Latest news from FE Week

Are assessment reforms a safety risk we can’t afford?

The government’s proposed reforms to apprenticeship assessment have sparked serious concern from employers. This is particularly the case for employers represented by sector skills bodies Cogent Skills and Enginuity across safety-critical industries including engineering and manufacturing, life sciences and nuclear.

While the intention may be to streamline processes and reduce duplication, the unintended consequences could undermine apprenticeship credibility and compromise safety. For apprenticeship assessment, a one size fits all approach won’t work.

Ignoring employer expertise

Historically, industry-led trailblazer groups have ensured apprenticeships meet real-world standards. The current approach is ‘pro-employer’ rather than ‘employer-led’ which is a subtle but significant difference. Moving away from employers leading development of assessment plans with support from sector skills bodies risks diverging from the people with deep technical knowledge and expertise. Whilst there was room for streamlining of processes and reducing bureaucracy, this can’t come at a risk to quality. Within a manufacturing setting, continuous improvement never undermines the quality of the output.

Why consistency matters

Occupational competence underpins apprenticeships. Employers need to feel confident that an individual completing their programme is competent and ready for the job. Whilst some assessment plans were probably overly long and prescriptive, moving to very short plans means that different assessments could be delivered, which risks consistency and the reliability of the apprenticeship brand as a kitemark for competence. Moreover, employers are concerned that a sampling approach is not appropriate in all circumstances.

Safety and compliance risks

The employers we represent tell us that sampling-based assessment models prioritise speed and cost over rigour. In safety-critical environments, this approach is unacceptable and could have catastrophic consequences. They worry that if there are no standardised assessments, there is no basis for a recruiting employer to understand what work that individual can competently carry out. At best this could mean that the employer retests the individual, at worst, that they are not recruited.

The sectors looked after by Cogent Skills operate under strict regulatory frameworks, from nuclear safety standards to chemical process regulations. A sampling approach to assessments risks compromising competence and increasing operational risk. Employers are concerned that in environments where safety is non-negotiable, these reforms feel like a race to the bottom.

In the engineering sector, employers hold apprenticeships in high regard and trust the robustness and reliability of the assessment of competence. These employers are also concerned that the mandatory qualification can replace the end point assessment. In real terms, this risks competence being judged on a multiple choice test and off the job assessment rather than the assessment of practical ability in the workplace. All this will reduce employer confidence in apprenticeships over time and could lead to some smaller employers walking away from apprenticeships completely.

Potential erosion of a safety critical culture

Equally troubling for employers across our sectors is the decision to remove formal assessment of behaviours. Safety culture, teamwork, and adherence to protocols are not optional extras, they are essential for maintaining site safety and team integrity. Without rigorous assessment of behaviours, we risk diluting the safety culture that underpins these industries.

A better way forward

Employers want apprenticeships to work. They are not averse to continuous improvement, particularly where this reduces unneeded processes. However, maintaining quality is essential to maintaining employer confidence. In safety critical industries in particular, the risks of moving too fast, and without listening to employers, could have serious implications. Comprising on competence could lead to compromising on public safety.

We understand that government wants to strengthen apprenticeships, and would recommend starting with a sector-by-sector rather than a one size fits all approach. As sector skills bodies working together as members of Skills Federation, we are well placed to understand employer needs. We are keen to support government to ensure that apprenticeships work for employers large and small, and individuals across our industries. We believe that not compromising on rigorous assessment and keeping the focus on occupational competency can maintain the credibility and quality of apprenticeships, ensuring they remain a trusted benchmark of skill and safety.

Ofsted’s one-word grades were a ‘good’ way of explaining quality

I think I’m having an identity crisis. For years, whenever I’ve stood on stage at conferences and talked to staff at partner colleges, local authorities or training providers, one of the first questions I’ve been asked is simple: ‘What’s your Ofsted grade?’

It’s been the shorthand for quality, safety and credibility. At The Skills Network, we’ve prided ourselves on every partner achieving ‘good’ or better for their adult delivery.

Even in my personal life, Ofsted grades have guided decisions. Every time my family has moved house, the first thing I’ve checked is the local schools’ Ofsted ratings. Estate agents certainly know this – they splash “outstanding schools nearby” across property ads because parents, like me, look for a simple metric.

We all crave simplicity. I rarely watch a film with an IMDb rating under 6.5 and I hesitate to book a hotel scoring below 7 without digging into the comments. The rating comes first; the detail follows later.

End of the elevator pitch

So, what happens now that Ofsted grades are gone?

Until recently, our quality assurance could be summed up in a word – “good”. That was our elevator pitch. But now, the elevator has stopped. The new system feels more like climbing 10 flights of stairs just to explain where we stand.

We’re told that instead of a single grade, there’ll be report cards with coloured dots. Those of us steeped in the inspection framework may know what each colour signifies, but will the average parent, learner or employer? Without that simple label, communicating quality suddenly becomes a complicated conversation.

And then there’s the language. What does expected actually mean?

Having been at OCR when letters changed to numbers, we spent a lot of time with a little chart showing the mapping against the old grades; grade 4 a pass, grade 5 a good pass with a bit of a grade B etc.

Is ‘expected’ the new ‘satisfactory’ with a dash of ‘good’? Or do we now expect good, so ‘expected’ is simply average? Similarly, is ‘strong’ the top end of good with a sprinkling of ‘outstanding’?

To make matters worse, the new ‘secure fit’ approach means that if even one sub-judgement ‘needs attention’”, the overall outcome could be pulled down. In other words, you could be strong in everything but one area and still end up with a negative headline.

That doesn’t feel like “less pressure” to me – quite the opposite.

Promise of greater clarity

The justification for abolishing grades was noble enough. We were promised greater clarity, less pressure and a fairer reflection of institutions’ strengths and weaknesses. But I’m not convinced the reality matches the rhetoric.

Clarity? Not for parents, learners or employers who just want to know whether a place is good and safe. A better reflection? Perhaps, but only for those fluent in inspection-speak.
Less pressure? Tell that to a college leader watching one ‘needs attention’ comment undo years of hard work.

FE Week readers will understand the subtleties, but the public won’t. The risk is that the new framework makes quality less transparent to those outside our world.

Keep the playing field level

There is, however, one major positive. The renewed focus on inclusion and disadvantage is welcome and should play to FE’s strengths. FE is the most inclusive arm of the education system, offering life-changing opportunities for those who need them most. If inspection frameworks now highlight this contribution, that’s something to celebrate.

But this advantage only holds if definitions and expectations are consistent across all sectors and there is consistency in the inspection teams. If “inclusion” is judged differently for FE than for schools, we’ll have a problem. The playing field must remain level.

We’ll need to see whether the promised benefits – greater fairness, less stress, more nuance – materialise. Feedback from the first colleges and providers through the process will be crucial.

But the immediate issue is communication. How do we, as providers, describe ourselves now? How do we reassure stakeholders, parents, funders and partners about our quality without that simple, universally understood grade?

I’ll keep my metaphorical step-counter handy – because explaining quality in the post-grade world is going to be one serious workout.

The quiet power of FE, where second chances spark social change

When I first walked into a college classroom nearly a decade ago, I wasn’t a lecturer but a woman in recovery, trying to rebuild a life that addiction had torn apart.

I had just had my first son, some 20 years after leaving school with no FE qualifications. My Access to HE course, which I completed with a distinction, became a ladder out of an earlier chaos. It gave me a language for understanding people, systems and, eventually, myself.

Today as a lecturer and programme co-ordinator, I’m helping to shape a new foundation degree in social and community practice.

It feels like the natural continuation of my own journey: learning, recovery and community all stitched together.

The degree is being developed from need. In South Devon like in many coastal regions, social issues overlap – mental health, homelessness, addiction and low-level crime.

Here, like most areas, support services are stretched and staff turnover is high. Too many people fall through the cracks. The new programme is designed to develop practitioners who can stop that happening.

It equips them with the knowledge and critical skills needed to intervene early, carry out informed and ethical assessments, and work collaboratively across agencies. The aim is to ensure children, families and vulnerable adults receive timely, coordinated support.

The first year gives students the fundamentals – ethics, legislation, human development, wellbeing and research. The second year focuses on specific social challenges such as addiction and recovery, homelessness and deprivation, disability, mental health and working with victims and offenders.

That last group of modules excites me the most. Real lives don’t fit neatly into categories.

Someone can be a survivor, a parent, a carer, an offender and a neighbour all at once. Our students learn to see the whole person rather than just the label.

Our social science classroom discussions, sometimes fuelled by lived experience, remind me daily that empathy is a form of intelligence. Some have faced the issues they now study.

National data underlines why programmes like this matter. The Office for National Statistics reported this year that rates of symptoms of depression in England remain nearly double pre-pandemic levels.

Alcohol-related deaths in the south west are among the highest in the country.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation described 2025 as a “turning point for poverty policy” as people struggle with housing and cost-of-living pressures.

Every one of those statistics translates into the kind of cases our graduates will face.

A collaborative project with Devon and Cornwall Police asked our students to present ideas on tackling antisocial behaviour and crime in Torquay. Their message was direct: punishment without understanding changes nothing. They proposed prevention through support and education – ideas that are now being implemented.

Seeing that level of maturity in their analysis and proposals was a highlight of my career.

What strikes me most about working with my students is their sense of service. Whether they go on to become social workers, advocates, counsellors or police officers, they share one common purpose – to make people’s lives better.

Yes, it’s cheesy, but it’s also evidence-based. Research from the University of York shows that trauma-informed practice reduces repeat crisis interventions and improves community outcomes.

The data confirms what lived experience has already taught many of us. For me, recovery and teaching are different sides of the same coin.

Writing a module on addiction and recovery allowed me to bring that perspective into academia in a way that feels responsible and useful. It tells students – and maybe the sector – that vulnerability can coexist with professionalism.

Real change in social care begins when education helps people turn understanding into action that strengthens the communities around them.

When I look around my classroom, I see a few learners who might reshape the very services that once supported them. That’s the quiet power of further and higher education working together.

And if my story proves anything, it’s that learning doesn’t just change lives. It can save them too.

It’s mayday for the skills sector under DWP

If you’ve seen the film Das Boot, about a German U-boat, you’ll remember what happens when they did an emergency dive. Alarms going off, crew scrambling everywhere and sheer panic.

Why does this spring to mind when I think of skills moving into the Department for Work and Pensions? Well, if skills didn’t have enough challenges, inserting it into the DWP risks sinking the market quickly.

Historically, employability and skills funding has been like oil and water; the two don’t mix. That doesn’t help employers, jobseekers or learners.

Research shows most employers hire for attitude and train for skill. Putting responsibility under one roof may seem like the best way to achieve this – but let me provide a reality check.

The DWP has a huge budget, skills will be a fraction of that, and there are flashing red lights from what has happened to employability, especially for SMEs.

The arrival in 2021 of DPS2 (Dynamic Purchasing System), which Jobcentres can use to fill unmet needs, has been a disaster. That’s because if a Jobcentre manages to find a programme that works really well, they can’t repeat it. They have to buy on price.

Contract awards are updated quarterly on Contract Finder so competitors can see what the winning price was. So they bid below that, often significantly lowballing. The Jobcentre ends up with poor-quality provision which they know won’t deliver, but it’s that or nothing.

The DWP’s inability to course correct on this cannot be allowed to happen with skills.

When I met Debbie Abrahams MP, chair of the Work and Pensions Select Committee, and gave her evidence of how the DWP has failed to learn from, replicate and scale Jobcentre programmes, she agreed it undermines ministers’ priorities.

Problems are compounded by the DWP’s lack of transparency about the performance of its employment support programmes, as requested by her predecessor, Sir Stephen Timms and the National Audit Office.

Mel Stride’s response when he was secretary of state to a transparency campaign led by the then MP John Penrose, was the DWP didn’t need to measure performance and he didn’t see why they should. He also said using past performance as part of the criteria to evaluate bids from suppliers would “not be legally compliant with current procurement regulations”.

Alarmingly, Labour haven’t changed that, even though I suggested they should request full transparency during their access talks with civil servants prior to the election.

The lack of training for Jobcentre staff to write specifications means they guess at what is needed, often unintentionally precluding proven solutions. They get conflicting guidance about whether they can speak to other regions about best practice, or speak to providers about their challenges.

The DWP’s insistence that knowing a provider’s performance would compromise fair and open competition is an interpretation of procurement law unique to them.

They have predictably created a race to the bottom where a provider can write a great bid, low ball on price and win the work, even when they don’t have the expertise or capability to deliver it. This is inevitable if performance isn’t taken into account.

Whilst some DWP regions may like to address that, they are powerless.

Does quality matter?

Quality matters and has to be measurable, but the current modus operandi means it isn’t. Ofsted and the sector have worked hard to raise standards but the DWP’s current approach will reverse that. Skills England will say what?

I’ve spoken to work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden about the need for public sector reform to achieve growth, and how DWP employment support is the place to start.

The way through this, as I discussed with Darren Jones (now chief secretary to the prime minister) earlier in the year, is a facilitated amnesty. Rather than allow civil servants to issue eloquent brush offs, McFadden and colleagues need to go looking for problems, call some of this poor practice out, and shift the intent of the organisation.

McFadden has already said the DWP is there to help get people into work, which means getting the best from skills, not ruining the sector. Hopefully we can say ‘all aboard’, rather than ‘abandon ship’.

Apprentice minimum wage to rise to £8

The minimum hourly wage for apprentices will be boosted to £8 next April, the chancellor has announced.

Ahead of tomorrow’s budget, Rachel Reeves tonight revealed the minimum rate on offer to apprentices will rise by 45p, or 6 per cent, from the current £7.55 per hour.

While the wage boost is lower than last year’s 18 per cent hike, it is higher than the current rate of inflation that sits at 3.6 per cent in the year to October.

Reeves will also increase the national minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds by 8.5 per cent to £10.85 per hour.

And the national living wage will also rise by 4.1 per cent from £12.21 to £12.71 per hour for workers aged 21 and over.

The rate rises will kick in from April 1, 2026.

Employers have to pay at least the apprentice minimum wage for apprentices aged 16 to 18, and for apprentices aged 19 or over in the first year of their apprenticeship. After their first year, apprentices aged over 19 should receive at least the national minimum wage, or the national living wage, depending on their age.

Reeves is also expected to use her budget tomorrow to confirm freezes on rail fares and NHS prescription charges to ease the cost of living. However, she is also rumoured to be extending a freeze on income tax thresholds once more and capping pension contributions through salary sacrifices to raise government revenue.

Reeves said the changes will benefit “many” young people across the country.

“I know that the cost of living is still the number one issue for working people and that the economy isn’t working well enough for those on the lowest incomes,” she added.

“Too many people are still struggling to make ends meet and that has to change.”

Our jobs market is changing faster than anyone expected – our skills system isn’t

Technological, demographic and environmental changes – so-called mega trends – are just some of the shifts reshaping the labour market at unprecedent speed, far faster than previously expected.

It is imperative that skills are now put front and centre of the growth agenda. A system of lifelong learning is needed to fuel labour market resilience and economic growth.

Jobs total is increasing, but not all occupations are growing

For the last five years, the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) has been leading The Skills Imperative 2035 research programme to quantify the implications of these mega-trends. We published employment projections in 2022 which showed the total number of jobs was expected to grow, but that almost all this growth would be in higher skilled professional and technical jobs such as engineering, teaching and health practitioners. We identified that 12 million people in England work in mid-to-low skill occupations such as administrators, sales, and warehouse operatives, which are in decline. Our projections suggested that one million of these jobs could disappear by 2035.

A quarter of jobs in high-risk occupations could be lost

However, new analysis which has examined how the labour market has changed since 2022 shows that the pace of change has been more rapid than expected – as much as three times faster for some groups. If these trends continue, up to three million jobs in high-risk occupations could disappear before 2035.

Why these lost jobs matter

In previous periods of change in the labour market, displaced workers have found similar new jobs without creating large-scale unemployment. However, if there are far fewer low skilled jobs opportunities in future, these workers risk being permanently excluded from the workforce at a time when we need more workers because of the growing labour market. These workers tend to be lower-skilled/qualified compared to those in growing occupations. They will need support to upgrade their skills to enable them to transition to growing parts of the labour market.

These changes also pose a threat to young people

Changes also pose a major threat to young people who leave education without the skills and qualifications to access growing higher-skilled jobs. With fewer low skilled jobs opportunities in the future and increased competition from lower skilled workers already in the labour market, they run the risk of being not in education, employment or training (NEET).

We need to build a system of lifelong learning

The impact of these mega-trends on the labour market is very compelling. An urgent response is required. A system of lifelong learning is needed, with a cradle-to-grave approach to skills development at its core. In our report we set out the collective response required from across government, educators and employers.

Central to this response is the need to ensure all young people leave education with a strong base of the ‘essential employment skills’ (EES) – such as collaboration, communication and problem solving. Our research has shown that these skills are already important but will be even more vital in future, especially in growth occupations which utilise them intensively. These skills must be explicitly recognised and developed alongside the teaching of knowledge, supported by a common skills framework that schools and colleges can use.

Also central is the need to reinvigorate the adult skills system. As the rate of change accelerates, so too does the need to help existing workers reskill and upskill, given that over 70 per cent of the future workforce in 2035 are already in work. An injection of funding can rejuvenate the adult skills system after a decade of neglect, decline and fragmentation.

A joined-up, lifelong learning system – focused on both technical skills and EES – is now more essential than ever for delivering economic growth that benefits everyone.

How Eduqas GCSE English Language is turning the page on ‘I’m never going to pass’

South Devon College is one of a growing number of schools and colleges choosing to deliver Eduqas’ GCSE English Language specification.

While the qualification is suitable for pupils sitting their GCSEs for the first time, the team at South Devon feel it particularly shines for re-sit learners, and they’ve seen the results to prove it.

As well as the hard work and dedication of Julia and her colleagues, Rebecca Walker, Curriculum Head of Maths and English at the college, credits the accessibility of Eduqas’ assessments for the dramatic improvement in outcomes. “The assessment objectives are the same across different exam boards, but the way that Eduqas structure their questions allows students to be able to demonstrate their understanding in a way that’s more accessible for them” she explains.

“I feel it gives students a really good opportunity to be able to work on their reading for understanding rather than having to look at different particular skills for particular questions.”

South Devon College, English Lecturer: Andrew Niering

Eduqas’ English Language GCSE also focuses on real-world skills, which Andrew Niering, an English Lecturer with two decades of experience of teaching at the college, believes is a real benefit for his learners.

“I honestly feel that what’s being delivered through the Eduqas format really transitions to meaningful skills for life. You’re asking young people to put together a formatted piece of persuasive writing, which surely is going to benefit them in life, and the story element is also fantastic. To have some confidence in the ability to tell a story is wonderful. It makes the English language component more real, more relevant, less far away.”

Eduqas Regional Representative Catherine Oldham is an experienced former English teacher who provides support to the team at South Devon College as part of her role. She believes that together, Eduqas and dedicated English teachers can help learners thrive:

“After ten years supporting centres across England, I’ve seen how the right support can transform both teaching confidence and learner outcomes” says Catherine. “The personal relationships we build with educational institutions, combined with our comprehensive resources and ongoing professional learning, create partnerships that genuinely benefit everyone involved.”

South Devon College English Lecturer Aleshia Sampson agrees. “I love that we can have that relationship with an exam board, because I think that’s quite unusual” says Aleshia. “If you have any problems or concerns, you can just pick up the phone or drop them an email and they’ll respond really quickly.”

“I don’t really understand why people are with other exam boards, I really don’t!”

Learn more about switching to Eduqas for GCSE English Language and register your interest

MOVERS AND SHAKERS: EDITION 514

Natalie Perera

Chief External Affairs and Communications Officer, AQA

Start date: February 2026

Previous Job: CEO, Education Policy Institute

Interesting fact: Shane from Boyzone turned up randomly at Natalie’s wedding in 2019

Lynette Leith

Principal and CEO, Boston College

Start date: November 2025

Previous Job: Vice Principal, Hull College

Interesting fact: Lynette once worked at Leicester Square’s Penthouse during movie premieres, where she met Sean Penn, Nicole Kidman and Samuel L. Jackson

Justin Johnston

Trustee, SFJ Awards

Start date: October 2025

Concurrent Job: Visiting Professor, University of Chester

Interesting fact: Residing in the Lake District, Justin loves living the outdoor life and has participated in a number of ultra marathons

Our economy won’t grow with almost 1m young people left behind

Britain faces the devastating reality that nearly one million young people are not in education, employment or training; one in eight of our 16-24-year-olds. It should stop us in our tracks. Behind every number is a young person with talent and potential, yet far too many are being shut out from taking their first steps into an adulthood full of opportunity.

This isn’t just a social crisis; it’s an economic one. At a moment when Britain needs growth more than ever, potential is going unfulfilled. Estimates suggest that labour shortages could cost the UK around £39 billion a year between now and 2027, yet close to a million young people remain on the sidelines – a waste of the very talent we need.

The truth is, this crisis is not landing evenly. It is concentrated in the communities that have endured years of instability, rising costs and dwindling opportunities, including in Hyndburn which I represent. These are the places where the recovery never truly arrived after the pandemic. Most of those one million young people come from areas where chances are fewer and the barriers higher.

New polling from Teach First shows the scale of the anxiety this creates: three quarters of pupils from low-income backgrounds worry about getting into university, securing an apprenticeship or finding a good job when they leave school. A quarter are very worried – twice the rate of their wealthier peers.

That fear reflects a daily reality in our most disadvantaged communities, where the opportunities that should open doors are too often missing. A quarter say they lack access to work experience, the kind that authentically allows young people to experience what’s possible after school. A fifth don’t get the support they need for additional needs or mental health, a gap even wider for disadvantaged pupils. With mental health now a leading reason why young people are out of work, it is right the government is putting the right support in place in education , so young people can thrive and build resilience.

The government knows it isn’t talent holding these children back; it’s access. And when background determines belief in what’s possible, it isn’t just an individual setback but a loss for us all. Britain cannot afford to waste this potential.

That’s why this government’s youth guarantee is a vital step. As Labour’s champion for the opportunity mission, I recognise that widening opportunity is essential to the country’s long-term economic and social strength. And with the chancellor inheriting a deeply constrained fiscal position, choices will of course be tough. But that makes it all the more important that the youth guarantee delivers first and foremost for the young people who need it most. When we hear more about it in this week’s Budget, I do hope we’ll see the most vulnerable children prioritised.

Businesses have a crucial role to play too. If we’re serious about building a stronger economy, employers need to step forward alongside government – offering the work experience, apprenticeships, placements and mentoring that young people need. It is brilliant that the Premier League and the Royal Shakespeare Company are among the companies bringing this to life. We must also support the schools and pupils working the hardest in the most disadvantaged communities. Growing the economy is a shared endeavour, and business has a vital part to play in unlocking the talent Britain needs.

Every young person deserves the chance to succeed, wherever they grow up. For too long, poverty has acted like a postcode lottery on ambition. The Youth Guarantee can help break that cycle, but it must be backed with wider commitments and investment – including tackling child poverty, and ensuring there is the right support for children and young adults with SEND including at college and in the workplace.

I believe this Budget can and will back the young people and communities too often left behind because we need to rebuild an economy with heart – one that grows by investing in the young people who will shape Britain’s future. Having almost one million young people locked out of opportunity is a national crisis. Bringing them in isn’t just the right thing to do; it is the smartest economic decision that Britain can make.