The conversations kept returning to a single point at the AOC Conference this week,: skills reform is being forced through far too fast.
Once again, we’re told that sweeping reform is urgent, necessary and inevitable. New apprenticeship standards, new accountability measures, new funding mechanisms, new agencies, new qualifications: the scope of the change package is dizzying. FE leaders aren’t opposed to reform. But many are questioning whether we’ve lost forever the art of thoughtful system evolution.
Our political culture increasingly valorises speed, and it was fitting that child therapist Tanya Byron’s keynote stole the show. She reminded us how, under pressure, humans abandon cognitive agility and leap to fast, intuitive decisions. You hardly need a clinical psychologist to recognise that instinct in Westminster. The skills white paper landed with the energy of a strategy eager to demonstrate momentum: tight timelines, ambitious restructuring, and the sense that consultation is something to get through rather than rely on.
But FE isn’t built for sprinting. It depends on continuity, partnership and long-term planning. Staff development, capital investment, curriculum design, employer engagement – none of it moves at a political tempo, nor should it. If skills policy is meant to meet long-term national need, why is it being reshaped in political time rather than real time? The consensus at conference was unmistakable: ambition isn’t the issue. Pacing is.
It’s a problem that Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath highlights in his book Enlightenment 2.0: when systems are forced to operate at the speed of politics, rational decision-making becomes impossible. His call for “slow politics” – a mode of policymaking that favours deliberation, structure, and institutional memory – feels tailor-made for skills reform.
Modern political incentives are difficult to shift, but perhaps the skills system would benefit from a ‘slow policy’ approach. It’s important that the system keeps pace with the realities of the economy and workforce. But unless policy is grounded in rational timescales and collective processes, we only have the illusion of progress. Which is why so much of the reform feels cyclical.
The sector doesn’t lack vision and, despite a decade of neglect, has absorbed change with stoic levels of resilience. But reform fatigue is creeping in. We’ve barely digested the last wave before being asked to reorganise around a new set of structures and priorities. When reforms arrive too quickly, short-term compliance overshadows long-term improvement, as leaders focus on what must be delivered this year rather than what will genuinely raise outcomes. There is also a risk of harming public confidence. Rapid turnarounds signal policy that is shaped by political cycles rather than sector expertise. And employers are feeling increasingly distanced.
With apprenticeship reforms, communication has been uneven and an understanding of the change details amongst employers appears low. Many employers are uneasy about the lack of involvement and empowerment, and the threat to apprenticeships’ credibility that has built up since the transition from frameworks to standards. Only two of the five pilot standards have been delivered with the support of the employers involved. Without time to make the case for change, many employers simply don’t see the argument for reform – or worse, may drift away.
Longer bedding-in periods matter. The sector has poured huge efforts into establishing T Levels, yet awareness among parents and employers remains low. This challenge will begin again with V Levels. The white paper’s proposals might have had more impact had they been distilled into fewer, clearer priorities, with piloting and structured consultation time factored-in before system-wide adoption.
The white paper contains ideas worth exploring – some overdue, many genuinely promising. But the sector needs the chance to test them properly. To refine, align and build around them, to ensure they reflect local realities, employer needs and learners’ lived experience. Policymakers fear that slowing down looks like doing nothing. But if this reform cycle is to be more than another turn of the wheel, government must trust the very principles it claims to value; collaboration, evidence, partnership – and it must re-learn patience.
As ever, the sector will pull together to innovate and deliver. But if government can match the sector’s willingness with a more measured tempo, the reforms could become more than another cycle of disruption – they could be the foundations of a skills system built to last.
Your thoughts