The FE Staff Colleges most need to hear from may be the Least Likely to take part

A college can achieve a strong staff survey response rate and still fail to hear from some of the people it most needs to understand.

Across People Insight’s FE survey benchmark data, 93% of staff say they care about their college’s future. Yet only 38% believe action will be taken as a result of an employee survey. That gap is an interesting one that can tell us quite a bit. Specifically, it suggests that FE employees remain deeply committed to their colleges, while many are less confident that speaking up will lead to visible change.

But there is another question colleges need to ask: whose voices are actually represented in the results, and whose experiences might be missing?

A good response rate can still hide missing voices

A strong overall survey response rate is useful. It gives leaders confidence that staff have engaged with the listening process and that the results deserve attention.

But an overall figure can also be misleading if some groups are much more likely to respond than others.

For FE, a typical survey response rate is around 65%. On the surface, that looks healthy. But when response patterns are broken down by employee group, the picture becomes more complicated.

Across the organisations where demographic response data was available, indicative response rates showed:

• 93% for professional services staff
• 80% for teaching employees
• 62% for support roles
• 52% for operational roles
• around 50% for employees with less than one year’s service
• around 50% for employees under 30

There was no notable gender difference, with response rates of around 69% for both men and women.

These findings are directional. Job group labels differ between colleges, and the data shows who is under-represented, not why they are less likely to respond. Nevertheless, the pattern raises important questions about access, time pressure, survey fatigue, confidentiality, relevance and confidence that speaking up will lead to change.

It also highlights an important risk: colleges may be missing valuable insight from some of the very people whose experiences they most need to understand.

Why this matters for FE

Newer employees are still forming their view of the college. They are experiencing onboarding, early manager support, workload expectations and the reality of the role for the first time. If they are less likely to respond, leaders may miss valuable insight into why some colleagues settle and stay, while others leave early.

Employees at an earlier stage in their careers may have different expectations and experiences of development, recognition, progression and belonging. If younger colleagues are less visible in the results, colleges risk overlooking some of the factors that influence whether they can see a future in FE.

Operational, support and less desk-based colleagues may see practical barriers that others do not. They may experience communication, resourcing, access to systems, workload and recognition in very different ways. They may also have fewer natural opportunities to complete an employee survey if the process relies heavily on email or assumes regular access to a laptop.

This is fundamentally an employee experience issue.

If employee feedback is weighted towards the voices of people who are easier to reach, more confident in the process or more likely to sit at a desk, then action plans may be built around an incomplete picture of college life.

Participation is an insight, not just a metric

When a group is less likely to respond, the first reaction should not be frustration. It should be curiosity.

In FE, that last point is particularly important. When only 38% of staff believe action will follow a survey, participation cannot be treated as a communications challenge alone.

Staff are more likely to take part when they trust the process, understand why it matters and see evidence that previous feedback has led somewhere.

That means survey participation is not just something to measure at the end of fieldwork. It is something colleges earn before, during and after the survey.

How colleges can reach harder-to-hear staff

Improving response rates is not about sending more generic reminders. It is about designing participation around how colleagues actually work.

For staff without regular access to email, colleges may need to use QR codes, open survey links, SMS where appropriate, posters in staff rooms, canteens and shared spaces, or private kiosks and shared tablets.

For busy teaching, support and operational teams, protected completion time can make a real difference. This could mean time during shifts, team meetings, briefings or breaks, with clear reassurance that participation is voluntary and confidential.

Local voices also matter. Managers, shift leads, site managers and trusted champions can help explain the purpose of the survey, answer practical questions and encourage participation without applying pressure.

Accessibility should be considered from the start. Surveys need to be mobile-friendly, clear and easy to complete. Where appropriate, colleges may also need translations, plain-language communication or paper fallback options for exceptional circumstances.

Most importantly, colleges should monitor response rates while the survey is live. If participation is lower in a particular site, team or staff group, leaders can intervene while there is still time. That might mean clarifying access routes, giving managers better talking points, adding posters to the right locations or creating protected time for completion.

The aim is not to chase every individual response. Confidentiality must be protected. The aim is to understand where barriers exist and remove them fairly.

What colleges should do before drawing conclusions

Before acting on survey results, colleges should ask:

• Which groups responded strongly?
• Which groups are under-represented?
• Are newer, younger or operational colleagues visible enough in the data?
• Could access, timing, trust or communication have affected participation?
• Do we need follow-up listening to understand the experience of groups we heard from less clearly?

This matters because headline scores can hide uneven experiences. A college may have a solid overall response rate and still lack a clear view of the people closest to certain pressure points.

Where participation is lower, colleges should be careful about drawing firm conclusions. They may need to supplement survey findings with focus groups, listening sessions, interviews, joiner feedback, leaver feedback or targeted pulse surveys.

The next response rate starts after this survey

The biggest mistake colleges can make is treating response rate as a campaign issue only.

Participation in the next survey is shaped by what staff see happen after this one.

That does not mean leaders must promise to fix everything. In a sector as pressured as FE, there will always be issues that cannot be solved quickly or locally. But staff do need to see that their feedback has been read, understood and taken seriously.

That means thanking people promptly. Sharing headline findings clearly. Being honest about what can and cannot change. Explaining what will happen next. Giving managers relevant local insight. Publishing progress. Using “you said, we did” updates throughout the year.

When staff hear nothing after a survey, silence can feel like confirmation that speaking up made no difference. When they see visible follow-through, participation becomes easier to ask for next time.

A truer picture of working life in FE

The goal for colleges should not simply be a higher response rate. It should be a truer picture of working life in FE.

That means hearing from those who are easiest to reach and those who are not. It means looking at who is missing before deciding what the data means. And it means treating participation as a signal of access, trust and relevance, rather than simply a measure of survey success.

FE employees are already showing how deeply they care about their colleges. The opportunity now is to ensure more of them are heard, particularly those whose experiences are most at risk of being overlooked. Remember at all stages that good listening does not begin with the average score. It begins by asking whose experience is not yet visible.

By Jane Tidswell, Head of HE and FE at People Insight