There’s a line in the classic eighties vampire movie The Lost Boys that came to me as new learners entered their FE classrooms in September: “You’ll never grow old, and you’ll never die. But you must feed…”
For many young people studying English and maths, FE can feel exactly like this – an endless cycle of resits, repeated exams, and familiar teaching approaches that never quite meet them where they are.
Learners are expected to keep going, to keep feeding the system with effort and compliance, yet are rarely given the time or conditions needed to rebuild what was missing long before they arrived.
They are not failing because they lack ability; they are lost inside a system that has never fully taken responsibility for their journey.
I came to my college last year new not just to the institution but to the FE sector – new to the acronyms, systems, and the particular language of FE that can feel like a world of its own. I’m still learning how funding rules shape curriculum decisions, how resit requirements drive timetables and how accountability measures ripple through daily practice.
I was struck by the contrast between the college’s forward-thinking approach to vocational education and its more traditional approach to English and maths.
In workshops, studios and training spaces, teaching is applied, responsive and clearly aligned to real-world outcomes. Learners are trusted to learn by doing, to problem-solve, to make mistakes and improve.
By contrast, English and maths delivery often remains exam-driven, content-heavy and disconnected from how learners succeed elsewhere.
I have worked in education for over 20 years, from early years to key stage 5. One truth has remained constant: when pathways are unclear, outcomes are prioritised over understanding and SEND systems fail to intervene early, learners do not fall behind by accident. They are pushed there by design.
National datasets and Ofqual-reported outcomes consistently show that only around two-thirds of GCSE entries achieve a grade 4 or above. Post-16 resit success rates – particularly in maths – remain significantly lower. FE colleges therefore receive large numbers of learners with grades 1 to 3 or U, many of whom have struggled with reading, number confidence or exam anxiety for years.
FE is effectively asked to compress long-term foundational gaps into a single academic year, while being held accountable for outcomes it did not create.
Alongside this academic fragility, learner complexity continues to rise.
Increasing numbers of post-16 learners present with identified or emerging special educational needs, often without complete documentation.
Exam access arrangements are frequently inconsistent, with learners reporting support approved at one stage and removed at another.
When they enter FE, the process begins again – gathering evidence, reassessing, reapplying – while learners continue to sit assessments without the support they require.
One of the clearest tensions in FE is between vocational success and academic exhaustion. Many learners thrive in applied settings, gaining confidence as their skills visibly improve. Attendance and engagement reflect this.
Yet those same learners often disengage rapidly in English and maths lessons when teaching relies heavily on worksheets, abstract tasks and exam-style questions.
Teaching conditions cannot be separated from this experience. Across the country, many English and maths teams are doing thoughtful, creative and highly effective work in extremely challenging circumstances. At the same time, practitioners are managing mixed-level groups, SEND, emotional histories and high-stakes exams with limited subject-specific professional development.
Where pedagogy does not evolve to reflect post-16 learners, motivation fades quickly.
Inspection commentary, sector research and practitioner evidence increasingly point to the limitations of a resit-driven model.
Government proposals for new ‘stepping stone’ English and maths qualifications acknowledge the need for greater learner confidence and alternative pathways, but their impact will depend on whether they genuinely prioritise skills development over repeated assessment.
A skills-focused approach, prioritising literacy, numeracy, communication and problem-solving in meaningful contexts, offers a more realistic way forward.
Our learners are not disengaged by choice. They are navigating a system that values outcomes over understanding. They are not the Lost Boys. The system is lost, and it is our responsibility to get it back on track.
Your thoughts