitude to our valued stakeholders, partners, and wider community for their unwavering support during this period.”

Revealed: DfE’s special payments to providers after funding blunder

The Department for Education quietly spent almost £3 million on first-of-their-kind compensation payments to dozens of training providers after a botched apprenticeship funding band decision.

Forty-four providers of the heavy vehicle technician apprenticeship received one-off payments totaling £2.76 million. Officials issued “exceptional retrospective payments” after the department admitted it had underfunded the programme for years.

Documents released to FE Week under freedom of information laws reveal that Remit Training received the lion’s share, nearly £1 million, followed by Skillnet, which was awarded £383,000. The SMB Group received £136,000.

The 41 other providers each received between £3,000 and £99,000.

Experts believe the DfE has set a precedent for more campaigns from providers in other sectors to receive similar special payments where they can prove funding band decisions were flawed and have not covered delivery costs.

Who was at fault?

The HGV technician standard was originally funded at £18,000, but the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), now Skills England, controversially reduced that rate to £15,000 in 2019 – a cut it later admitted was based on “inaccurate” information.

FE Week has received conflicting explanations for the error.

Sources close to government blamed training providers who submitted evidence which missed off consumables that should have been deemed eligible costs, and didn’t include end-point assessment costs, which therefore supported a lower funding band.

Providers blame IfATE for allegedly not involving the trailblazer group in any quality assurance of the data and rejecting initial appeals.

The funding band was finally reviewed and increased to £20,000 in 2023. However, many providers said the damage had already been done, with several warning that the programme had become financially unviable.

Skills shortages are now hitting industry. The Road Haulage Association (RHA) told FE Week there were around 100 colleges and independent training providers delivering the HGV technician apprenticeship a decade ago – but the current count has been decimated to 34 partly due to the funding band debacle.

In a statement to FE Week, the DfE said it believed the sector “would have been better served by a funding band of £17,000” between 2019 and 2023, and so made backdated payments to protect “current and future provision of HGV technician apprenticeships, a critical industry being significantly impacted by skills shortages”.

Payments were made to cover the shortfall for learners who started before the 2023 funding uplift, with the money distributed across multiple financial years “for the duration of these apprenticeships”.

There were 4,287 starts on the HGV technician standard between 2019 and 2023, according to government statistics.

Pressure from sector campaign

The exceptional payments follow years of pressure from training providers and employer groups, which have repeatedly highlighted the chronic underfunding of heavy vehicle apprenticeship delivery, arguing it has been catastrophic and led to providers absorbing losses, placing strain on cash flow and staffing, or walking away altogether.

FE Week understands former transport secretary Mark Harper even wrote to then education secretary Gillian Keegan in 2023 demanding a funding band uplift.

It is not clear why the DfE opted to hand out exceptional payments to HGV technician providers as well as increasing the funding band.

DfE would only say this was an “exceptional case”.

Remit Training has started around 2,200 apprentices on the course since 2019 – almost triple the number of the next biggest provider.

CEO Sue Pittock, who also sits on the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) board, said: “Remit was pleased that DfE could see the funding needed to change and was able to support all providers who deliver HGV provision with exceptional payments.

“It was challenging during the period when the funding was £15,000. HGV training is vital to keeping the country’s supply chain moving; without trucks being able to transport goods safely, there would be a significant issue.”

Eugene Lowry, managing director at Skillnet, said the exceptional payments were an “incredible” win.

He explained that providers were forced to act quickly when contacted by the DfE about the decision. “The DfE managed to contact me while I was on holiday to say, ‘we’ve sent you a letter, you need to sign it and get it back to us in the next 24 hours’. And they’re not known for speediness,” Lowery told FE Week.

He said the underfunded period “got stretchy” for Skillnet’s business considering the expensive equipment needed to offer the apprenticeship, such as cars and trucks, all of which need faults created for apprentices to fix.

“These trucks and cars are not designed to be broken so their lifetime as a resource is not long,” Lowry added. “It requires more investment from training providers like ourselves to have the resources available to allow the apprentices to do their training and assessment.”

SMB Group, which merged with Loughborough College this year after running into financial difficulty, said: “It is pleasing to see that DfE rectified underpayments.”

A precedent for others?

Sector leaders say the DfE’s decision to effectively backdate funding represents a major policy shift – and could open the door for similar claims for other apprenticeship standards that have been underfunded due to flawed funding band reviews.

Ben Rowland, AELP CEO, said:“It’s right that the DfE has corrected this funding band error and compensated affected providers, but it also underlines just how carefully Skills England must tread as they review apprenticeship standards.”

He added that this “episode” also shows “why independent training providers must have access to capital investment to expand capacity, and why future reviews must be careful not to undermine delivery”.

Another source questioned the fairness of the exceptional payments, and why a similar special deal has not been done for apprenticeships in, for example, adult care which were underfunded for years and received its own “exceptional” funding band increase in 2023.

They said: “It seems unfair and inappropriate that providers delivering one lorry standard, with funding increased by a third, received compensatory payments, while providers delivering the level 2 in adult care, with the same percentage increase, received nothing and were probably in far more financially challenging circumstances.”

Getting the funding band back together

HGV technician apprenticeship providers argue that the increase to a £20,000 funding band is still not sufficient to meet costs.

The standard is also in the process of being revised, according to the RHA’s skills policy lead Sally Gilson, to include zero emission vehicles for the first time which will ramp up costs of delivery even further.

Electric HGVs can cost up to half a million pounds, Gilson said.

She said the HGV technician funding band needs to rise to the maximum level on offer from government of £27,000.

Gilson told FE Week the industry has been on a real “slow burn skills shortage” partly because of the funding fiasco on the three-year apprenticeship.

The sector has gone from having one technician for every 25 vehicles to one for every 32 in recent years, which leads to delays and heightens the prospect of employers cutting corners on maintenance checks to get their vehicles road safe.

“We’ve also got an aging workforce. We desperately need to bring in young people,” Gilson said.

LSEC reveals civic rebrand

A London group of colleges and schools has rebranded with a name that reflects its “strong civic mission”.

London and South East Education Group, which houses London South East Colleges and London South East Academies Trust, is now known as Elevare Civic Education Group.

Leaders of Elevare, which is Latin for “raise”, said the change “captures our commitment to raising aspirations” and “emphasises our role as an anchor institution”.

London South East Colleges and London South East Academies Trust will retain their identities under the new group, alongside the charity LASER Education Foundation. The names of the group’s eight college campuses and 16 mainstream, special and alternative provision schools will also not change.

The group collectively teaches about 16,000 pupils and learners and employs over 1,600 staff.

Group chief executive Sam Parrett said the rebrand to Elevare Civic Education Group “signals the next stage of our journey”.

“Elevare – meaning to elevate or uplift – captures our commitment to raising aspirations and creating opportunities for learners in our schools and college, and in our wider communities.

“The addition of Civic emphasises our role as an anchor institution. We collaborate with our partners to create lasting social impact, generating community wealth and driving social mobility for all.”

The launch of the new name coincides with the release of a report from the group’s charity, LASER Education Foundation, which analyses insight from over 3,000 school and college learners on growing up in south east London.

The report, Three Thousand Voices: Growing up in South East London, identified groups of learners more likely to experience barriers in education and life. For example, while 82 per cent of young people said they lived with people who make them feel loved, that figure dropped to 54 per cent for looked-after children and 55 per cent for learners who do not identify as male or female.

College learners’ worries about their futures were related to fears of not passing GCSE resits or not achieving the qualifications needed for their chosen careers.

Writing for FE Week, report co-author Vivienne Avery, group director of policy and research at Elevare Civic Education Group, said behind the findings “lies a picture of a generation growing up amid labour-market instability and rising costs of living, trying to make choices in a world that feels unpredictable.”

Skills England urged to confront government on FE funding

Skills England should challenge the government over FE funding gaps and “excessive competition and poor alignment” between colleges and universities, a new report has said.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) and Universities UK (UUK) have today published a joint report called Delivering a joined-up post-16 skills system that calls for deeper collaboration between FE and HE. The document highlights opportunities for economic growth and “a more prosperous and fulfilling life” for learners.

Colleges and universities face a “highly marketised” environment, short-term and “disjointed” policy-making, and “funding pressures”, the report said.

AoC and UUK call for Skills England to be empowered to identify barriers and make “recommendations for action”.

The new executive body, which now reports to the Department for Work and Pensions, should highlight coordination issues such as “excessive competition and poor alignment” that drive inefficiencies in the system, according to the report.

It should also highlight financial issues such as when the cost of delivery has failed to keep up with available funding and “challenges” where employers are “impeding demand” from learners due to pay, conditions or progression opportunities.

Not our job, guv

However, it is unclear whether the remit of Skills England allows officials to express strong opinion about competition between colleges and universities, or whether it is able to stand up to the government to whom it answers.

When grilled about funding by MPs on the education committee earlier this year, bosses of the quango said that budget decisions were “up to ministers”.

In an interview with FE Week, the executive agency’s chair, Phil Smith, said he is “slightly neutral” on whether it lacks independence or strength and has not pushed for more powers.

Smith dismissed the idea that “putting more money” into FE will fix its problems, arguing that navigation of educational pathways through careers is a bigger problem.

Much of the solution is marketing, he added.

The goals of the quango are to identify skills gaps in the economy, use this insight to “improve provision”, and ensure people have “clear education and training pathways”.

Since its launch, Skills England has published two reports, covering skills needs in the government’s priority sectors and analysing expected demand over the next five years.

‘We can do more’

The report comes ahead of the government’s post-16 education and skills white paper, which is expected to set out a more “joined up” system that includes unified funding and regulation across both colleges and universities.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said colleges and universities have “common and complementary missions” to support people into higher levels of learning and act as “anchor institutions” in their communities.

He added: “Many already work together to help achieve those ambitions, but we believe more can be done to achieve even more.

Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, praised the report’s examples of collaboration that are “already happening”.

This includes Loughborough College’s and Loughborough University’s 30-year partnership over sports-related degree courses, which are delivered by the college and validated by the university.

It also cites London South Bank University Group as a success story, for merging a university, college and academy trust under one “group structure” that provides a “united academic framework” such as level 4 college courses which “guarantee entry” on to the second year of the university’s bachelor’s degree.

AoC and UUK have vowed to “take this challenge on ourselves” by forming a joint group of college and university leaders to demonstrate commitment to “delivering on the prime minister’s ambition” of two-thirds of our children either going to university or taking on a gold standard apprenticeship.

The group will focus on delivery of the white paper’s priorities, identifying opportunities to “deepen alignment” and exploring “stronger partnership working”.

ASCL joins Ofsted preparation ‘cottage industry’ it once criticised

A union which criticised an “unhelpful cottage industry around preparing for inspections” is running its own webinars to help leaders prepare for Ofsted report card visits – at nearly £150 per school or college.

In a policy paper published in 2023, the Association of School and College Leaders called on Ofsted to publish inspector training materials to “dispel myths about what Ofsted wants and reduce the unhelpful cottage industry which has grown up”.

The watchdog now publishes training materials on its Ofsted Academy website, and is running free webinars for the sector on its new report cards, due to be introduced next month.

But ASCL said schools and colleges are still clamouring for more information on how report cards will work, caused by the short timeline between final plans being revealed last month and the restart of inspections in November.

The union is now advertising its own webinars with “analysis, recommendations and support” on the inspections.

One session will cover “the type of evidence that inspectors will look for to make judgements and will suggest a possible self-evaluation method to aid leaders in their preparation”.

The cost for five sessions is £120 plus VAT per school or organisation.

Three “bonus sessions” covering early years, post-16 provision and further education are also included in ASCL’s webinar series.

Ofsted ‘strongly discourages’ paying for prep

When asked about the ASCL webinar, an Ofsted spokesperson said: “We strongly discourage schools spending their limited resources on training materials that purport to prepare them for inspection.

“Ofsted recently hosted a series of free webinars for every different kind of education provider, where we explained first-hand what they can expect from the new approach to inspection.

“Many thousands of education professionals attended, and we are uploading all of the recordings onto our YouTube channel, where they can be watched back any time – for free.”

But Pepe Di’Iasio (pictured), ASCL’s general secretary, said Ofsted’s “determination to rush through the implementation of a significantly changed inspection system has given schools and colleges little time to prepare for a new set of high-stakes hurdles”.

He added: “We have already endeavoured to meet this need by providing information and answering questions about the new framework through our regular communication channels. This is, of course, provided without charge as part of our normal service to our members.

“It is clear that some schools and colleges are seeking a more extensive programme of practical support and as a trusted source of high-quality professional development provision we felt that it was right for us to make that available through our Ofsted webinar series.”

The union charges annual membership fees from £258 for business managers up to £486 for executive heads or CEOs.

Di’Iasio said the “substantial programme” works out at £24 per session and is recorded so it can be shared. “We think this delivers good value and provides a cost-effective option,” he added.

Ofsted has long complained about consultants selling schools and colleges training on inspections.

In a 2018 blog titled ‘The myth of Ofsted consultants: do not buy the snake oil’, former national director for education Sean Harford said the “lucrative industry that sells schools consultation into ‘what Ofsted wants’ and ‘preparation for Ofsted’ seems to thrive”.

“Please, do not hand your silver to these Mystic Megs,” he added.

Under reforms following the death of headteacher Ruth Perry, the Ofsted Academy was set up to publish materials relating to inspector training.

The watchdog said this would “open up Ofsted to those we inspect, and pass on what we know”.

“We will become increasingly transparent about what we do by sharing our training in context and making our processes visible,” Ofsted stated on its website.

Despite this, schools were still contacted by consultants looking to sell training around new report card inspections earlier this year – even before final plans were published.

Speaking to TES about the issue in March, Di’Iasio said this practice was “a sign of just how high-stakes the inspection system is”.

The union said it continued to “call on Ofsted and the government to rethink the five-point grading scale and timetable for implementation as we are deeply concerned about the pressure this places on leaders and their staff with detrimental consequences for their wellbeing”.

An anti-fraud law for business has big implications for FE providers

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 introduces new legal responsibilities aimed at improving corporate accountability and fraud prevention in the UK. While originally designed with corporate entities in mind, it has important implications for FE colleges and independent training providers.

Managing fraud risks is nothing new for colleges. Indeed, the College Financial Handbook, the funding rules and accountability agreements all contain obligations on fraud prevention. But this act does create a new layer of obligations and risks which colleges will need to feed into their processes.

Key changes:

‘Senior management’ offence (“SM offence”)

Colleges and ITPs could face criminal liability if a senior manager (such as a principal, finance director or senior leadership team member) commits a specified economic offence (such as false accounting or fraud) whilst acting with the authority of the institution. If this occurs, the college itself could be found guilty of the same offence.

This SM offence applies to all colleges and providers and there is no defence available, meaning everyone needs to be alive to this risk.

‘Failure to prevent fraud’ offence (“FTPF offence”)

This provision, which only came into force this month, means that colleges that meet the definition of a ‘large organisation’ may also be held criminally liable, and receive an unlimited fine, if someone associated with the college or ITP (such as staff, governors, contractors, or agents) commits fraud with the intention of benefitting the provider, even if the provider was unaware of this.

A college or ITP is considered ‘large’ if it meets two of the following three criteria:

It has more than 250 employees.
Its turnover exceeds £36 million.
It has assets greater than £18 million.

If an institution is part of a larger group, note that these thresholds apply to the entire group.

Even if a college or ITP is not classified as ‘large’, the Home Office and the Department of Education (DfE) recommend that all education providers adopt good practice in fraud prevention.

Unlike the SM offence, there is a defence if the institution can demonstrate that it was or was intended to be a victim of fraud, it had reasonable fraud prevention measures in place, or it was not reasonable to expect such prevention procedures to be in place.

How can colleges and ITPs prevent fraud?

Recommended fraud prevention procedures:

Risk assessments: Undertake and regularly review risk assessments. Identify areas of vulnerability, such as procurement, payroll, student funding and sub-contracting arrangements.

Due diligence: Have proportionate and risk-based due diligence procedures in place to vet third-party providers, agents and contractors (especially those involved in financial transactions or student recruitment).

Policies and training: Ensure anti-fraud and whistleblowing policies are up-to-date and clearly communicated, and that staff receive regular training.

Contracting: Make sure that relevant contracts contain clauses to protect the college as far as possible. To take one example, there have been high profile examples of frauds by subcontractors to colleges. So subcontracts should put obligations on subcontractors (ours does).

Anti-fraud culture: Ensure staff are comfortable to speak up about concerns and that reporting channels are clear and accessible.

Governance and oversight: Ensure senior managers understand their responsibilities and that oversight mechanisms are in place.

DfE has issued sector-specific guidance on fraud prevention which outlines common risks and provides useful templates. Colleges and ITPs are encouraged to develop a fraud response plan, use DfE’s fraud indicators checklist and align with cyber security standards to prevent digital fraud. Colleges should review this guidance in detail.

Conclusion

The act marks a significant shift toward greater transparency and accountability and raises the bar in terms of how colleges and ITPs are expected to manage fraud risk.

There have been a number of matters before the Teaching Regulation Agency for example in the past where senior members of the leadership team have been prohibited from teaching due to fraud. If such fraud had been undertaken since the act came into force, there is a real chance that the incorporated body could have faced liability, too.

Whether or not your college or ITP is a ‘large’ organisation, adopting recommended procedures is a proactive step toward safeguarding it’s reputation and finances and protecting against possible criminal liability. Now is the time to review policies and staff training, update internal processes, and seek professional support where necessary to ensure you meet the evolving regulatory requirements.