Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

Local skills plans need evolution, not revolution from the next government

We’re almost at the first anniversary of the publication of local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) across all 38 areas across England, though in Lancashire we’ve had the trailblazer up and running since 2022.

In our area, colleges are no stranger to collaboration: we’ve been working together since 1998 on a range of projects under The Lancashire Colleges (TLC) banner.

Together, we represent 11 colleges, including general further education and tertiary colleges, sixth form colleges, and a specialist land-based college. Our unique geography means we serve cities, towns, urban, rural and coastal communities with diverse populations, and therefore, are the perfect testbed for skills policy-making.

I was pleased to discuss the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 and our experiences, particularly around ways we can best meet local skills needs, at the APPG on FE and lifelong learning.

The act has made notable strides in several areas, particularly in enhancing employer engagement, improving the quality of technical education, and beginning to address social mobility and inclusivity.

However, challenges remain. Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming general election, the next government must work with colleges to deliver long-term local and national education and skills priorities.

LSIPs have laudable aims: identifying, articulating and delivering on the long-term skills needs within an area. TLC has been welcomed as genuine partners in the development of the LSIP; colleagues from the Chamber of Commerce have been in our colleges, at our employer partnership events, and have worked with us collaboratively throughout, to generate a plan that is owned by us all.

Connecting with local employers has always been a central priority for TLC, but this renewed focus has enabled us to form relationships with employers who have not previously engaged with the skills system.

Funding is currently too complex, bureaucratic and restrictive

We have been lucky in the approach, but for too many areas there hasn’t been enough consistency, including in the way and extent to which colleges have been engaged in LSIP development.

Colleges have unrivalled links with local authorities, employers and other key stakeholders. We are also the only part of the education system with a statutory duty to meet local skills needs. Shouldn’t we therefore be around the decision-making table? By making it a truly equal partnership, we can reduce complexity and give everyone confidence that the LSIP is the right plan.

At a time when FE funding is challenging, we have been able to deliver significant projects through the strategic development fund (SDF) and later, the local skills improvement fund (LSIF).

In Lancashire, we used the SDF to consult over 1,000 employers and developed 35 new short courses to meet their needs. Over 3,000 students immediately benefitted from new learning spaces and equipment, with over 2,000 hours of CPD delivered. This is helping employers to think differently and helping colleges to plan our curriculum for the long term.

However, the funding is currently too complex, bureaucratic and restrictive. This can undermine our ability to deliver on LSIPs. Short-term, ring-fenced pots do not allow us to invest in long-term strategies. Capital and revenue splits prevent us from spending in the way we need.

It’s all well and good having industry-grade kit, but we also need the revenue funding for the staff to deliver the courses.

The Lancashire experience – the challenges, opportunities and suggestions for development – have been captured well in AoC’s new report ‘Local skills improvement plans: a review of their impact and opportunities for the future’. This research provides early insight on how LSIPs can be supported and further improved to ensure they have continued relevance, longevity and become embedded as an intrinsic feature of the skills landscape.

As tempting as it can often be for policy makers to scrap initiatives and start afresh, my plea is for evolution, not revolution. Fairly minor changes to partnerships, funding and accountability can unlock a wealth of opportunities. These would go a long way in giving colleges the freedom and confidence to really run with tackling longstanding challenges in our local and national skills systems.

LSIPs have great core principles; let’s make them work as a strategic approach to skills improvement planning, that supports growth in the local, regional and national economy.

The robots have already marched into apprenticeships

Al isn’t just being used by students to cheat. When it comes to apprenticeships, there are many ways the tech can be deployed to boost learning – but are providers embracing it yet?

Imagine you’re an apprentice fully immersed in the latest AI tools. Your day might look like this:

After breakfast, a personalised task manager app tells you what you’ve got on that day, based on the data it has gathered about how you learn effectively.

After doing some research that involves putting prompts into a large language model (LLM) such as ChatGPT, you start an online module with an AI mentor – a chatbot with human-like qualities.

After lunch, you strap on your VR headset and work on a simulation project using AI-powered apps to calculate measurements and analyse data.

Then at 5pm, you return to your AI mentor to reflect on what you’ve learned and struggled with.

For some educators, this scenario represents a dystopian nightmare. One in which robots hijack our ability to think for ourselves and that makes traditional training redundant.

And there are fears that cash-strapped training providers could use chatbots to do away with human tutors, and that learners’ mental health will suffer from the lack of human interaction.

So far, the government’s lead technical training body, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), has only produced loose guidance around the use of AI, leaving many providers hesitant about its adoption.

But Jonathan Smith, co-founder of Veraxis, a company that supports training firms to embrace AI, believes they need to “catch up” but with the right policies to limit the pitfalls.

“This isn’t the future, these tools are here now,” he says. He explains many people working with apprentices already use AI, sometimes without realising it, for admin tasks such as attendance tracking and scheduling, and within learning management systems.

Tom Rogers, an early careers practitioner for BAE Systems, says AI is already being used by tutors to build lesson plans, and by applicants applying for apprenticeship vacancies.

Although he acknowledges “Gen Z are on their phones more than we would like”, he believes young people are “often looking for ways to streamline a process to work smarter, and not harder”.

He adds: “AI should be allowed to flourish with trust and confidence.”

Firebrand Training’s Richard Parker, who is chair of The Association of Employment and Learning Providers’ (AELP) IT & digital forum, believes providers are being “overly nervous” and “too slow” to consider AI.

He says: “They were sat there going, ‘we don’t really want to touch it. It’s not allowed, no one’s going to give us permission to use it’.

“IfATE needs to step in and give them proper guidance.”

Personal and accessible AI training

One of the biggest potential benefits of AI is how it can customise training to each learner. Data can be analysedusing AIto understand where an apprentice struggles or disengages, then chatbots powered by generative AI can provide tailored support.

Veraxis co-founder Rebecca Bradley believes using AI in this way has a “really high impact on learner retention”.

She points out that apprentices can use chatbots to answer questions they might feel embarrassed to ask a human.

“A chatbot gathers such rich information from your data that it gives a response that feels human,” she says. “We move away from the disparity of your introverts not getting as much input as your extroverts who feel confident asking questions.”

Apprenticeship and training provider Babington recently launched a pilot programme with AI learning platform Obrizum.

Director of learning design Phillip McMullan said that 94 per cent of learners on the AI learning pathways they created felt the learning was “highly personalised to their specific needs, leading to a 1.5x increase in speed to competency”. Learner satisfaction was also said to have risen 25 per cent.

Multiverse reported this week that its ‘Multiverse Atlas’ AI learning coach, launched in February, had clocked up 40,000 queries from 3,600 apprentices.

CEO Euan Blair said uptake was higher among apprentices aged over 40 and those with additional learning needs, which shows “if you’re thoughtful about how you design AI products, they can support broader access to high-quality training”.

He added: “Crucially, the overwhelming majority of users found Atlas helpful, with ‘usefulness ratings’ above 91 per cent across all demographics, including gender, age, ethnicity, and learning need.

A human touch

But will chatbots replace human tutors and coaches?

Goldman Sachs economists said last year that up to 300 million full-time jobs could be impacted globally by the rise of generative AI.

But Darren Coxon, an adviser on AI in education, does not think AI will “replace anyone student-facing any time soon” because “humans are too important to the learning journey”.

The AI platform Aptem, whose customers include training providers and colleges, claims its goal is “not to replace roles such as tutors and skills coaches” but to “allow them more space” to teach.

It claims its AI can “reduce the time taken to gather data in preparation for a review”, and “give tutors more time to pull together meaningful discussion points” as they “aren’t so focused on summarising notes and inputting information”.

“If AI can notify tutors when it looks like a learner is beginning to struggle with their training, they have the best possible chance of offering support.”

AI can also be used in the recruitment of apprentices, to automate and facilitate processes and find people with the right skills.

In April, Multiverse bought the Californian AI talent software firm Searchlight to help it identify skills gaps within organisations.

Phillip Bryant, head of EPA & apprenticeships at the International Compliance Association, a professional body for the global regulatory and financial crime compliance community, believes there are opportunities for AI to be used in assessment design and writing EPA policies or procedures, as a “tool” but “not necessarily to replace the human input”.

Is AI really cheating?

Some of the gravest concerns around generative AI are its ability to help learners cheat their way through assessments.

Because much of the assessment of apprentices is done through the observation of work-based activity and oral assessment, the ways that apprenticeships can misuse AI are more limited than in academic sectors. But that doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Jo Wharton, an assessor at Ixion, posted last year on LinkedIn that she was “starting to notice the use of AI creeping into the evidence that apprentices provide towards their level 6 career development professional apprenticeship”.

Bryant has not noticed a spike in suspected AI plagiarism in recent months, but has seen that “a lot of higher education institutions are shifting their approach now and seem to condone it for the research aspect of assessment writing or generating ideas”.

Assessors are relying on free AI-driven diagnostic tools to spot cheating, but these are of limited reliability.

Bradley warned that “this is where we are in the wild west”, without that “legislative robustness”.

She also pointed out that if a young person is putting a “very sophisticated prompt” into a chatbot that is “not detectable”, it “shows a level of expertise” which is “entrepreneurial”.

Firebrand Training’s Parker, who is an end-point assessor of data and business analysis assessments, says there are worries about knowing how much of a report written by an apprentice was created by AI.

“But does it matter?” he asks. “If their employer pays them to have those tools to write their professional reports, should they not be allowed to use it for their assessment reports as well?”

Governance needed

Although governments and regulatory bodies have not caught up with AI in education, Bradley warns providers that they “need to put good practice in place” now, so “when the regulation does come, you’ll have the right pieces in place”.

She says when using AI to analyse an apprentice’s personal performance data, providers should “handle it securely with clear consent”. That means “letting the learners know they’re being monitored in that way” and “being clear about how that data is used”.

She advises providers to write their policies around the data rules governed by the LLM they are using, bearing in mind their company’s risk register and appetite for risk.

And Bradley explains LLMs are “biased” by nature because they take information from the internet, which is “drawing from extreme views – the left, the right and the centre”.

Those who decide therefore that sharing their apprentices’ data with an LLM is too risky might consider building their own LLM.

Lack of guidance

So far, Ofsted is taking a hands-off approach. It will not directly inspect the quality of AI tools, but said it will “consider a provider’s use” of AI “by the effect it has on the criteria set out” in its existing inspection frameworks, such as safeguarding and the quality of education.

Last year, the IfATE updated its guidance around the use of AI in end-point assessments to clarify that AI must not be used to produce a report or portfolio, and an apprentice must reference use of AI when using it within a portfolio to underpin a professional discussion or other assessment.

But Parker considers this guidance is “open ended and vague”.

“It doesn’t go anywhere near far enough to be completely helpful”, he says, because it does not state what is acceptable during the end-point assessment process.

Parker assesses the level-three data technician apprenticeship where apprentices use such tools.

He argues that it then “doesn’t make sense” if, after 12 months of using AI tools in their jobs, he as an end-point assessor has to then forbid them from using them in their assessment – because “the end point assessment is supposed to assess how competent they are at their job”.

AI for everyone

As AI is embraced in the wider workforce, it’s slowly becoming a greater feature in apprenticeship standards outside of the digital and IT subjects you’d expect to find it.

For example, London Metropolitan College has embedded AI into its level 6 project control apprenticeships.

Derby-based provider DBC Training recently started building the teaching of how to use generative AI into its marketing apprenticeships, which its curriculum lead Daniel Adey says is “giving the learners a greater understanding of [AI] and how it can be used to strengthen their marketing efforts”.

Some experts believe the apprenticeships system needs to be completely transformed through AI.

In a recent podcast, Blair said the recent rise of generative AI tools means that “everyone needs to be taught how to be a co-pilot of AI, how to work with it, the ethics of AI – this is absolutely crucial.”

Bradley believes that we’re “moving to a world” where the prompts put into LLMs are “perhaps going to be what we assess young people on, rather than what comes out of them”.

She points out that societies were “suspicious” of coffee, the printing press and photocopying machines too when they came along. But now they’re “parts of everyday life” as, she believes, AI will be for apprentices.

“We won’t have this suspicion in future,” she adds. “But for now, there are things that we need to think about and mitigate.”

LSIPs: Colleges call for long-term funding and shared accountability

College leaders have pleaded for long-term funding to fulfil local skills improvement plan (LSIP) demands and have called on the government to spread accountability for the flagship policy to universities and other post-16 providers. 

A report by the Association of Colleges (AoC) today reviewed the plans one year on from their rollout. 

Introduced in the Skills for Jobs white paper, the Department for Education tasked 38 “employer representative bodies” (ERBs) with spelling out the changes needed to make frontline education and training more responsive to employer needs in their areas. 

The ERBs, 32 of whom are chambers of commerce, are paid £550,000 each over three years. Colleges, employers, local authorities and other post-16 providers can feed into the plans. 

The Conservative and Labour parties have suggested that LSIPs would stay in place if either were to form the next government, according to the AoC.

The research found evidence of some early success, with colleges connecting with local employers who had not previously engaged with the skills system and “strengthening ways of working across local networks”. 

But colleges warned the plans will need to evolve to be a success.  

They raised concerns about LSIPs existing in a vacuum of any national strategy, with colleges facing a multitude of local and regional plans, driving complexity rather than coherence. 

‘We’ve got all the kit, but no staff to use it’

Leaders also slammed “piecemeal” funding that “lacks strategic direction” and any long-term commitment. 

The local skills improvement fund (LSIF) was launched to help colleges and providers action LSIPs. The fund is split across two financial years – £80 million in 2023-24 (£40 million for revenue and £40 million for capital funding). Another £85 million set aside for 2024-25 is for capital only. 

The AoC’s report said the “chief concern” is the capital and revenue split. College leaders all said that the lack of revenue funding prevented them from addressing supply-side challenges, particularly the crisis in recruiting and retaining teaching staff for technical subjects such as engineering and manufacturing, the most common priority identified in LSIPs. 

One unnamed college boss said: “We’ve got all the kit, but we have no teaching staff to use it. We can’t afford them. We can’t recruit them.”

The capital/revenue split also doesn’t align to the needs identified in the LSIPs. For example, digital skills – the fourth highest priority across LSIPs – cannot be addressed through further capital spend.

Leaders also expressed frustrations with accountability.

Colleges must publish an annual accountability statement to demonstrate they are fulfilling their statutory duty to adhere to the aim of their LSIP. No such requirement is placed on other partners, such as universities, sixth forms or private training providers.

Some colleges told the AoC that they were confused about what they’re supposed to be accountable for. They also said colleges should be able to lead LSIPs on the same level as ERBs if they are the only institution to be held accountable for their implementation.

‘Evolution is needed’

The report also highlighted the “wicked problem” of employer engagement.

“Whilst recognising that the LSIPs are still very new, all participants described their disappointment in the low levels of employers engaging and contributing throughout the LSIP process. 

“Colleges report offering ERBs access to their own extensive employer networks and forums to boost the numbers participating, but note that ERBs often struggled to accept this offer due to lack of capacity.” 

There is a risk that employers “passively set demands or expectations” on the system, “without reflecting on where and how they might take action, including both in the nature of the jobs they are recruiting for and investment in training and development of the workforce”, the report said. 

It concluded that there is no evidence that the LSIP process and product has “acted to stimulate investment from employers” despite this being a priority for the government. 

David Hughes, the chief executive of AoC, said: “College leaders have made it clear that to truly meet the ambition, evolution is needed in how LSIPs fit within the wider system. 

“The next government will need to have a strong focus on inclusive economic growth and the provision needed to help local people meet the growing skills shortages.” 

Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce, said: “The next government must build on the success of LSIPs, ensure they are a key component of local, regional and national economic strategies and fund them for the long term.”

BCTG bounces back from damning Ofsted judgment

A long-standing training provider on the brink of collapse 12 months ago following a damning Ofsted judgment is now aiming to “rise from the ashes”. 

The Birmingham-based BCTG Ltd, which launched in 2001 and trained thousands of apprentices and adults every year, saw its multi-million-pound apprenticeship, skills bootcamps and advance learner loans contracts terminated in 2023 after it was downgraded from ‘good’ to ‘inadequate’.  

But the provider was allowed to keep its adult education contract with the West Midlands Combined Authority to deliver sector-based work academy programmes (SWAPs) and secured an extension worth £2.5 million, which runs until this September. 

Ofsted’s first follow-up monitoring visit in May was positive, with the watchdog’s report this week scoring three ‘reasonable progress’ judgments and one ‘significant progress’. 

The company’s new chief executive and former finance director, Alan Phillips, is hoping to secure an overall ‘good’ grade through a full reinspection before the SWAPs contract ends. If successful, BCTG will look to bid for more skills contracts and grow the business once more, potentially starting off as a subcontractor for other primes. 

Phillips said: “We’re back rocking and rolling if we secure the Ofsted full inspection improvement. Maybe not up to the size that we were … I’d rather have something small and efficient than large and potentially another ‘inadequate’.” 

Soon after it was hit with the low grade, BCTG Group sold its subsidiaries PTP Training and Eurosouce Solutions for almost £800,000. 

Phillips told FE week he has tried to operate the company “with my hands and legs tied” over the past year as he reduced the staff headcount from 90 to 10. 

While hundreds of SWAPs courses have been delivered this year, just 10 students were in learning at the time of Ofsted’s recent monitoring visit. More are coming on board over the coming months, but all teaching is delivered by subcontractors. Phillips’s aim is to shift BCTG to mostly direct delivery if his company does secure more funding contracts.

 One of the key criticisms in Ofsted’s ‘inadequate’ report last year was a “lack of focus” on the quality of education amid a “significant strategic decision” to switch from subcontracting to direct delivery. 

Phillips said the judgment was harsh, but from his perspective as finance director at the time, the company’s then owners and chief executive had “lost control”. 

He said the 10 staff BCTG has now are “highly skilled, and you can see from the Ofsted monitoring, they’ve turned it around completely”. 

“I’ve had to run a very, very slimmed-down organisation, but fortunately, we had the backing of the company to finance this dark period. The skills of our staff all round have been enhanced … I’m really confident that going forward, so long as we can keep grips on the growth and not get ahead of ourselves, we can provide a five-star service.” 

Ofsted’s policy states that it will fully reinspect ‘inadequate’ providers within 12 to 15 months of the judgment, which means the earliest BCTG can get a full inspection is this month and the latest should be September. 

Amy Williams, BCTG’s head of quality, said: “It’s been tough and it’s been a mountain that we’re still trying to climb, but we have been on a positive journey.  

“We are still standing strong and still hopeful of our future, despite the many obstacles and challenges we face on a daily basis.”

Prevent referrals made in FE at record high

Referrals from FE to the government’s counter-terrorism programme are rare and are often not taken further. So why are they increasing? Anviksha Patel investigates

A record number of FE students were referred to the government’s counter-terrorism programme Prevent last year – but a shrinking proportion of cases have been escalated to de-radicalisation intervention, show new figures obtained by FE Week.

Critics say the data adds further evidence that Prevent should be scrapped in light of recent data-sharing horror stories, including one student being denied a sixth-form place.

But FE leaders argue their statutory duty to comply with the policy is not taken “flippantly” and is vital to safeguard students and catch signs of radicalisation as early as possible. 

FE Week received data from the Home Office through a Freedom of Information request that for the first time breaks down Prevent referrals from FE providers. 

The figures, which go back to 2018-19, show that of the 30,162 Prevent referrals over the past five years, a third (10,025) have come from education settings. Of those, just 7 per cent (734) came from further education. 

While the data suggests Prevent referrals from FE are rare when the hundreds of thousands of students taught by colleges and training providers are considered, it does show that referrals are on the rise. (see table)

There were 141 FE referrals in 2018-19, a figure that remained stable until 2022-23 when they hit 215.

 But of those 215, just 10 per cent (22) were escalated to a full “channel case”, which involves bespoke support through a de-radicalisation programme. In the previous two years, 14 per cent and 15 per cent of FE referrals were taken forward to channel case. 

Most FE Prevent referrals over the past five years were made for extreme right-wing ideology, followed by people with a vulnerability but no ideology detected, those with “no risk, vulnerability or ideology present” and then Islamist.

‘Prevent is not being used to prevent terrorism’ 

The Prevent duty was placed on schools and FE providers in 2015 and mandates designated safeguarding leads (DSL) to report concerns of radicalisation to the police-led programme.  

Entering the full programme is voluntary so learners or families must consent before they are adopted as a channel case, which helps to explain why so few are taken forward.

FE Week analysis shows 683 (93 per cent) of the 734 Prevent referrals from FE to date were male and 559 (76 per cent) were aged between 15 to 20. 

The highest number last year were made under the “vulnerability present but no ideology or counterterrorism risk” category, which is retrospectively catalogued by Prevent officers.  

Just 10 per cent of the 83 referrals made in that category in 2022-23 became a channel case. 

Officials use this category to refer a vulnerable person who hasn’t expressed any extreme ideology and are not at risk of committing a terrorism offence.  

Eddie Playfair, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, suggests these referrals could stem from monitoring software that detects and reports what learners are searching online at college or at their training provider. 

“If there’s a violent narrative or if there’s misogynistic language, hate speech, they are definitely flags for safeguarding and extremism,” he told FE Week.

Right-wing extremism referrals starting to fall

More than a quarter (198) of the 734 total FE Prevent referrals over the past five years have been for extreme right-wing views.

But while in the first two years of the data, extreme right-wing referrals made up the highest proportion of referrals (33 per cent and 35 per cent) it shrunk to its lowest proportion (17 per cent) in 2022-23. 

Of the 37 extreme right-wing referrals in 2022-23, nearly a quarter (nine) were adopted as a channel case, a decline from a high in 2020-21, when 42 per cent of the 26 referrals went to channel. 

But Hope Not Hate, a campaign group monitoring far-right extremism, says young people are engaging more with such content. 

“We see an increasing number of young people engaging online as well as in offline activism in some of the most extreme and violent segments of far-right,” says senior researcher Patrik Hermansson.

Potentially harmful outcomes

Polly Harrow, senior safeguarding lead at Kirklees College

Polly Harrow, assistant principal for student experience at Kirklees College, cannot explain the rise in FE referrals but stresses that colleges wouldn’t “flippantly make a Prevent referral”. 

The disparity in referrals making it to channel could also be linked to a long-standing mistrust in Prevent and recent exposés of data collection and sharing. 

In February, a report by digital rights campaigner Open Rights Group revealed Prevent referrals data can be stored on police databases for a minimum of six years and “could be justified for up to 100 years”, even when the referral does not make it to channel. 

That can cause “potentially harmful outcomes” when shared between education institutions, immigration and border agencies. Referred learners do not have to consent, or be informed, of their data being shared. 

The report published the case study of Tarik, a 16-year-old whose Prevent referral in school – where he corrected a teacher about the definition of jihad and the school discovered some inappropriate group chat messages – was transferred and led to the withdrawal of a sixth-form place. 

“The safeguarding file is supposed to be used to support the child, not to impact decisions of admissions,” Tarik’s parent said.  

Layla Aitlhadj from Prevent Watch, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that supports people who have been referred, said: “Prevent is not being used to prevent terrorism, it is instead being used to securitise innocent children and young adults.”

 In the case of 17-year-old Munir, his secondary school Prevent referral was used by his sixth-form college to send him home for not demonstrating “inclusive values”.

 “Neither student had done nor intended anything unlawful, yet their future prospects were hindered,” Aitlhadj says. 

Harrow says the case studies “surprised” her. “The sharing of safeguarding information has to be appropriate, and it has to be on a need-to-know basis.” 

Playfair added: “Are there some bad design examples of overreaction, misunderstanding, knee-jerk reactions, etc? Yes,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take that responsibility seriously.” 

Aitlhadj said “many” of the individuals Prevent Watch supports report a “desire to seek support from traditional social and community services but have lost trust in these crucial relationships for a healthy society”.

‘You can’t expect educators to solve terrorism’ 

In the lead up to the election, the main political parties have vowed to crack down on terrorism.  

The main political party manifestos include pledges on Prevent and terrorism

The Conservatives say they will foster an alliance between the National Crime Agency and counter-terrorism policing. Labour says it will update the rules around counter-extremism, including online. The Lib Dems say they will restore access to EU-wide data sharing, while the Green party promises to scrap Prevent. 

Earlier this year, the Home Office updated its guidance list of extreme ideologies and refreshed the definition of extremism to mean an ideology based on “violence, hatred or intolerance”. 

Following an independent review from William Shawcross last year, the government is in the process of reviewing 34 recommendations made, and will provide more ideology training for Prevent practitioners, a granular breakdown of education referrals and an increased focus on Islamist extremism. 

Questions have consistently been raised about the disparity between the government and media communications on preventing Islamist terrorism and the effectiveness of Prevent in identifying Islamist radicalisation. 

FE Week’s FOI data found of the 66 Islamist referrals made by FE over the past five years, five have progressed to channel. 

Last year, Amnesty International found Islamophobic stereotypes have played “a major role in referrals to Prevent”, despite government guidance highlighting that Prevent was “not about targeting different faiths”. 

Anti-Prevent campaigners are also worried about the “extraordinary focus and infrastructure” put on colleges to up their safeguarding responsibilities.

Harrow says that the resources needed to keep young people safe “needs more funding”. 

Meanwhile, Sara Chitseko, Open Rights Group’s pre-crime programme manager, says Prevent should be scrapped in favour of investing in services that support young people “rather than surveilling them”. 

Playfair added: “You can’t expect educators to solve terrorism, but it would be remiss of the education system and other public services not to be vigilant.”

Weapons and drug use on the rise in colleges, staff warn

More than a quarter of college support staff feel unsafe at work as the number of weapons and cases of substance abuse on campus increases, FE Week can reveal.

Unison surveyed 780 college and sixth-form support staff such as librarians and learning-support assistants and found learners were bringing in real and fake weapons and taking drugs in class. Gangs were also creating no-go areas.

Staff also reported being “threatened at knifepoint” and suffering from injuries. One was stabbed in the back with a screwdriver while a student suffered multiple fractures, concussion and severe bruising.

A similar Unison survey five years ago found a fifth of staff reported feeling unsafe. This has now risen to a quarter, according to the results of last month’s survey shared exclusively with FE Week.

More than seven in ten (73 per cent) respondents said they had no training on how to deal with students who brought weapons or drugs into college. Ninety per cent said the same thing in 2019.

“I regularly smell cannabis, but don’t feel able to confront the smokers,” one said.

Seven in ten support staff workers said student drug abuse was a problem in their college, flagging drugs such as cocaine, MDMA and the synthetic cannabis drug Black Mamba.

Two-fifths (40 per cent) said they had dealt with students who were under the influence of drugs.

“One overdosed on ketamine and had a seizure,” one respondent said, while another noted an incident when a student “left a bottle of methadone in our office”.

Eddie Playfair, senior policy manager at the Association of Colleges, said the incidents were “unacceptable”.

“Every member of a college community has a right to feel safe at all times.”

Students carrying knives ‘for protection’

The survey found just over a third (34 per cent) reported concerns of weapons-related crime at work, an increase from 23 per cent in 2019.

Weapons included machetes, hammers, crossbows, knuckledusters, air rifles and homemade weapons.

“A learner brought a sharp blade she used to self-harm on site and ‘lost’ it,” one staff worker said. “It then got into the hands of someone else who threatened to use it on another student.”

Another said: “The most recent incident was earlier this week, where a member of support staff had a knife pulled on them.”

In yet another case, a staff worker said a student brought in weights from a gym that they used to “smash up a computer keyboard in the library”.

Students told support staff they carried weapons “for protection”.

But Unison general secretary Christina McAnea said students who thought they needed to carry weapons for protection or “come to college intoxicated” were putting their own futures at risk.

The data also revealed half of the respondents were unaware of their employer’s policy on dealing with students in possession of weapons. More than half (53 per cent) thought incidents were not resolved appropriately.

But Playfair said colleges would have clear policies and codes of conduct covering behaviour, harassment, weapons and drugs.

McAnea said: “The tremendous strain placed on college staff means they’re forced to put safety and discipline over students’ academic development.”

Unison has called for more training, and better security with searches and metal detectors. Fewer than one in ten (9 per cent) said their workplace used detectors.

It also called on leaders to impose stricter punishments for students breaking college rules and increased staffing levels to deal with the problem.

Playfair added: “The report is right to highlight the need for consistency, support, training and updating for all staff about how to deal with a range of issues that can arise and ensure the maintenance of a culture where everyone is safe and feels safe.”

EPI: Parties fail to address ‘most important’ education challenges

There is a “genuine risk” that the most pressing challenges facing education will not be addressed with “sufficient urgency” by the next government, analysis of party manifesto commitments suggests.

The Education Policy Institute has delved into each party’s election pledges to provide an independent, evidence-based assessment of their education plans.

Here’s what the think tank found for FE.

Striking lack of funding commitments

EPI said the “wider situation of government finances”, and a position from the main parties not to increase personal taxes has resulted in a policy offer that is “exceedingly limited and does not address the challenges that schools and colleges are facing”.

The commitments to funding for sixth forms and further education colleges – as opposed to specific policy interventions in the phase – are “even more limited”, with no commitment from the Conservative Party or Labour.

The Liberal Democrats do pledge to increase per-student funding in real terms, but there is “nothing to suggest that this will be of the scale needed to reverse long-term cuts”. However, the EPI does welcome the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce a post-16 student premium.

Elsewhere, the Green Party said it would increase funding for sixth-form education by £3 billion over the course of the next parliament.

Beyond this, none of the parties have made specific commitments to changes to how FE revenue funding is allocated.

EPI’s report reminds readers that over the last decade, 16 to 19 funding has fallen in real terms while participation in full-time education has been on the rise. Cuts in 16 to 19 education have been at twice the rate of those in other school phases.

Expected boost for higher technical education

Parties have increasingly focused on technical and vocational education in efforts to up- and re-skill workers in the economy.

The Conservatives and Labour have indicated that they will continue with the lifelong learning entitlement if elected, while the Liberal Democrats have said they would provide every adult with £5,000 for lifelong education and training.

Labour would also establish Skills England and introduce a set of coordinated policies that will support local skills development.

Assuming successful implementation, these policies are likely to increase take-up of higher technical qualifications, EPI said. However, comparatively little has been said about increasing the take up of level 2 and level 3 qualifications amongst adults.

Widening disadvantage 16-19 gap not addressed

There has also been “little attention” paid by parties to the disadvantage gap amongst 16- to 19-year-olds, except the Liberal Democrats who have proposed a “young people’s” premium.

The attainment gap between disadvantaged students and their peers was stable before the pandemic, but the gap has widened by nearly a third of a grade since 2019, EPI said.

Its report added: “Even more concerningly, the gap for persistently disadvantaged students widened even further, and was an entire grade wider than the main disadvantage measure, with disadvantaged students 4.5 grades behind non-disadvantaged students in 2022.”

EPI praised the Conservatives’ plans to implement the Advanced British Standard to broaden the 16 to 19 curriculum and increase the offering of maths and English until age 18.

But to “guarantee the success” of the ABS, there will need to be “significant changes to the workforce and more detail on whether students will have the flexibility to study at different levels”.

The think tank pointed out that Labour has offered to conduct a curriculum review but did not specifically address the narrowing of post-16 choices nor how to improve basic skills amongst young people.

Labour’s apprenticeships plan won’t reverse falling starts

On apprenticeships, the Conservatives have proposed increasing starts and funding this by cutting some degree courses, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats have proposed increasing the flexibility of the apprenticeship levy so it can be used more widely for skills and training.

Labour plans to create a growth and skills levy that would allow employers to use up to 50 per cent of the levy to fund approved training courses besides apprenticeships.

A concern of this proposal, according to EPI, is that the additional funding for other training will divert funding away from apprenticeships, which have already fallen dramatically amongst under-19s.

Additional funding for apprenticeships will be necessary if the Labour Party intends to maintain or increase apprenticeship starts.

The think tank added that increasing the flexibility of the levy increases the possibility for “deadweight” where employers use the levy to fund training which they would have originally funded themselves, but now subsidised by the taxpayer.

Labour has proposed introducing an approved list of training courses to partially address this concern.

What about teacher pay?

Despite issues of teacher pay, recruitment, and teacher-pupil ratios all appearing in headlines over the past two years, this election has “not seen the scale of these challenges meaningfully addressed in party manifestos”, EPI said.

No party has pledged to improve pay rates for teachers or support staff and address the real terms pay cut that the profession has seen over the last decade, particularly for “senior staff” and further education teachers.

“Stronger commitments on pay are required to ensure teaching remains competitive in both schools and colleges”, EPI concluded.

The pay gap between FE and school teachers is currently £9,000.

The verdict

Conservatives: Few commitments that seek to address the key challenges facing education and a number of commitments that are largely unnecessary distractions and unlikely to have any real impact on improving outcomes or tackling inequalities.

Labour: Seeks to tackle more of the immediate challenges facing the system. But there are key omissions, particularly around school and college funding.

Liberal Democrats: Have the most number of commitments that are rooted in evidence, but lack detailed plans on how these commitments will be funded and delivered.

Greens: Made substantial commitments for additional funding, but their proposals for ending formal assessments and abolishing Ofsted are not supported by research evidence and may lead to falling standards overall and widening attainment gaps.

Reform: Education-related commitments are limited in nature and do not address the challenges in the education system today in any substantial way.

102 winners scoop silver at 2024 Pearson National Teaching Awards

Outstanding teachers, support staff and leaders from across the UK’s schools and colleges have been honoured in the Pearson National Teaching Awards.

A total of 102 winners have scooped silver awards, and their names have been announced to coincide with national Thank a Teacher Day – the largest celebration of educators.

The silver winners (full list below) will now be shortlisted to win one of 16 gold awards. Winners will be announced at a glitzy bash later this year.

This year’s winners include an Olympian using sport to support vulnerable students, a primary school partnership bringing opera to the community and a lecturer championing diversity and inclusion.

Author Sir Michael Morpurgo, a former Children’s Laureate and president of the Teaching Awards Trust, said: “The work and devotion of all of those who play a role in educating young people is phenomenal.

“Not only do they play a vital role in shaping minds inside the classroom, often they continue to encourage, support, motivate and inspire beyond. That’s why it is important for us to take a moment on this National Thank a Teacher Day to recognise their efforts.”

Sharon Hague, managing director of school assessment and qualifications at Pearson UK, added: “We’re delighted to recognise this year’s silver award winners on their outstanding achievements. The contributions they make and the impact they have on young people’s lives every day is truly exceptional.”

FE lecturer of the year

Mark Campbell, Ada, the National College for Digital Skills

Sally Taylor, Sunderland College

Charlie Moore, Blackpool Sixth Form College

Maria Thorne, Basingstoke College of Technology

Greg Cheeseman, South Hampshire College Group

Alexis Dabee Saltmarsh, Blaenau Gwent Learning Zone,

Darren Turner, Herefordshire, Ludlow and North Shropshire College

FE Team of the Year

The Culinary Arts and Hospitality Team, Westminster Kingsway College

The Creative Media Team, North East Surrey College of Technology

The Sixth Form Team, North Liverpool Academy

The Quality Team, Hopwood Hall College

The Engineering Education Team, South Eastern Regional College (Bangor)

The Landscaping and Eco Construction Team, Gower College

Digital innovator of the year

Rachel Walker, Sneinton St Stephen’s CofE Primary School

Zaitoon Bukhari, Achievement Through Collaboration Trust

Antoinette Hamilton, Chilmington Green Primary School

Natalie Hagan, Cockshut Hill Technology College

Deb Millar, Hull College

Early years team of the year

Becky Aldous and Julie Iannelli, St Pancras Catholic Primary School

Venture Kindergarten

Little Westbourne Nursery

Outwood Primary Academy Woodlands

Carlton Mills Primary School

Performatots Pre-School @ Northern Performance Academy

Excellence in special needs education

Robert Bell, Consilium Evolve

Stacey Evans, Oak Trees Multi Academy Trust

Tracy Whitehurst, Aurora Hanley School

Becky McClean, Special Steps Ltd

Primary school headteacher of the year

Emily Gyimah, Haberdashers’ Hatcham Primary

Andrea Rosewell, Braintcroft E-Act Primary Academy

Dawn Ferdinand, The Willow Primary School

Naheeda Maharasingam, Rathfern Primary School

Sarah Hanson, St Barnabas CofE Primary School

Carrie Green, Bramley Park Academy

Andy Rhodes, Spring Cottage Primary School

Shazia Azhar, Spring Grove Junior Infant and Nursery School

Secondary school headteacher of the year

Chris Fairbaim, The Totteridge Academy

Mark Thomas, Brymore Academy

Jason Bridges, Cockshut Hill Technology College

Phil Davis, Wingfield Academy

Impact through partnership

Woolenwick Infant and Nursery School

Ealing Learning Partnership, Ealing Council, Ealing Learning Partnership

Alloa Community Around The School, Clackmannashire Family Wellbeing Partnership, Alloa Academy

The Bluebell Federation of Schools Intergenerational Projects Team, Bluebell Federation of Schools

The #WeWill Programme Team, Ormiston Academies Trust

Secondary school teacher of the year

Samantha Toman, Ortu Hassenbrook Academy

Edward Allen, Royal Hospital School

Rachel Hindley, Outwood Academy Hindley

Alisha Senior, North Liverpool Academy

Ana Sánchez Motos, King’s Leadership Academy, Liverpool

Kate Hytner, Ridgeway High School

Amy King, Aureus School

Matt Buck, Chances Educational Support Services

Oli McVeigh, Ferndown Upper School

James Vause, Castleford Academy

Primary school teacher of the year

Gethin Edwards, Pierrepont Gamston Primary School

Nathan Shortland, St. Thomas’ CE Primary Academy

Beccy Werrin, Sir John Heron Primary School

Daniel McLoughlin, The Divine Mercy RC Primary School

Jane Stanton, Our Lady & St Paul’s RC Primary School

Meshelle Headlley, Sharnbrook Primary

Alasdair Williams, Ernesettle Community School

Gemma Bradshaw, Holbrook Primary School

Leanne Bryant, Christ Church CofE Primary School

Natalie Poornomansy, Woodlands Primary School Nursery Class

Misba Mir, Carlton Junior and Infant School

Teaching assistant of the year

Carla Horton, Oakwood Academy

Julia Bowers, North Liverpool Academy

Gail Montgomery, King’s Park Primary School

Margaret Bawden, Hordle CofE VA Primary School

Sharfa Chohan, Ninestiles, an Academy

Allan McFarlane, George Pindar School

Lifetime achievement

Debbie Rogan, HEARTS Academy Trust

Andy Taylor, Brent Knoll School

Andrea Arlidge, Futura Learning Partnership

Shan Kenchington, Mount Street Infant School

David Kershaw, Central Academies Trust

Making a difference – primary school of the year

Surrey Square Primary School

Woodpecker Hall Academy

Cambrai Primary School

Marine Academy Primary

Tor Bridge Primary School

Beacon Primary School

Making a difference – secondary school of the year

Rushey Mead Academy

All Saints Catholic School and Technology College

Norham High School

The Derby High School

Heartlands Academy

Wingfield Academy

Outstanding new teacher of the year

Amelia Hampton, Eltham College

Isabella Twaite, The Royal Liberty School

Ciara Mulholland, Saint Patrick’s College

Dylan McCaig, The Warriner School

Josef Feiven, Tudor Grange Academy Redditch

Ciara Daley, Carlton Junior and Infant School

Unsung hero

Greg Smalley, Aurora Brambles East School

Patricia Gawthrope, Park View Primary School

Mo Osman, Burnage Academy for Boys

Hesta Dalton, Priory School

Adam Etherington, Court Fields School

Josh Bray, Outwood Academy Shafton

Lee Turner, Cavendish Junior School

IFS: Colleges face £400m funding shortfall for rising 16-18s

The next government will have to find £400 million just to sustain 16 to 18 education funding at current levels, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

While predicted school pupil numbers are forecast to fall over the next four years, the number of 16- to- 18-year-olds is set to rise by 118,000.

Yet election manifestos published by the Conservatives and Labour parties last week contained no commitments on post-16 education funding.

Labour, currently in the lead in the polls, pledged a £1 billion education package of measures for schools. Meanwhile the Conservatives committed to protect per-pupil spending in schools.

The Liberal Democrats though did pledge to increase per-student funding rates in colleges “above inflation” every year, alongside extending the pupil premium to 16- to- 18-year-olds, as part of a total education spending package worth £2.2 billion.

New analysis from the leading think tank forecasts that even if per-student funding is maintained, the 16 to 18 funding rate would still be 9 per cent lower in real terms than in 2010.

Unlike in schools, where pupil numbers are expected to fall by 400,000 by 2028, the population of sixth-form-age students is expected to rise by 118,000, or 5 per cent, by 2028.

IFS economists modelled three post-16 funding scenarios facing whoever wins the general election on July 4.

Keeping per-student funding at today’s levels in real terms, so adjusting for inflation, would cost £400 million. The analysis found “this would keep spending per pupil constant in real terms at its current level, which – astonishingly – would be around 9 per cent lower than in 2009-10″.

Another option for the new government would be to freeze the overall 16 to 18 education budget in real terms. Factoring in the growth in student numbers, this would see per-student funding rates drop by 5 per cent over the next parliament. That per-student funding would be 13 per cent lower in real terms than in 2010.

Alternatively, a cash-strapped government could freeze 16 to 18 education spending completely in cash terms, meaning it would not rise with inflation. Under this scenario, per-student funding would fall by 11 per cent by 2028 and be 19 per cent lower than in 2010.

These alarming forecasts come as “colleges have faced sharper budget cuts than all other stages of education since 2010,” IFS research economist Imran Tahir said.

“But while the main political parties have emphasised the importance of further education, particularly for young people, none has set out a clear plan for funding colleges,” he added.

Funding for 16 to 18 study programmes has been increased by the Conservative government in recent years, but much of that funding has come with conditions, such as the delivery of 40 extra teaching hours.

Colleges leaders will be hoping for a better per-student settlement than the current funding levels as they struggle to close the £9,000 pay gap between college and school teachers and struggle to meet rising demands for student welfare services.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) estimates £600 million extra per year is needed to fund rising demand and improve teacher pay, alongside capital funding to build extra teaching spaces.

David Hughes, chief executive of the AoC, said funding saved from falling school numbers should be redirected to colleges.

“We know that budgets will be tight going forward, but the next government must commit to investing in the FE workforce and estate to ensure that the education and training needs of 100 per cent of the population can be met,” he said.

“As this report shows, the reduced numbers in schools will reduce costs; the next government needs to recycle those savings into colleges for the growing number of young people, plus reinstate the severe cuts made since 2010 in adult learning.”

Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said: “Real terms funding for sixth form colleges is far lower than it was 14 years ago, but the needs of students have increased significantly over the same period.

“We are convinced that raising the rate of funding is the best way to do this, and as London Economics found last year sixth form colleges will require an additional £710 per student in 2025 to keep pace with inflation and provide young people with the level of student support and non-qualification time required to support their studies,” he said.

This is the second warning in two weeks of possible cuts to further education from the IFS.

Last week, IFS director Paul Johnson accused Labour of engaging “in a conspiracy of silence” on where cuts to unprotected budgets would come based on already-agreed so-called “fiscal rules” to reduce the national debt.

Estimates on potential cuts needed to unprotected government budgets, which includes further education, local government, courts and prisons, are £18 to £19 billion over the next parliament.

Learning and Work Institute chief executive Stephen Evans predicted the adult skills budget’s share of the unprotected spending cuts would be about £380 million, on top of the £1 billion already cut from the sector since 2010.  

The Liberal Democrats were the only party to respond to IFS’ analysis. A Lib Dems spokesperson said: “The Conservative government has let down our young people and underfunded school sixth forms and colleges.

“It is high time we valued them properly by extending the pupil premium, protecting student choice, and fostering a culture of lifelong learning. This is what our post-16 education budget should be delivering.”