The inspection framework revamp touts inclusion and fairness but without industry insight and real focus on apprenticeships, FE will still be underserved.
In just under a month’s time, Ofsted will roll out its revised Education Inspection Framework (EIF) for further education and skills providers. On paper, it looks like progress: the single overall judgment is gone, replaced by multi-domain report cards. And the proposal for a five-day inspection notice period championed by the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) has been retained. The framework also upholds the principles of belonging, thriving and inclusion, which is commendable.
But dig a little deeper and some cracks appear. While the revisions are well suited to full-time study programmes delivered by colleges, they fall short for apprenticeships or employment-focused provision that serves learners of all ages and at all stages of life. Apprenticeships are no longer a second-best alternative to university; they are, for many, the preferred route: debt-free, valued by employers and offering a purposeful journey to career progression. Skills bootcamps and short employer-led courses similarly can provide efficient, impactful routes into employment. Yet the framework does not pay enough attention to these realities and misses the opportunity to lean into this optimism and create a futureproofed framework.
One key reason may be the limitations of the inspection workforce itself. Inspectors are trained in education, not industry. Their expertise equips them to assess teaching, learning and basic employer engagement, but they often lack the foresight to understand industry needs, workforce planning or the wider economic impact of training programmes. Ofsted has acknowledged the need to address this but feedback from the pilots suggests that we still have a long way to go before this fundamental flaw is rectified and it certainly won’t be fixed before November.
FIN supports the new emphasis on inclusion but in our submission, we asked for a definition of inclusion, a statement on what constituted “barriers to learning” and clear guidelines to ensure fair assessments across all types of providers. While the new toolkit includes a response to this, it has not sufficiently recognised the challenges faced by independent training providers in this regard, particularly as these providers don’t receive the same level of funding support allocated to other institutions.
Read the full article here.
