New ‘simpler’ skills funding model delayed

Changes to skills funding for adults and a new set of community learning objectives have been put back to give the sector more time to prepare

Changes to skills funding for adults and a new set of community learning objectives have been put back to give the sector more time to prepare

20 Dec 2022, 13:23

More from this author

Plans to merge several adult skills budgets into a single skills fund have been delayed for a year. 

The Department for Education had intended to issue allocations for the skills fund for the 2023/24 academic year. The new fund brings together the adult education budget, free courses for jobs and community learning under a single heading. 

The move is part of the government’s reforms to simplify the skills funding system and make providers more accountable to government priorities. 

Other reforms include the introduction of a needs-based funding formula, moving away from historic performance, new employment related objectives for community learning and a promised rise in funding rates for priority courses.

Enhanced skills inspections, where colleges receive an extra judgement from Ofsted on how well they are meeting local skills needs, are another part of the government’s reform plans. These began in inspections this September and a number of reports have already been published.

But responses to the government’s latest consultation on the proposals, which closed in October, indicated widespread concern on the timing of the introduction of the new skills fund. 

DfE has said a “significant” proportion of its 249 responses to the consultation flagged concerns about introducing the new skills fund in 2023/24 with calls for a longer lead-in period. 

The government had now said the skills fund will be implemented in time for 2024/25.

Attached to the skills fund were proposals to increase funding rates for priority courses and plans to “re-orientate” community learning provision towards a controversial set of objectives. 

Under the skills fund, courses that are “non-qualification” based must achieve at least one of three set objectives; achieving employment, progression to further learning that brings learners close to employment and helping learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities to access independent living.

These new objectives have been met with strong opposition from adult education and local authority leaders who have argued that removing objectives relating to families, communities and health could displace thousands of vulnerable learners. 

A delay in the introduction to the skills fund also means the rate rise and new objectives for community learning have also been put back to 2024/25.

A full response to the second stage consultation is expected early in 2023.

More from this theme

Colleges, ITPs, Skills reform, Universities

Publish performance data for university franchise providers, MPs tell OfS

Public Accounts Committee warns of system abuse and oversight flaws

Josh Mellor
Colleges, ITPs, Politics, Skills reform

‘Grossly unfair’: DfE excludes ITP teachers from £6k bonus scheme

Ministers have extended 'levelling up premium' payments to FE, but only for colleges

Billy Camden
Apprenticeships, Politics, Skills reform

IfATE plans staff cuts after DfE orders cost-saving measures

Apprenticeships and technical education quango opens voluntary exit scheme to all staff

Billy Camden
ABS, Colleges, Skills reform

‘Clunky’ Advanced British Standard risks ‘blunt choice’ for students, leaders warn

Ministers accused of 'putting the cart before the horse' with 16-19 reform plans

Freddie Whittaker
Advanced British Standard, Politics, Skills reform

DfE puts 40 staff on Advanced British Standard ‘vanity project’

'To say this is the wrong priority is an understatement, and smacks of rearranging the deckchairs while the Titanic...

Freddie Whittaker
Apprenticeships, Colleges, Skills reform

Front bench rivals clash in Colleges Week debate

Schools minister and shadow skills minister engage in back-and-forth on future of apprenticeship levy

Josh Mellor

Your thoughts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *