Thematic Report Archives - Estyn

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page

Executive Summary

Timely completion rates – the proportion of apprentices who complete their apprenticeship framework within the expected programme duration are an important indicator of the quality and effectiveness of apprenticeship provision. Completing within expected timescales supports learner motivation, confidence, progression and career development, while also reflecting the effectiveness of programme planning, assessment arrangements, employer engagement and learner support.

The review found that timely completion rates improved gradually over the three-year period ending 2024/25. In 2024/25, 70% of apprentices completed within one month of their expected end date, compared with 64% in 2022/23. During the same period, the proportion of learners completing more than six months late reduced from 16% to 10%. Despite this improvement, timely completion rates remain well below pre-pandemic levels and around 20% learners still completed more than three months beyond their expected end date, demonstrating that late completion remained a considerable sector-wide issue.

Health, public services and care, and construction and the built environment were the most consistently underperforming sectors for timely completion. Across these sectors, providers faced a combination of structural and operational challenges, including qualification reform, staffing shortages, assessor turnover, delays associated with external assessment requirements and weak employer engagement and support.

The review identified substantial variation in timely completion rates between providers. Although providers delivering large volumes of health and social care and construction provision generally faced greater challenges, the scale of variation remained considerable across the sector. Provider approaches to planning, monitoring and supporting learner progress were an important factor in determining timely completion outcomes.

The strongest providers demonstrated a clear strategic focus on timely completion and embedded it securely within quality assurance and performance management arrangements. Effective providers used learner tracking systems proactively, intervened early where progress slowed and planned programmes carefully around learner capability and expected completion dates. Strong assessor relationships, effective employer engagement and clear learner targets also supported stronger outcomes.

However, the review also identified inconsistencies in the recognition of prior learning, the quality of target-setting and the effectiveness of employer engagement across the sector. In addition, current funding arrangements and programme duration rules sometimes limited flexibility within apprenticeship delivery, meaning that learners did not always progress or complete at the pace they were capable of.

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page

Executive Summary

Adult social care apprenticeship provision is the largest sector of apprenticeship provision in Wales and continues to experience change resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, the introduction of revised qualifications and increasing workforce pressures. Providers are adapting to changing learner demographics and increasing numbers of learners requiring additional language and learning support.

Across Levels 2 and 3, providers have generally responded positively to the introduction of revised Health and Social Care qualifications, including the core and practice model. In many cases, they have refined delivery models appropriately, strengthened learner induction processes and adapted staffing structures to support implementation. Over the last three years, learner outcomes have improved steadily across much of the sector, with attainment rates in many cases approaching pre-pandemic levels. However, a few providers continue to perform well below sector averages for framework attainment and timely completion.

Across nearly all providers, strong assessor–learner relationships were a notable strength. Learners benefited from regular contact, pastoral support and flexible approaches that adapted learning around shift patterns and workplace demands. In the strongest examples, assessors tailored delivery carefully to learners’ confidence levels, prior experience and personal circumstances. Providers increasingly strengthened arrangements to identify support needs and refer learners to specialist support services.

Employer engagement in supporting learning is one of the most considerable challenges affecting learner progress and timely completion. During our evidence gathering, too many employers failed to provide protected time for off-the-job training or engage actively in progress of learning, despite commitments within apprenticeship learning agreements.

Providers of higher level apprenticeships continued to face substantial challenges in delivering the new suite of frameworks at Levels 4 and 5. Although providers and employers recognised the long-term value of revised higher apprenticeship qualifications in strengthening leadership and management capability, learner outcomes remained too low overall. Providers also raised concerns regarding delays and inconsistencies within external assessment arrangements.

Essential Skills Wales (ESW), particularly in relation to learner’s literacy and numeracy skills development, remained a key barrier to learner progress and framework completion at all levels. Although providers increasingly adopted flexible and learner-centred approaches, the quality and effectiveness of the ongoing development of learners’ literacy and numeracy skills was underdeveloped.

Providers also reported that current funding and programme duration arrangements did not provide sufficient flexibility or reflect the increasing complexity of learner need. In response to these challenges, a few providers had reduced or withdrawn higher apprenticeship provision. This raises concerns about future leadership and management apprenticeship capacity within the sector.

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page
Students in a science laboratory using microscopes at a workbench during a practical lesson. Several pupils are closely examining samples while others observe and prepare equipment, with laboratory apparatus visible in the background.

Executive summary

This thematic report examines the quality of teaching and learning in science in primary, secondary and all-age schools in Wales. It evaluates how well schools are developing pupils’ scientific knowledge, understanding and enquiry skills as part of the Science and Technology Area of Learning and Experience (Area) within the Curriculum for Wales for the 7-16 age range. The report considers the effectiveness of curriculum design, teaching, assessment and leadership, and how well schools support progression in science across phases. It also explores pupils’ attitudes towards science and how well they apply their learning in authentic contexts.

The report highlights examples of effective practice in the primary and secondary phases, where schools have developed coherent curriculum plans, strengthened subject expertise and supported pupils to deepen their understanding of scientific concepts over time. However, across the schools visited, the quality of provision for science is inconsistent. In too many cases, weaknesses in curriculum design, teaching and assessment limit pupils’ progress, particularly in developing secure conceptual understanding and scientific reasoning. Arrangements to support progression between the primary and secondary phases are often underdeveloped, leading to repetition, gaps in learning and uneven challenge.

This report evaluates four key areas:

  • Science in the primary phase: A majority of primary schools are increasingly ambitious in their approach to science and provide pupils with engaging, practical learning experiences that foster curiosity and enjoyment. In the strongest practice, leaders have developed clear progression models that balance enquiry with the explicit teaching of scientific knowledge and provide meaningful real-world contexts, often through partnerships with industry and the community. However, in a minority of schools, science does not have a sufficiently high status within the curriculum. Over-reliance on thematic or enquiry-led approaches, without clear planning for conceptual progression, results in pupils completing activities without fully understanding the scientific ideas underpinning their work. Assessment and tracking of pupils’ scientific understanding are often underdeveloped, making it difficult for leaders to evaluate progress over time.
  • Science in the secondary phase: In most secondary schools, curriculum plans are structured around disciplinary approaches to biology, chemistry and physics, supporting appropriate coverage and examination preparation. Where teaching is strongest, teachers use secure subject knowledge, effective modelling and questioning to develop pupils’ conceptual understanding and scientific reasoning. However, in a minority of schools, weaknesses in planning mean that learning is not sequenced clearly enough to develop pupils’ knowledge and skills systematically over time, particularly in Year 7 to Year 9. Limited curriculum time, staffing challenges and inconsistent collaboration with primary schools contribute to variability in pupils’ experiences and progress.
  • Understanding progression in science: Across both phases, schools are at different stages in developing a shared understanding of progression in science. In the strongest examples, leaders use collaboration documents and shared expectations of progression to support continuity, revisit key concepts and address misconceptions systematically. However, in a majority of schools, progression is not planned securely enough. Teachers often address misconceptions reactively rather than anticipating them through curriculum design, and assessment does not consistently capture how pupils’ understanding deepens over time.
  • Leading and improving science: Effective leadership is a key factor in securing strong science provision. In schools where leaders prioritise science, protect curriculum time and invest in subject-specific professional learning, pupils benefit from more coherent curricula and stronger teaching. However, in many schools, the monitoring and evaluation of science focuses too heavily on provision rather than its impact on learning. Challenges in recruiting and retaining specialist science teachers, particularly in Welsh-medium settings, continue to affect provision.

Across the schools visited, the strongest teaching in science shares a number of common features. These features reflect the ways in which teachers support pupils to develop secure conceptual understanding and apply their learning over time. They are summarised below.

Infographic outlining six features of effective science teaching and learning. The sections are: **Subject knowledge** – teachers use strong subject knowledge to shape learning through accurate explanations, precise scientific vocabulary, carefully chosen examples and addressing misconceptions; **Sequenced progression** – learning builds cumulatively over time through a logical curriculum sequence, revisiting key concepts and increasing challenge; **Conceptual understanding** – pupils develop secure understanding of key scientific ideas by focusing on important concepts, making connections and using scientific language; **Purposeful teaching** – teaching helps pupils develop and apply understanding through secure knowledge, practical work and targeted intervention; **Responsive assessment** – assessment informs teaching by probing pupils’ thinking, identifying misconceptions and adapting teaching accordingly; and **Real-world application** – learning is extended through meaningful contexts, helping pupils apply scientific knowledge and recognise its relevance beyond the classroom. Each section is accompanied by a simple icon representing the theme.

This report makes recommendations for schools, local authorities and school improvement services, and the Welsh Government. These recommendations focus on strengthening curriculum planning for progression, improving the quality of teaching and assessment, developing leadership capacity in science, and addressing workforce and professional learning challenges to ensure that all pupils in Wales experience high-quality science education.

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page
A group of teachers sat around tables talking.

Executive summary

Local authorities play a vital role in helping schools plan, manage and use their financial resources. At a time of rising costs, demographic shifts and increasing pressures on school budgets, high-quality local authority support is essential for schools to remain financially stable and able to prioritise resources to meet pupils’ needs. This report considers how effectively local authorities support schools with budget management and strategic financial planning. The report draws on evidence from a national survey of local authorities, governing bodies and school leaders as well as documentary review and interviews with finance officers, education officers, headteachers, school business managers and governors.

Purpose of the review

This review aims to evaluate the nature and effectiveness of the support that local authorities provide to maintained schools in Wales. It examines the following aspects:

  • the clarity and timeliness of financial advice
  • the transparency of local authorities’ budget-setting processes
  • the quality of relevant training for headteachers, business managers and governors
  • how local authorities monitor risk, intervene in schools which face financial difficulty and support recovery
  • how well local authorities help schools use targeted grants such as the pupil development grant (PDG); and
  • how local authorities promote equity and long-term sustainability in their funding decisions. 

Overview of findings

Across Wales, local authorities showed strong commitment to supporting schools and maintaining constructive professional relationships with regards to budget management and strategic financial planning. Most schools valued the advice they received and had confidence in their link finance teams. However, the review found considerable variation between authorities, particularly in the depth of how they supported strategic planning, the clarity and timeliness of information, and the systems used to monitor risk and support improvement.

Three overarching messages emerged from the evidence.

1. Operational financial support is strong, but strategic support is inconsistent

Most local authorities provided secure operational guidance. Schools and governors were positive about day-to-day advice on budget monitoring, coding expenses and compliance. In most authorities, schools found officers were approachable and responsive, and templates for staffing forecasts and grant planning were widely used.

Overall, strategic support by local authorities varied considerably. Only a minority of authorities provided consistently strong support to help schools model the medium-term implications of their decisions, although many encouraged three-year planning in practice. In many authorities, support focused on balancing annual budgets rather than developing long-term plans. Limited capacity in local authorities, late grant funding announcements and fragmented cross-service working often restricted strategic oversight. Strong practice occurred where finance, human resources (HR) and school-improvement officers met jointly with schools and aligned financial decisions with educational priorities. 

2. Budget-setting processes were generally open and transparent, but the quality, clarity and timeliness of information were uneven

Budget-setting arrangements were usually structured and procedurally transparent. Most authorities issued planning timelines, offered meetings with finance officers and engaged schools through budget forums or consultation groups. Schools valued these opportunities and described communication as constructive.

The information schools received, however, was not always clear or timely, despite most authorities issuing guidance within required deadlines. Many schools struggled to confidently understand how delegated budgets were calculated, particularly where formulae had not been reviewed for many years or where documentation was highly technical. Late funding announcements from Welsh Government to local authorities remained a major barrier. Only around half of governors surveyed felt they received information early enough to make confident staffing or curriculum decisions. In authorities with small finance teams, capacity issues sometimes reduced consistency and limited the depth of collaborative planning. 

3. Systems for monitoring financial risk and supporting schools in difficulty were well-intentioned but varied in quality

Most authorities monitored budgets regularly and maintained supportive relationships with schools. Many used dashboards, RAG-rating systems or multi-agency meetings to track emerging risks. Schools generally found finance teams helpful when deficits emerged.

Support for long-term planning was strongest where authorities provided multi-year projections and helped schools understand demographic trends and implications of staffing costs. However, early identification of risk was not consistent. A minority of authorities used integrated financial, HR and school-improvement data to diagnose pressures. In many areas, deficit recovery focused on immediate savings rather than long-term sustainability. Approaches to targeted grants such as the pupil development grant (PDG) were mostly compliance-driven, with limited evaluation of impact. Very few local authorities demonstrated a more strategic approach to the use of targeted grants, for example by consolidating them into wider programmes to clearly link their use to priorities and analyse outcomes. 

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page

Executive Summary

What we did

This thematic report examines the arrangements for and quality of tuition services for pupils who are educated other than at school (EOTAS) across Wales.

If you’re new to EOTAS or tuition services, see FAQs on page 52.

We considered how well local authorities meet their statutory duties. We also looked at how effectively tuition services support pupils’ learning, well-being and progression. The report also shares effective practice, where identified.

Our evidence came from surveys and discussions with local authorities and visits to 14 tuition providers, including local authority services, schools, pupil referral units (PRUs) and commissioned providers. During visits, we spoke with leaders, tutors, pupils and parents or carers. We observed learning, reviewed pupils’ work and examined documentation such as individual development plans (IDPs), curriculum planning and transition arrangements. In total, we spoke with over 60 pupils.

What we found

Strategic leadership and oversight

Local authorities have a statutory role in ensuring that pupils who cannot attend school continue to receive suitable education. In the strongest authorities, leaders have a clear strategic vision for tuition services. They view tuition as a purposeful and, where appropriate, time-limited intervention that supports pupils to sustain or re-engage with learning and prepare for future pathways.

However, strategic leadership and governance are inconsistent across Wales. In too many authorities, arrangements lack clarity and coherence. This results in fragmented provision and uneven expectations for providers. Oversight of commissioned services is often particularly underdeveloped, particularly where provision is delivered online or in the community.

We found that national expectations for tuition provision within EOTAS were not sufficiently clear, particularly in relation to curriculum breadth and balance, which contributed to variability in learners’ experiences across Wales. Differences in local interpretation had led to inconsistencies in the range and depth of learning available to young people educated outside mainstream settings. We also found confusion regarding expectations for the number of hours of tuition to be provided, resulting in inconsistent practice across local authorities. As a result, entitlement was not applied consistently, and approaches to planning, delivery and quality assurance varied.

Quality of provision and curriculum

There is too much variation in the quality of tuition services. A minority of providers deliver high-quality teaching within a carefully planned curriculum. In these settings, learning is engaging and matched well to pupils’ needs. Pupils often make strong progress in confidence, well-being and academic learning.

In contrast, many pupils experience a narrow curriculum. They receive only a limited number of hours each week. Provision is frequently restricted to English and mathematics, with limited access to other areas of learning and experience (AoLE) or vocational pathways. As a result, pupils’ opportunities to gain qualifications and progress to positive destinations is limited.

The delivery of the Curriculum for Wales is inconsistent. While a few providers have adapted their curricula thoughtfully, others have yet to embed the principles, purposes and progression framework effectively.

We found that expectations for more able pupils were too low in several tuition services. In a minority of cases, teaching materials lacked sufficient challenge and did not consistently support higher-level thinking or progression. As a result, more able learners did not always receive work that matched their capabilities, limiting opportunities to extend their knowledge, skills and understanding.

Additional learning needs (ALN) and well-being

The needs of pupils accessing tuition services are becoming increasingly complex. Many pupils experience a combination of mental health difficulties, neurodevelopmental needs, trauma and/or a pattern of disrupted schooling.

In the strongest practice, providers use assessment information and IDPs effectively. They adopt trauma-informed approaches and work closely with other agencies to support pupils’ well-being. However, ALN arrangements remain variable. In some cases, identification of needs is delayed, and provision does not consistently reflect statutory expectations.

Tuition services are often expected to address needs beyond their original remit, for example in meeting complex ALN. This places pressure on staff capacity and resources and can affect the quality and sustainability of provision.

While local authorities in Wales have a legal duty to secure suitable education for pupils receiving Education Otherwise Than at School (EOTAS) up to the age of 16, there is no expectation that tuition services continue beyond that point. As a result, it is extremely rare for tuition provision to be maintained after 16 to support young people with ALN to achieve qualifications.

In practice, this creates a significant inequity within the system. Many pupils in special schools routinely remain in education until the age of 19, benefiting from structured post-16 programmes, specialist teaching, continued therapeutic input and supported pathways to accredited qualifications. However, young people with ALN who are unable to attend school and who rely on tuition services, do not experience the same continuity of entitlement. Those supported through EOTAS tuition frequently see their provision reduced substantially or ended abruptly at 16, limiting their access to qualifications and ongoing specialist support at a critical stage in their education.

Pupil voice and engagement

Where practice is strongest, pupils have meaningful opportunities to influence their learning. They help shape timetables, learning activities and future plans. This increases engagement and motivation.

In many services, however, pupil voice is limited. Pupils in online or community-based provision often report having little influence over what or how they learn. Opportunities to gather and act on pupils’ views are inconsistent. Where practice is strongest, pupils have meaningful opportunities to influence their learning. They help shape timetables, learning activities and future plans. This increases engagement, motivation and a stronger sense of ownership over their education

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page

Executive Summary

Overall, the findings in this report reflect a further education sector that is actively engaging with both the opportunities and challenges presented by generative artificial intelligence. Colleges recognise that AI is increasingly influencing how learners learn, how staff work, and how organisations operate. While practice remains at an early and uneven stage, and confidence varies across curriculum areas and roles, there is clear momentum towards using AI to support teaching, learning, learner well-being, and organisational efficiency. At the same time, colleges are becoming more aware of the ethical, safety and safeguarding considerations associated with AI, although these are not yet embedded consistently in the learner experience.

Staff and learners were increasingly using AI to support learning, planning, feedback and organisational efficiency. Learners commonly used AI to summarise information, support understanding and structure written work, particularly when working independently. Many learners, including those with additional learning needs, described how AI helped them to build confidence and manage the demands of their courses. Teacher use of AI was developing, with early adopters using tools to support lesson planning, differentiation, resource creation, and formative feedback. However, practice was uneven across curriculum areas.

A strong and recurring issue across colleges was a lack of clarity for learners about acceptable AI use, particularly in relation to assessed work. Learners reported receiving mixed messages from teachers, often reinforced by fear-based narratives around AI detection tools. In many cases, guidance was delivered primarily at induction and not routinely revisited, contributing to anxiety and, for some learners, avoidance of AI even where it could support learning. This uncertainty was compounded by inconsistent guidance from awarding bodies, leading to cautious approaches to summative assessment and emerging recognition in a few colleges that longer-term assessment redesign may be necessary.

Leadership and strategic approaches to AI varied. In stronger examples, senior leaders positioned AI as a strategic enabler aligned with teaching, learning, inclusion, and organisational efficiency, supported by governance structures and professional learning. Elsewhere, implementation was more fragmented and driven by individual enthusiasm. AI was increasingly used to support business support and administrative functions, improving efficiency and access to services. Leaders were also becoming more aware of emerging challenges relating to cost, access and sustainability, with early discussions of whether more collaborative or sector-wide approaches could support consistency and equity.

Ethical, safety and safeguarding considerations were increasingly recognised but less consistently embedded in the learner experience. Learners showed emerging ethical awareness, including concerns about over-reliance, bias and originality, but opportunities to develop critical AI literacy in a systematic way were limited.

The findings indicated that while the FE sector is at an early and uneven stage of adopting AI, there was clear momentum. The greatest impact was evident where AI use was guided by clear purpose, consistent messaging and ongoing dialogue with learners, underpinned by leadership, ethical clarity, and collaboration across the sector.

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page

(ALN) reform in FEIs

Context

During the autumn term 2024 and spring term 2025, further education institutions (FEIs) were visited by their Estyn link inspectors and an inspector with experience in working with learners who have additional learning needs (ALN). During each visit, inspectors met with key staff to discuss the ongoing implementation of colleges’ statutory responsibilities under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018.

This report uses discussions from these meetings along with evidence from inspection activity to provide an update on the 2024 insights report Additional Learning Needs in Further Education Colleges.

Key findings

Nearly all colleges have well established structures and processes in place to meet the needs of learners with individual development plans (IDPs).

Nearly all colleges report that the time taken to fulfil their obligations has exceeded expectations and that pressure on workloads is compounded by the ongoing lack of a pan-Wales IDP electronic platform.

Collaborative working has increased, and most colleges are now working effectively with schools, local authorities and wider stakeholders to plan successful transitions into college for learners with ALN.

Most colleges report an increase in the number of learners who require support who have not formerly been identified as having ALN or who have chosen not to have an IDP.

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page

Executive Summary

This thematic report explores how artificial intelligence (AI), and generative AI (GenAI) in particular, is currently being implemented and its emerging impact in schools and pupil referral units (PRUs) across Wales. The evidence base includes visits to a broad range of schools, conversations with school leaders, teaching staff, and pupils, as well as an extensive survey of staff in schools and PRUs. The report aims to help schools and policymakers understand and address the opportunities and challenges of AI and to provide real-world examples of effective engagement.

The report concludes that a coherent national approach is necessary to ensure the security of data and maximise the potential of AI to support teaching and learning, inclusion and effective leadership in schools and PRUs in Wales, and to mitigate the challenges and risks. This includes clear national guidance and support frameworks alongside structured professional learning. These will be crucial in ensuring that AI enhances teaching and learning: sustainably, equitably, safely and ethically.

Overall, many schools are still in the early stages of exploring AI. In most cases, initial use is driven by individual staff members who have an interest in digital innovation and see the potential benefits of AI on their professional practice. However, a few schools have begun embedding AI strategically within their broader digital strategies and school improvement plans, demonstrating clearly how AI can effectively support teaching and learning and school leadership and management. At present, schools are largely exploring the potential and challenges of AI independently and with limited support and collaboration within and across Wales’ 22 local authorities.

Teachers across the sectors included in this review consistently reported substantial workload reductions resulting from AI use, notably in areas such as lesson planning, resource creation, differentiation of learning materials, and report writing. For example, teachers describe how AI-generated scaffolds, worksheets, and creative prompts enable them to focus more on the quality and personalisation of their teaching. In many cases, teachers note how AI allows them to produce better quality resources that are more closely linked to the needs and interests of pupils. Staff in special schools and PRUs particularly highlight the benefits of AI-generated communication stories and bespoke literacy pathways, which enhance engagement and inclusivity for pupils with complex additional learning needs. Crucially, where the use of AI is proving most beneficial, it is within the context of a clear understanding of effective pedagogy and child development. However, teachers also highlight concerns that an overreliance on AI could deskill less experienced teachers, for example in ensuring that lessons and activities are well-linked to the next steps in pupils’ learning. Digital innovations in education rarely succeed without a clear focus and reflection on the impact on pupils.

Pupils show interest in the creative opportunities provided by age-appropriate AI tools, especially in primary and special schools. Engagement is strongest when pupils participate in collaborative, creative projects such as digital storytelling, podcasting, and visual arts. At secondary level, pupils use AI effectively for independent learning, including summarising revision notes and generating personalised quiz questions. However, many secondary teachers expressed concerns about potential over-reliance on AI, stressing the need to guide pupils in critical, ethical use of these tools. Leaders stressed the necessity to adhere to malpractice guidance regarding the use of AI in assessments leading to qualifications.

A few schools have integrated AI into their assessment, feedback, and reporting policies. Where this occurs, it is often through individual experimentation rather than strategic planning. Teachers using AI in assessment contexts find it promising for formative feedback and summarising assessment data but consistently emphasise the necessity for professional scrutiny to ensure accuracy and fairness. Some schools have begun using AI to draft letters and pupil reports, substantially reducing administrative workloads, freeing up staff time for more strategic and pupil-focused activities.

Schools increasingly recognise AI’s potential to support equity and inclusion, especially for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds or with additional learning needs. However, there is also the risk of a digital divide, as pupils who can afford paid-for AI tools may gain advantages that others cannot. Despite the potential benefits of AI, schools also identify challenges including limited digital confidence among staff, uneven access to training, ethical concerns around AI bias, and safeguarding and data protection issues. Staff highlight the need for clear guidelines, structured professional learning, and a national approach to ethical AI use.

Strategic leadership in a minority of schools has driven successful AI implementation through comprehensive professional learning and clear policies. In a few cases, collaborative cluster-based professional learning has proven effective in developing staff confidence and a unified approach. In many schools, professional learning around the use of AI has been limited to the informal sharing of practice. While this is beneficial, it has not substantially improved staff confidence compared to strategically driven professional learning programmes. 

AI is being used effectively in school administration to streamline routine tasks, such as drafting letters to parents, summarising reports and the creation of new school policies. A few schools have introduced robust procedures to ensure data protection and compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. Overall, however, too many schools that have begun to explore the use of AI remain unclear of their statutory duties regarding the protection of personal data. In Wales, the Hwb platform and Digital Competence Framework (DCF) have underpinned efforts to embed digital learning and equity since 2012, with recent Welsh Government guidance and training materials further supporting schools, practitioners, and parents to address the opportunities and challenges of AI.

Case study videos

To further inform the report, during the spring term of 2024, inspectors visited a sample of 21 English and Welsh medium primary, secondary, special and all-age schools across Wales. We selected most of these schools because they had indicated in their survey response that they were engaging positively with AI. We chose a few schools because of other information, for example due to a recent inspection suggesting that staff were undertaking interesting work with AI. During the visits, we spoke with leaders, staff and pupils, looked at examples of pupils’ work and documentation, such as policies and teachers’ planning. Where possible, we identified examples of effective practice for inclusion in the report. The work of many of these providers is further exemplified in the following video case studies:

AI at Estyn

We are embracing the opportunities that AI offers to enhance the way we work and deliver our service,

Find out more!
none

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page
Easy read version
To turn on English subtitles, click the CC button.

Executive Summary

  1. The further education (FE) sector has seen notable improvements to Independent Living Skills (ILS) provision since we last reported on it in 2017, especially in personalising learning and improving collaboration. However, variability in provision, inconsistent assessment and tracking, and weaknesses in quality assurance systems persist. In addition, curriculum offers are not consistently aligned to statutory responsibilities under the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 risking non-compliance and inconsistent outcomes for learners. This report calls for re-configuration of the ILS curriculum into a more coherent, aspirational, and outcome-focused model that better supports learners in preparing for fulfilling adult lives.
  2. As of September 2024, 12 further education institutions (FEIs) in Wales, including Adult Learning Wales, provide ILS programmes for learners with ALN, an increase of one provider since Estyn’s 2017 thematic review. St David’s Catholic Sixth Form College remains the only FE institution not offering ILS provision. Around 1,700 learners completed ILS programmes in 2023-2024, reflecting growing demand.
  3. ILS programmes serve learners with a range of needs including moderate to severe and profound learning difficulties and disabilities, autistic spectrum conditions, and social or mental health needs. They also cater for learners who have disrupted educational experiences and minimal qualifications. While some learners join at age 16, others enter aged 19 from special schools.  
  4. Entry into ILS programmes is guided by college-level assessments, drawing on Individual Development Plans (IDP) and, occasionally, Education, Health and Care Plans for learners from England. Where provision is unsuitable, learners may be referred to independent specialist colleges.
  5. Medr recognises the additional cost of supporting learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. ILS learners receive differentiated funding through course funding structures, and sometimes through additional learning support (ALS). Key information is tracked via the Lifelong Learning Wales Record (LLWR), which collects data on course completion and qualifications. There is no national collection of destination data for these learners.
  6. The 2017 Estyn review identified a lack of robust assessment and tracking systems, overreliance on qualifications to measure progress, and inadequate focus on life skills, independence, and employability. This led to five key recommendations, prompting reforms including the adoption of the Recognising and Recording Progress and Achievement (RARPA) framework, a reduction in inappropriate accredited learning, and a move to personalised, skills-based curricula. While many improvements have been made, inconsistencies in quality remain, especially in initial assessments and IDP integration.
  7. Pathways 1 and 2 serve learners with the most complex needs. However, inconsistency in interpreting learner profiles leads to variation in which learners access these pathways. For example, learners with a similar profile may end up on pathway 1, 2 or even in independent specialist colleges, dependant on the local offer. Some providers lack clarity on programme duration and learners’ expected outcomes, risking perceptions of the college providing day service-like activities rather than purposeful learning and skills development.
  8. Pathway 3 accommodates the largest share of learners and meets a wide range of learning needs. It often includes learners with behavioural or emotional challenges, many of whom have not been identified as having ALN or who do not identify as being an ILS learner. Colleges have developed a breadth of curriculum offers including vocational tasters, employability training and personalised development of social and communication skills. The delivery, planning and assessment of these pathway 3 programmes varies considerably and often includes accredited learning. In some providers this is similar provision to the Jobs Growth Wales+ 16-19 employability programme, and meets the needs of similar learners. It is important to note that not all FEIs deliver Jobs Growth Wales+.
  9. Pathway 4 provides supported internships. While the delivery model for this pathway has demonstrated life-changing potential for some learners, delivery inconsistencies, funding constraints, and the differing expectations of learners, parents and/or carers, colleges, supported employment agencies and employers limit its impact.
  10. Quality assurance practices across FEIs are evolving but remain inconsistent both within and across different institutions. Strong providers align self-evaluation with learner achievement of targets, use robust observation processes, and involve learners and stakeholders. However, many colleges identify progress monitoring, especially for non-accredited learning, as a key area needing improvement.
  11. Current programme specifications overemphasise learners’ impairments rather than their learning needs and goals. The four ‘pillars of learning’ (health and well-being, community inclusion, independent living, and employability) are inconsistently defined, not well understood and sometimes misapplied. Many view the existing terminology, including the term ‘ILS’, as lacking aspiration and clarity.
  12. FEIs are improving transition support from schools, aided by growing collaboration. However, issues persist, including misaligned curricula, lack of consistency in IDP content, and learners entering college without an IDP.
  13. Welsh-medium provision remains underdeveloped. Only two colleges routinely deliver Welsh-medium provision, and a very few other providers report being able to provide this if it is requested but rarely do. As a result, too often learners whose first language is Welsh are only able to access ILS provision through the medium of English.
  14. While professional learning opportunities have expanded, they are inconsistently aligned to the specific demands of ILS teaching and assessment. Many colleges lack tailored professional development plans for ILS staff, and the evaluation of how professional learning impacts on learner outcomes remains limited.
  15. ALN reform has increased collaborative working across stakeholders, although the transition from the Special Educational Needs (SEN) system has created challenges. IDPs are often delayed, incomplete, or misaligned with post-16 needs. The administrative burden of developing, maintaining and sharing IDPs on colleges has increased substantially, and inconsistencies in IDP quality hamper effective curriculum planning for meaningful, individualised skill development.

Improvement Resource Type: Thematic Report

Share this page
To turn on English subtitles, click the CC button.

Executive summary

This report focuses on the provision for literacy, numeracy and digital skills for adults – a significant part of the offer in the adult learning in the community (ALC) sector. For many learners it is a ‘second chance’ to develop these foundational skills, or to improve their job prospects, support their children or build the confidence to participate fully in society.

The report draws on visits by inspectors in late 2024 and early 2025 to eight of the 13 adult learning in the community partnerships, and to Adult Learning Wales. We carried out an online survey for ALC tutors. We analysed data from the official data set, and data returned to us in a request to individual partnerships. We drew on evidence from our inspections and annual link visits of ALC partnerships.

Engaging learners

Learners face numerous barriers that inhibit them from re-engaging with education. These appear to have increased over recent years. The biggest single barrier is learners’ confidence. Learners may feel reluctant to admit they need help or feel anxious about the thought of attending a formal learning setting. Other barriers include access to digital devices, financial constraints, mental health issues, undiagnosed or unsupported learning difficulties; or where English or Welsh is not their first language. Learners also report that difficulty in finding information about courses can be a barrier. Partnerships have improved their websites to allow learners to search for courses more effectively but, on the whole, partnerships’ websites are still complex to navigate or use language or formatting that may not be accessible to learners, or potential learners. We include a recommendation for partnerships to ensure that they have straightforward and accessible ways for potential learners to find out about their provision.

Partnerships have a good understanding of these barriers and have attempted to reduce many of the obstacles. However, partnerships have challenges in engaging learners, and restrictions and lack of clarity about how they spend their funding on engagement or family learning provision reduce their ability to recruit hard-to-reach learners. Providers also report significant challenges in funding their community venues. We include recommendations for Medr / the Welsh Government to develop clear and flexible guidance for providers about the range and type of provision they can fund through the community learning grant (particularly about engagement provision – for those needing first steps towards formal learning); and to improve the availability and consistency of family learning programmes.

Teaching and professional learning

We found that teaching was effective in most of our observations for this thematic review, consistent with our findings from inspections. Tutors personalise their approaches to meet the needs of individual learners, taking into account learners’ preferences and individual strengths and weaknesses. Most tutors give highly effective one-to-one support and use this to tailor their delivery and give feedback that helps learners know how to improve.

In the few examples where teaching was less effective, there were two general areas for improvement. The first is where tutors did not build effectively on the learner’s prior knowledge and experience and did not have a wide enough understanding of the range of methods that can be used to perform, for example mathematical operations. The second is where tutors were over-reliant on workbooks as their main resource for teaching. In these cases, tutors did not include enough variety in their teaching and learners became bored, demotivated or disengaged. We include recommendations for the Welsh Government, Medr, partnerships and tutors to improve the professional learning for tutors in the sector to support their subject-specific teaching skills.

Provision and progress

Providers use a wide range of accredited and non-accredited courses to deliver adult literacy, numeracy and digital skills and we give examples of the range of courses offered. Published performance data indicates that around 84% of learners in all ALC provision successfully completed their courses and qualifications in 2022-2023. However, at both partnership level and system level, information collected about learners’ enrolment and retention on programmes is not used effectively enough to evaluate how learners progress through their courses and develop their skills over time. The current data collection and analysis model is of limited value in drawing insights about the patterns and effectiveness of provision. As a result, there are important gaps in understanding of the impact of provision on learners’ long-term outcomes. We recommend that a clearer focus is placed on how effectively provision supports learners to progress. We recommend that Medr helps develop methodologies to measure learners’ progression into, within and beyond literacy, numeracy and digital skills provision. We recommend that partnerships ensure that they plan pathways for learners and evaluate, using a wide range of information, how effectively learners move through them.

We have been critical of ALC partnerships in inspection reports where poor partnership working or planning has meant that progression routes for learners have not been clear, and learners have not been given enough good-quality information to help them think about their next steps. We include recommendations to improve partnership working to engage new learners and plan for clearer progression routes.

The UK Government’s Multiply initiative significantly influenced numeracy provision in partnerships across Wales from mid-2023 to March 2025. With a notably large funding allocation (£100m across Wales), partnerships were able to develop new collaborations with community groups, engage new learners whom they previously had not reached, and were creative in developing non-accredited, numeracy-focused courses. These demonstrated that there was a demand for this kind of provision. However, partnerships frequently expressed frustration at the ‘feast and famine’ nature of the Multiply funding and, having only recently set up provision with the Multiply funding, were in the process of transitioning away from it.

Digital learning plays an important role, both as a distinct area of provision and as an integrated teaching tool. Digital skills courses are often less intimidating for learners and serve as accessible entry points into literacy or numeracy education. Tutors also integrate digital tools into core literacy and numeracy lessons, which enhances learners’ engagement and the sessions’ relevance. The challenges include learners’ differing digital abilities, time constraints, and the need for reliable technology. Tutors commonly use tools like the Wales Essential Skills Toolkit (WEST) online assessment for literacy and numeracy, but these can pose difficulties for those with low digital confidence.

Most learners expressed a clear preference for in-person learning over online remote learning approaches, and we found that most partnerships had an appropriate balance of in-person to online remote learning, with typically about 5 – 15% of provision offered online.

Bilingual and Welsh-medium provision

Overall, we found very little provision was carried out through the medium of Welsh, and generally low demand from learners or potential learners. In naturally bilingual areas like Gwynedd and Ynys Môn, delivery was often bilingual, but assessments were usually in English. Learners tended to prioritise skill acquisition over the language of delivery, with many preferring to improve English literacy rather than Welsh. There was greater interest in learning numeracy through Welsh due to familiarity with mathematical terminology. Welsh-speaking learners taking digital skills courses, especially courses designed to support typically older learners in using their devices, expressed in general, a stronger demand for Welsh-medium delivery.

Successful Welsh-medium delivery often results from collaborations with community groups such as the Mentrau Iaith. Family learning programmes also supported engagement with Welsh-language provision, particularly through schemes funded by Multiply. We include a recommendation that partnerships identify opportunities to work in collaboration with existing local organisations to offer Welsh-medium or bilingual provision.