If you agreed that the designation of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) as the designated quality body for higher education in England should be removed.
The majority of responses (31) disagreed with the de-designation of QAA, while 15 agreed and one did not answer the question.
Whilst we recognise that many respondents reflected positively on QAA’s work as the DQB, QAA itself has asked to step down. In light of this, and whilst we acknowledge the views expressed, it was not appropriate for QAA to remain designated.
We asked for views on our proposals to make changes to fees for children’s social care providers and to set a minimum inspection frequency for the secure children’s homes element of secure 16-19 academies.
Close to half of respondents (44%) told us that the proposed fee increase would have no or a minor impact. Whereas 39% told us that it would have a moderate impact and 18% told us it would have a major impact.
The majority of respondents (63%) agreed with our proposal that secure 16-19 academies should be subject to the same number of minimum inspections as secure children’s homes.
The results of the consultation have been set out in a report on the gov.uk website. Based on these results, the department has decided to implement a 10% increase in fees for children’s social care providers not paying the full cost rate and set a requirement that the secure children’s home element of all secure 16-19 academies is subject to a minimum of two Ofsted inspections a year.
We asked for views on proposed quality standards, administrative requirements and accompanying guidance ahead of regulations being laid to introduce quality standards and registration and inspection requirements for providers of supported accommodation that accommodate looked after children and care leavers aged 16 and 17.
Many respondents agreed that the proposed standards, requirements and guidance covered the right areas. The main themes identified for further consideration covered: qualifications and experience requirements of managers and staff, restraint, the security of young people’s personal space and the use of non-permanent settings. Respondents also suggested some small changes and additions to the guidance to help provide additional clarity.
We will proceed with laying the regulations before parliament in early April 2023, which will implement the new national standards and Ofsted regime. Ofsted will begin registering providers of supported accommodation from 28 April 2023. Registration will become mandatory from 28 October 2023.
We asked for views on the following proposals:
A small number of respondents agreed with the proposals to reform 2-year-old and childminder ratios, whilst most respondents disagreed with the proposals. This was a consistent finding across all of the different types of respondents, such as parents, group-based providers and organisations representing the sector. The Government recognises that although most respondents to the consultation disagreed with the proposal on 2-year-old ratios, there was agreement from a number of respondents. This corresponds with evidence gathered via the Natcen survey, which demonstrated that 19% of all group settings (those with and without 2-year-olds) would be likely or very likely to make changes to 2-year-old ratios.
Regarding changing the EYFS wording to clarify that childminders can make exceptions to the statutory minimum ratios for their own children and siblings of children in their care, the majority of consultation respondents disagreed with proposals, although there were some positive responses. These clarifications are intended to support childminders with greater flexibility around the choice of provision they can offer. By clarifying this wording, we intend to support childminders who may care for siblings as well as babies. We recognise that not all childminders may enact this change, but given the small number that have indicated they would find this change beneficial, Government has concluded that this change will be worthwhile.
Regarding supervision whilst eating, we heard from a number of respondents and a substantial majority agreed with the proposal. When asked about their views, people commonly referred to safety reasons for children, such as spotting choking incidents or allergic reactions. A minority of respondents disagreed.
You can read the Government’s response to the consultation in full on the Childcare: regulatory changes - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) webpage.
Based on these results, the department has decided to proceed with all proposals to amend 2-year-old ratios from 1:4 to 1:5, and to amend EYFS wording around exceptions to childminder ratios. The proposed changes to ratios will continue to be a statutory minimum requirement for settings, and there will be no obligation on providers to operate at the statutory minimums – i.e. providers can continue to work to tighter ratios if they decide that is best for the children and staff at their setting.
Government has also agreed to proceed with the proposal to amend wording around supervision whilst eating to ensure children are within sight and hearing whilst eating.
The changes outlined in this document are part of a wider package of investment in the childcare sector announced on 15 March, to support more parents into work. Alongside the substantial investment in the existing free childcare hours offers, these new staffing flexibilities for providers are a sensible and proportionate step, alongside government’s additional investment, which will help meet the demand among newly eligible parents for childcare support.
We asked for views on proposed updates to the early years funding formulae and reforms to maintained nursery school supplementary funding.
The majority of respondents agreed with almost all of the proposals set out in the consultation.
We have therefore updated the datasets in line with our proposals – with a couple of minor exceptions, and made the technical amendments. The revised formulae have been used to determine the early years entitlements hourly funding rates for 2023-24.
We asked for views on our proposals relating to the implementation of the “direct” national funding formula (NFF) for schools. The direct NFF, when implemented will mean that the funding for individual schools will be set by a single, national formula – rather than each local authority having its own local formula to allocate funding for individual schools.
The consultation set out proposals on the detail of how the direct NFF will operate, as well changes to make the current funding system fairer and more consistent, as part of the transition towards the direct NFF.
We received 196 responses to the consultation. Our proposals received strong support across the stakeholders who responded (including schools, academy trusts, school forums and unions).
You can read the Government’s response to the consultation in full on the Implementing the Direct National Funding Formula Government consultation response (publishing.service.gov.uk) webpage. As well as confirmation of our plans for the implementation of the direct NFF, the Government’s response also confirms that the Department will implement two reforms to the schools NFF from 2024-25.:
We asked for your views on the proposed changes to statutory guidance for schools on access for education and training providers. This is following changes made through the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, where we strengthened existing provider access legislation to require schools to provide six encounters with providers of technical education or apprenticeships for all pupils, during school years 8-13.
We received 137 responses to the consultation from a wide variety of interested stakeholders including: schools, providers, careers professionals, unions and others.
Overall, we received a positive response to the revised statutory guidance and to our proposals on how we support and intervene in schools that require further support to comply. This includes 83% agreeing that the statutory guidance is clear and easy to understand.
We also received good support for the use of peer and expert reviews to strengthen the quality assurance of careers guidance in schools and colleges.
Following careful considerations of responses to this consultation, we have taken on board some suggestions to make improvements to the statutory guidance. We have reduced the length of the overall guidance by refining sections and using weblinks. We have also continued to work with The Careers & Enterprise Company to shape our support for schools and providers in line with consultation feedback.
You can read the Government’s response to the consultation in full on the Access to schools for education and training providers - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) webpage.
We asked for views on proposed changes to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) system.
We received almost 6,000 responses to the consultation. A number of respondents agreed with our proposals including our vision to develop a national system with consistent national standards, whilst others were concerned about the unintended consequences of some proposals. There were some proposals that respondents wanted to hear more about.
We carefully considered all of the feedback we received through the thousands of responses to the consultation and in the many events that took place during the 16-week consultation period.
This feedback informed the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and Alternative Provision (AP) Improvement Plan which we published in March, setting out government’s response to the consultation and our next steps for reform. An independent analysis of consultation responses was published alongside this.
We asked for views on the effectiveness of appropriate bodies (ABs) in their roles and how far the formal assessment process adds value to early career teachers (ECTs), schools and the profession more broadly. We announced that we will be reforming who can operate as an AB so that Teaching School Hubs (TSHs) will become the main providers of AB services and local authorities will no longer carry out this role. Additionally, we asked for views on the timeframe and the needs of the current AB sector to enable a successful transition.
We received 332 responses from a range of different types of organisations including: local authorities, TSHs, national ABs, maintained schools, academy trusts, independent schools, British schools overseas, trade unions and Early Career Framework (ECF) lead providers. Key findings were that:
- The overall perception is that ABs are effective in a range of roles, but that there is inconsistency of approach and more to do on tackling barriers to effective checking of entitlements, particularly around mentoring.
- Wide agreement that assessment and the verifying AB role is valued and fit for purpose but that there is more we can do to minimise workload.
- A longer timeframe for removing the role from local authorities will better serve the interests of ECTs to minimise mid-induction transfers between ABs.
- Support is essential to ensure all TSHs have the capacity, expertise, and relationships in place to take on an increased AB role.
Following consideration of the responses we committed to a longer, phased transitional period towards local authorities no longer operating as ABs, up to September 2024. There will be a programme of support for TSHs working via the Teaching School Hubs Council to build capacity and expertise. We also committed to updating the guidance for ABs, informed by further stakeholder engagement, which will include advice on the depth and detail needed in progress reviews and formal assessments, as well as on entitlement checking. The Department will continue to provide updates and advice to assist all ABs, schools and ECTs to ensure a successful transition during the reforms.
You can read the Government’s response to the consultation in full on the ‘Appropriate body reform and induction assessment - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)’ webpage.
We asked for views on our proposal to remove the designation of the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) as the Designated Data Body (DDB) for higher education in England. This would take place if HESA consented and merged with Jisc, as was intended at that time.
80% of respondents agreed that if HESA merges with Jisc as intended, the designation of HESA as the DDB under Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA), should be removed.
20% of the respondents disagreed with the proposal, raising concerns about the associated costs.
Following consideration of the responses, the Minister for Skills decided that in the event of HESA consenting and the merger between HESA and Jisc going ahead, that she would remove the designation of HESA as a DDB under HERA and designate Jisc as the new DDB.
The merger has now gone ahead, and Jisc is the new DDB.
We asked for views on our proposals to make changes to the Social Workers Regulations 2018 which will support Social Work England to improve its existing flexible model of professional regulation to secure public protection, foster professionalism, and ensure standards of practise.
We received 48 responses to the consultation from a wide variety of interested stakeholders including: social workers, unions, local authorities, regulatory bodies and service users.
The responses were broadly supportive of the proposed changes with approval ranging from 68% to 94%. Both the Department and Social Work England are pleased by the positive support for the proposed changes to the Social Worker Regulations 2018 and want to thank all those who took the time and effort to respond to the consultation and for the contributions received.
Following careful consideration of responses to this consultation, the department will proceed with legislation to introduce all the proposed changes to Social Work England's regulatory framework. The social workers (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2022 will be taken forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. Some respondents who commented on the [proposed regulatory changes also provided wider comments on the way in which Social Work England operate as a regulator.
While these comments fell outside the scope of this consultation, we will continue to work with Social Work England to explore these and specifically where there are opportunities for further improvement.
We sought views on the ambition, objectives and coverage of the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, together with aspects such as the level of modularity (i.e. the minimum number of credits a course will need to bear), maintenance support, how to support quality provision and flexible learning, how to incentivise and enable effective credit transfer and whether restrictions on previous study should be amended to facilitate retraining and stimulate high-quality provision.
Respondents were generally supportive of the high-level objectives and ambitions of the LLE, noting the need to carefully balance flexibility with quality.
The response to this consultation provides a detailed conclusion to the consultation including the changes being brought in as part of the LLE and next steps.
We asked for views on proposals to reform post-16 qualifications at level 2 and below in England. The aim of these proposals is to improve the quality of qualifications available at level 2, level 1 and entry level and to simplify the qualifications landscape, ensuring that all future qualifications approved for government funding at these levels will be high quality, have a clear purpose, and lead to positive outcomes for students.
There was strong support for the aim of simplifying the qualification landscape and improving the quality of provision, and for the groups of qualifications we proposed to fund in future. Other themes from the consultation responses included: the importance of flexibility for students studying at these levels; the potential impact of reducing qualification choice on students from disadvantaged backgrounds and with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities (SEND); and the need for a phased approach to the timing and sequencing of the reforms.
A total of 410 online and emailed responses to the consultation were received by the department. Of these, 117 were from a further education college, 37 were from independent training providers and 33 from awarding organisations. The remainder of responses were from a combination of education-related organisations, industry bodies, employers and those with an interest in the sector.
The full results of the consultation have been set out in the government response to the consultation which is available on the gov.uk website. We intend to proceed as planned with the majority of our proposals, but having reflected on the responses, we have made some changes to our original plans, including, but not limited to:
The Department for Education consulted on changes to the School Admission Appeals Code to allow appeals to be held remotely as well as in person and to allow appeal hearings to continue with two panel members where the third member needs to withdraw.
There was broad support for most of our proposals, in particular the proposal to allow admission authorities to offer remote appeals. The proposal to allow appeal hearings to continue with two panel members where the third member has to withdraw also received support but those who opposed the change raised important concerns about fairness and the perception of fairness.
A total of 488 responses were received. Of these, 94 were from local authorities, 135 were from representatives of schools and academy trusts, 169 from admission appeal panel members and 72 responses were from individuals.
Alongside the publication of the government’s response to the consultation, a revised Appeals Code was laid before Parliament on 16 June 2022. The revised Appeals Code, subject to the Parliamentary process, will come into force on 1 October 2022. The current 2012 Appeals Code will continue to apply until this date.
Respondents to comment on the proposed changes to the ‘Teacher misconduct regulatory regime’.
That it was only right for all children and young people to be safeguarded and protected wherever they are receiving their education.
We have not made any further changes to our proposals. We plan to implement all of our proposals when the next legislative opportunity arises, and we will provide further guidance as necessary at that time.
The Department for Education published for consultation a draft statutory instrument proposing amendments to the regulations which set out the rules for the Teacher’s Pension Scheme.
Nearly all respondents agreed that the draft amendments achieved the policy aims as described in the consultation document.
The draft regulations now form the basis of the final regulations which were made and laid before Parliament on 18 March 2022.
We asked for views on our proposals to make changes to the fees Ofsted charge children’s social care providers and reset the three-year inspection cycle for residential family centres, voluntary adoption agencies, adoption support agencies and fostering agencies.
Just over half told us that the proposed fee increase, for those not paying the full cost of Ofsted inspection and regulation, would have a minimal or moderate impact and considered that the proposed increase was fair or thought the fee increase could be sufficiently covered within existing budgets. Almost all other respondents advised that it would have a moderate effect and two said it would have a major effect. Some concerns were raised about the fee increase and the impact of wider financial pressures.
Most respondents were supportive of our proposals on fees for multi-building children’s homes. Likewise, most respondents were also supportive of our proposal to reset the three-year inspection cycle. However, there were some concerns raised, particularly around the potential for a longer time between inspections for some providers.
The results of the consultation have been set out in a report on the gov.uk website. Based on these results, the department has decided to implement a 10% increase in fees for children’s social care providers not paying the full cost rate, introduce fees for multi-building children’s homes and reset the three-year inspection cycle for residential family centres, voluntary adoption agencies, adoption support agencies and fostering agencies.
We asked for views on proposals to reform how local authorities' school improvement functions are funded.
While many responses indicated that they understood the rationale for these proposals, we recognise many also raised concerns. These centred on whether schools and councils would be able to absorb further funding pressures; what would happen if schools forums did not agree to de-delegation for core school improvement activity; and the desire for further clarity on what is considered core school improvement. Others noted the challenging implementation timescales. We address these concerns in our government response.
We recognise that there is concern, particularly from councils and the maintained sector, about removing this additional source of funding. However, one of the key rationales of these proposals is to create greater parity between how school improvement is funded in the maintained and academies sector. Therefore, after careful consideration of the responses, the government intends to proceed with implementing the proposals.
As such, we will (1) reduce the grant by 50% for the FY 2022-23 and bring it to an end in FY 2023-24 and (2) include provision in Part 7 of Schedule 2 to the School and Early Years Finance (England) Regulations for FY 2022-23 which would allow councils to de-delegate for all improvement expenditure, including all core improvement activities. We will monitor the impact of the changes during the year.
Respondents to comment on the proposed revisions to the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers - Advice on factors relating to decisions leading to the prohibition of teachers from the teaching profession.
That, overall the revisions provided further clarity to the process, but that it should better define some of the terms used and say more on safeguarding and teacher standards.
We have, where appropriate, made some further revisions to strengthen the advice further.
We asked for views on the approach to prioritising schools for future places in the School Rebuilding Programme.
The majority of respondents were supportive of the lead approach proposed in the consultation. This was to combine a light-touch nomination process, where responsible bodies can request that we consider a school informed by condition data held by the department, alongside the ability to submit supplementary professional evidence (e.g. a structural survey by a chartered structural engineer) of severe need.
Overall, respondents thought we should focus on the condition of buildings and that we should prioritise projects with the greatest need for rebuilding.
We will adopt a prioritisation approach based on the lead proposal in the consultation and continue to prioritise the schools in the poorest condition. The overall approach can be found in the consultation response document. Full details of how to nominate schools for inclusion in the programme can be found on gov.uk.
We have published an Equalities Impact Analysis which has been informed by responses to the consultation.