When discussing education reform, the main focus is generally on exam changes, funding battles or Ofsted results. But an often-overlooked challenge which can impact learners’ wellbeing is how to connect with others.
As someone who has taught and been a leader in further and higher education, I’ve seen first-hand how many young learners, particularly those who are neurodiverse or from disadvantaged backgrounds, struggle to develop and maintain relationships – not just romantic ones, but friendships, workplace bonds and networks that will impact and shape their future opportunities. This is rarely taught in a structured way.
Growing up, I often felt misunderstood and struggled to connect socially with my peers. These challenges shaped my drive to ensure that learners don’t face the same isolation I did.
This is why I have developed what I call the BRIDGE model. It is a framework to help learners build the social, emotional and relational skills they need to thrive, both within and beyond the classroom.
Why this matters now
There are a vast number of learners who leave college with good qualifications but have limited confidence when navigating relationships. Employers talk about “soft skills” as though they’re a nice-to-have. But they’re not. They are career-defining. Research has shown that resilience, teamwork, empathy and communication play a huge role in success.
For learners who struggle with autism, ADHD or social anxiety, the stakes can be even higher. Without targeted support many learners feel isolated, misunderstood and excluded.
We would not think about sending learners into the world without literacy or numeracy, so why do we allow them to leave without the relational skills to form partnerships, be able to work in a team, or maintain healthy relationships?
What BRIDGE means
The BRIDGE model is built around six pillars:
B – Building trust: enabling safe spaces where learners feel valued and listened to
R – Resilience: helping learners recover from setbacks and navigate rejection or failure
I – Interpersonal skills: teaching the basics of communication, empathy and listening
D – Digital relationships: supporting learners in order to manage online communication and social media pressures
G – Growth mindset: fostering self-belief and adaptability in order to improve personal connections
E – Emotional intelligence: developing awareness of their own feelings and those of others
Each pillar is designed to be practical, not theoretical. So, it is embedded into tutorials, pastoral support and enrichment programmes.
From theory to practice
At Apex College, I’ve piloted elements of BRIDGE in mentoring and tutoring. We ran small workshops on “resilience in relationships” using role play and reflective discussions. Students who had previously struggled to interact in group tasks started leading discussions. One learner told me: “This is the first time I’ve felt like someone taught me how to actually connect with people.”
We’ve also embedded BRIDGE into tutorial sessions by introducing a short ‘digital relationships’ strand, in which learners would reflect on how social media had impacted their friendships and self-esteem. They produced their own digital wellbeing pledges and shared strategies for managing group chats and online pressures.
Additionally, we trialled peer mentoring sessions where second-year learners supported first-years in applying growth mindset strategies during coursework challenges. This boosted new learners’ resilience and empowered the mentors themselves to take leadership roles and develop empathy.
Imagine scaling this across FE. It could sit alongside employability skills, ensuring that learners aren’t just qualified but genuinely prepared for life.
A call to the sector
This isn’t about creating another tick-box initiative. It’s about recognising a gap in our system and stepping up to fill it. We know that learners who feel connected are more likely to stay, achieve and progress.
So, it’s important to build bridges, not barriers. Let’s ensure we give learners the adequate tools to succeed not just in their exams, but in relationships, workplaces, and communities.
If FE really is about preparing learners for their future, then relational education should no longer be optional. It should be essential.
This summer, I reached a significant personal milestone – 60 years old. It is also a moment to reflect on the fact that I have spent half my life working in the further education and skills sector.
I love this sector and especially the transformative power of adult education. But the past six months have been incredibly tough. Since the Department for Education’s announcement in February regarding cuts to the adult skills fund (ASF), small adult education providers like mine have been fighting hard to balance budgets and plan for an uncertain future.
Let us be clear: the government has made a deliberate choice to protect funding for schools, 16–18s and apprenticeships, while reducing the ASF pot. It is a difficult decision no doubt, but one that will have a profound impact on my ability to help my local adults upskill and meet the evolving needs of the economy.
As a principal, one of the most painful responsibilities I face is cutting courses – and cutting staff. This summer has involved doing both.
The reality is stark is we can now only offer significantly less than we could just a year ago. In my case, that means around 20 fewer qualification courses available to local residents, at a time when demand has never been higher.
Saying goodbye to long-serving, loyal staff members is especially difficult. This year’s funding reduction has forced me to make significant cuts to staffing costs. We have undergone two restructures over the summer, resulting in the loss of teaching staff and reductions in our student services team.
Both have been equally painful. What we do so well at Redbridge depends on the brilliant people who deliver it. And losing them will inevitably affect the quality and reach of my service.
The future
As a small local authority provider, we rely heavily on our ASF grant. Being small also means we feel the impact of cuts more acutely. While we will manage this round of reductions, I cannot continue to salami-slice my service indefinitely. We remain outstanding – for now – but with another new inspection framework looming, who knows where we will be next time round?
So, what is next for the adult education sector? Honestly, I am not sure. The immediate future looks – to put it optimistically – challenging. We will need to keep cutting just to stand still.
Personally, I remain unconvinced that apprenticeships alone can meet the needs of adults living busy and complex lives. We still need flexible, accessible routes to retraining – which is what the ASF gives us.
Half of my budget goes toward ESOL provision, and demand in Redbridge far exceeds supply. We urgently need a different funding model for this, one that could immediately ease some of the pressure on the adult skills budget.
Of course, every crisis presents an opportunity. It forces us to innovate and find more cost-effective ways of working. We are exploring the potential of immersive technology and AI to enhance delivery. But these tools can only go so far in supporting adults to enter a highly competitive job market.
As things stand, I fear for the long-term future of our sector. I believe we need to urgently explore collaboration – merging or federating with other specialist adult education providers – before it is too late.
Milestones offer a moment to reflect. And right now, I’m not sure I can face making further cuts to provision and losing even more of the outstanding quality that I currently can provide. I have potentially got seven years to go, but how far will I make it?
As debate around post-16 resits reforms grows, our latest research shows that just a third of college tutors think the current volume of assessment for post-16 GCSE maths and English is appropriate and more than half of students believe it’s too high. And our work with the Education Policy Institute on their recent resits report also shows that the disparity in outcomes across the country means we need to consider more effective solutions.
However, the resits challenges go far beyond paper count or length. Unless we also address the problem of what students are learning – and how – reducing these will have limited impact.
Key areas of concern
Just 31 per cent of tutors think resits give students a second chance.
62 per cent of college students believe that resitting the same content makes students feel they’re going backwards, not forwards (echoed by 58 per cent of tutors).
Only 54 per cent of those facing resits feel motivated to take them.
65 per cent of students have missed maths or English lessons and/or exams due to anxiety or confidence issues.
Just 51 per cent of tutors think the maths specification meets post-16 learners’ needs (65 per cent for English).
41 per cent say students are less engaged the second time around.
What can we do for assessments now?
As we look to what we can change within existing qualifications, our focus needs to be on improving students’ exam experience.
Short-term adjustments such as reducing the number of exams in maths or changing the content volume in English have widespread support.
In maths, 64 per cent of tutors and 66 per cent of students favour fewer (possibly longer) exams to reduce exam anxiety, boost attendance, and ease logistical pressures on colleges.
For English, 75 per cent of tutors and 73 per cent of students said they would change the exam structure to break down the papers into smaller sections over more exams. To facilitate this, streamlining content and assessment will be key.
Reducing the number of text types, time periods, and writing tasks avoids repetition, improves relevance, and better aligns with the needs of FE teaching contexts.
As one college resit student told us: “It feels repetitive and boring and makes me less likely to want to learn because I already feel like I know it, even if I don’t.”
What next?
Adjustments to exam length and structure may help in the short term, but they only treat symptoms. We need English and maths GCSEs that are designed specifically for post-16 students that build the relevant skills young people need for their lives and future careers.
We need qualifications with parity of esteem that better recognise student success, remove the expectations to repeat previously mastered skills and give educators and employers a clearer view of students’ literacy and numeracy skills.
Across English and maths, tutors and students were clear they wanted assessments that feel relevant, achievable, and meaningful.
For English, tutors called for:
Content relevant to college students’ lives and futures (77.5 per cent)
The ability to build up credit/marks across more than one exam session (76 per cent)
Provision of anthology of texts to remove ‘unseen’ aspect (76 per cent)
Greater focus on writing skills (76 per cent)
For maths, they said: 
Content that feels more relevant to everyday life (e.g. money, work, practical maths) (79 per cent)
More in-class support and practice (78 per cent)
Digital/tech-based assessment options (78 per cent)
Reduce overall assessment time (76 per cent)
The ability to build up credit/marks across more than one exam session (76 per cent)
Time for a resits rethink
The evidence points in one direction: it is time for a resits rethink.
That rethink should be rooted not in continued debate but in trialling and piloting new approaches, giving us an evidence-informed view of what really works.
We are already trialling new assessment models in colleges across both maths and English. While in their early stages, the aim is clear: to give students the chance not only to demonstrate the expectations of a grade 4, but to break the demoralising cycle of resits.
Two students summarised our collective goal when they said that they need a “better way to learn” for resits and a “better way of doing exams”.
If we can deliver both, resits can become a bridge instead of a barrier to achievement.
When Reform UK say they want migrants to integrate, but at the same time propose slashing English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) funding, they undermine their own stated goal. You cannot have integration without communication.
Integration is more than assimilation. It is a two-way process – a relationship between newcomers and the communities they join. It is about language, yes, but also about building trust, participating in civic life and contributing to the economy.
If we remove the single most important tool for this – language education – we risk creating isolated communities, mistrust, and greater division, exactly the opposite of what Reform say they want.
The Home Office’s own 2019 Indicators of Integration Framework identifies language and communication as key facilitators of integration. People who learn English are more likely to find work, volunteer, and build relationships outside their immediate community.
The 2011 Census shows that 89 per cent of the UK’s foreign-born population already speak English well or very well – proof that most migrants are willing and able to learn. The real barrier is access.
Integration is not about one group changing while the other stands still – it is a mutual process. When we provide language education, we equip migrants to participate and at the same time strengthen communities by enabling real dialogue, reducing tensions, and fostering shared understanding.
And yet, ESOL provision in England is already stretched thin. Funding dropped from £247 million in 2010/11 to £186 million in 2023/24 – a 25 per cent reduction in real terms – despite sustained demand.
In 2022/23, 150,000 places were funded, the highest in a decade, but concentrated in just a few large cities and nowhere near enough to meet need. Cutting further will simply lock more people out of the system.
Further cuts would mean classes shut down at colleges such as WM College, waiting lists getting longer, and people who desperately want to learn English being told there is no space for them.
It would mean skilled professionals – nurses, engineers, care workers – being unable to retrain and fill labour market shortages because their English is not strong enough. It would mean parents being unable to support their children’s education because they cannot read school letters or talk to teachers.
It would mean neighbours who cannot talk to one another, breeding misunderstanding and fear.
The economic cost would also be significant. ESOL is not just a social good – it is an economic investment. People who speak English are more likely to work, earn more, and pay more tax. They are less likely to rely on benefits. Cutting ESOL may save money on paper, but it will create greater demand for welfare, health services and housing support down the line.
Research from the Learning and Work Institute shows that every£1 invested in ESOL returns multiple pounds to the economy through higher productivity and tax contributions. Cutting ESOL is therefore a false economy that undermines growth at a time when the UK needs skilled, work-ready people more than ever.
Reform’s proposals also assume local authorities could simply “opt out” of providing ESOL. In reality, ESOL funding comes largely through the adult education budget, commissioned nationally by the government (or by combined authorities where powers are devolved).
Councils can influence provision, but removing it altogether would create huge service gaps and put them in breach of statutory duties to support community cohesion. It would also risk tension with employers who depend on skilled migrant labour but need workers who can speak English.
Integration policy in England is already patchy compared with Scotland, which has had a national ESOL strategy since 2007. The current fragmented approach is failing to deliver for learners or for society.
The European Commission has long emphasised that language programmes are central to successful integration, and countries like Sweden offer comprehensive packages including language, civic education, and job preparation as standard. England should be looking to strengthen its offer – not dismantle it.
Language learning is not a luxury.It is not something people can simply pick up on an app like Duolingo. It is a human right, a civic necessity, and a key to unlocking social mobility. As the author Khaled Hosseini wrote, “If culture was a house, then language was the key to the front door, [and] to all the rooms inside.”
The message is simple: integration cannot happen without language. And language cannot be learned without access to culturally supported education. Integration done well benefits all.
My college went paperless years ago. I’ve lost count how many photocopies I’ve done since then.
Thankfully, my laptop screen provides me with a little personalised counter of how much my printing has cost. It was accumulating, un-reset for years, so the figure was astronomical. House deposit levels of finance seemed to be involved.
I felt like a monster when I clicked on the little green numbers, only to be warned of how many trees have been felled for me, and how much carbon I’ve frittered away on my mindless papery rush towards photocopier-driven armageddon.
When we’re all struggling to survive the coming climate catastrophe and dystopian wasteland which follows, I’m scared my little counter might then count as evidence against me. It may be the testimony of those judgemental green digits that leads to me being buried alive in an eco-pod from which a tree will one day grow. A fitting revenge for Mother Nature, who is plainly tired of being pulped up and printed on.
Honestly, I don’t know how a college can become paperless. I’ve seen the figures about the energy it would save. But none has yet included the money saved on photocopiers, paper and ink. No doubt the ink savings alone would run into millions of pounds per student if my home printer is anything to go by.
I would love to work in a truly environmentally-friendly college. When our new campus was built years ago, its smaller carbon footprint was heralded. The dream was good and the hopes were high, but they somewhat died, running aground on the rocks of reality, institutional busyness and plain human apathy. Nobody talked about sustainability after the first few years in the new-build. Then we became paperless. After a fashion, at least.
Of course, the purpose of paperlessness was to embrace online access. It was a brave new world. If we were not working with paper, we could live the dream of surfing the world on the web and save work in the intangible ever-accessible, albeit securely locked cloud. A lot simpler than unblocking scrumpled-up jams, being delayed by empty ink tanks, and restocking vacant paper trays.
But I haven’t yet seen the comparative calculations on the carbon usage of cloud storage and the enormous energy consumption of AI per student. I fear it might be dizzying. Hungary is currently constructing two nuclear power stations to support its drive to become a data-centre hub. So our college’s banks of ever-recharging laptops, the cloud storage we provide, the increasing use of AI, the emails flying around, and every other electronic communication we’ve adopted to replace paper have no doubt given us enormous carbon footprints.
If being paperless was just to save money, that was one thing. But if it was for sincere ecological reasons, we may have merely displaced the problem, much as large economies export their carbon costs to smaller countries. I suspect our overall carbon use has risen since seeking to forego paper. So we may have saved money, but have we saved the world? What of e-waste, the hardware junk we all discard, and the energy used on storing thousands of redundant files online?
I don’t really know how to go paperless – or full-on cloudily stored and artificially intelligent, either. I’m stranded, one foot planted on wood-pulp and the other immersed in the cotton-wool insubstantiality of the cloud.
In my classes, students need to annotate and analyse with paper and pens. But we obviously use online storage too. We could just be a little less papery, but it surprises me how much paper digital-native students want and need. Their folders are bursting by the end of the year. When I send them documents, they just print them out because the online version will only otherwise get lost in the undergrowth of the virtual forest.
Papered or wholly electronic, we face a difficult choice. There’s enormous environmental cost in using paper, and another in going paper-free. Whichever way, I will still need to think through my practice for the sake of the trees – unless AI can work out an answer for me.
ASDAN is preparing to launch two new project-based qualifications that will give learners more opportunities to build confidence, develop transferable skills and progress in ways that feel meaningful to them.
From September 2026, ASDAN members will be able to register learners for the Foundation Project Qualification (FPQ, Level 1) and Higher Project Qualification (HPQ, Level 2) (pending Ofqual approval). They will sit alongside the existing Extended Project Qualification (EPQ, Level 3), creating a complete progression pathway.
For ASDAN, this development is much more than a portfolio expansion. It’s a natural continuation of its learner-centred ethos.
“Project qualifications are so closely aligned to our DNA as an organisation,” says Cath Moss, ASDAN’s Qualifications Manager. “They allow learners to demonstrate their skills in a context that’s meaningful to them – whether that’s through an academic dissertation, an artefact, or a project linked to work experience. That freedom is incredibly powerful for engagement.”
Building on firm foundations
Project qualifications were introduced nationally in response to concerns that too many young learners lacked the skills needed to succeed beyond school. Independent research, including the Wolf Report review of vocational education, highlighted the need for qualifications that could strengthen independence, critical thinking, and applied learning.
All awarding organisations that deliver project qualifications do this against the same regulator-defined objectives. The difference lies in how they are supported and contextualised.
Where some awarding bodies focus mainly on written dissertations, ASDAN embraces a wider range of evidence – including artefacts and work experience projects. This aligns directly with ASDAN’s tradition of flexible, skills-based learning and ensures that learners from diverse backgrounds and pathways can participate fully.
Why project qualifications matter
The benefits of FPQ, HPQ and EPQ are broad and significant:
choice and autonomy – learners select their own project topic, giving them ownership and motivation
transferable skills – planning, research, evaluation and communication are embedded throughout
recognition – EPQ carries up to 16 UCAS points; FPQ and HPQ provide stepping stones with GCSE equivalence
engagement – learners who may struggle in traditional settings can thrive when learning is contextualised
Cath highlights the impact:
“Being able to choose the context for their study is transformative. It allows learners to demonstrate what they can do through a topic of personal interest, rather than being limited to what a syllabus dictates.”
This means providers have options at every stage. Learners not ready for Level 2 can start with the FPQ, while those building towards higher education can aim for the EPQ with the confidence and skills developed along the way.
“Wherever your learner is at now, we can take them from where they are and support them towards achieving a project qualification at the right level,” Cath explains.
Relevant and recognised
For employers, parents and higher education institutions, project qualifications are easy to recognise and understand. They carry the same weight and kudos as general qualifications such as GCSEs, while offering learners greater flexibility in subject matter and an alternative way of being assessed.
This dual value of credibility in the system and relevance to the learner, makes them particularly powerful in today’s education landscape, where engagement and progression remain key challenges.
Looking ahead
First teaching of the FPQ and HPQ is planned for September 2026, but ASDAN is already working with their members to prepare for delivery. Their arrival will give providers new tools to keep learners engaged, build core skills and offer credible routes to further study or employment.
For ASDAN, they represent more than new qualifications. They reaffirm the organisation’s mission: enabling learners to flourish by connecting learning to their interests, aspirations and real-world experiences.
Find out more
ASDAN’s new project qualifications will offer a powerful way to motivate learners, strengthen progression, and deliver results that matter.
Ofsted has begun looking for a new deputy director for post-16 education, training and skills, just weeks before it rolls out sweeping changes to inspections.
The watchdog is advertising the senior post after the departure of Paul Joyce earlier this year. Joyce, who joined Ofsted in 2005, left to take up a deputy principal role at North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College.
His replacement, senior FE and skills inspector Denise Olander, was appointed on an interim basis in March.
A job advert for a permanent replacement to Joyce, published today, describes the role as leading Ofsted’s post-16 strategy and overseeing how FE and skills inspections are carried out.
The person appointed will earn a £108,574 salary and report directly to Ofsted national director of education, Lee Owston.
The move comes as Ofsted prepares to implement a shake-up of inspections. From November 10, the single “overall effectiveness” grade will be scrapped and replaced with a new colour-coded report card.
FE providers will instead be rated across up to 16 areas, including curriculum, achievement, leadership and inclusion. The familiar ‘outstanding’ to ‘inadequate’ judgments will be dropped in favour of a five-point scale running from ‘urgent improvement’ to ‘exceptional’.
Sector leaders have warned that the reforms will not reduce the pressure felt by colleges and training providers. An independent review of the reforms earlier this month found the high-stakes nature of inspection is likely to remain.
Ofsted’s job advert said it is “desirable” but not “essential” for the new post-16 education, training and skills deputy director to have “experience and understanding of inspection within the education sector, as it relates to post-16 education, training and skills remits”.
Applications for the role close on October 14. Final interviews will be held in late November.
An influential committee of MPs has joined calls for a statutory pay review body for colleges amid an ongoing teacher recruitment and retention crisis in the sector.
Concluding their future of FE and skills inquiry today, the education select committee has issued its wide-ranging report of over 40 recommendations, including devolution of 16-19 education to strategic authorities, reinstatement of funding for some level 7 apprenticeships and modular T Levels.
MPs warned the government not to lose sight of the “diverse motivations of adult learners” including “social inclusion and lifelong learning” as policy responsibility for adult education transfers from the Department for Education (DfE) to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).
The committee’s 124-page report also casts doubt on the independence of Skills England, which was transferred from the Department for Education (DfE) to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) last week and threw its weight behind calls for a targeted 16-19 student premium, mirroring the extra pupil premium that goes to disadvantaged pupils in schools.
Education committee chair Helen Hayes MP said: “Successive governments have rightly talked up the FE and skills sector as an engine for economic growth across the whole country, but it’s an engine that’s been left to run on fumes.
Helen Hayes
“Fifteen years of real terms funding cuts and stagnant pay have left colleges struggling to recruit and retain teachers who earn far less than their peers in schools. Far from receiving the parity of esteem it’s been promised in the past, FE continues to be treated like the Cinderella of the education system.”
Phil Smith, chair of Skills England, said: “We will continue to be an active voice across government in our new home as part of the Department for Work and Pensions. Bringing together skills development and employment support under one roof makes this an exciting time for the world of skills training.”
Pay review body
One headline recommendation was for the DfE to set up a statutory pay review body for colleges, comparable to the School Teachers’ Review Body. Without one, college teacher pay decisions are “fragmented” and “inadequate”, the report said.
An FE Week investigation last year found that there was some appetite for a pay review body among unions, but college leaders were “nervous” about losing the freedom to set their own teachers’ salaries. The DfE did not indicate that they had any plans for a pay review body for colleges at the time, and did not respond to requests for comment at the time of going to press.
This comes as the University and College Union (UCU) put nearly 80 colleges on notice of trade disputes following the Association of Colleges’ 4 per cent pay recommendation last week. One of UCU’s key demands is for binding, national pay agreements for FE college teachers that are commonplace in schools and sixth form colleges.
The report stated: “There is a growing pay disparity between school and college teachers in England, with college staff earning significantly less—on average college teachers earn 15 per cent less. This issue has contributed to the recruitment and retention crisis.”
Bill Watkin, chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association said: “Sixth form colleges have managed to close the gap in pay between college teachers and their school counterparts through our current collective bargaining arrangements.
“The best way to ensure it remains closed, and all staff in sixth form colleges get a fair deal, is to ensure that 16 to 19 funding keeps pace with school funding.”
Devolve “appropriate” 16-19 funding
The vast majority of adult education funding is now controlled by mayors, but ministers have resisted calls to devolve 16 to 19 education funding.
Skills minister Jacqui Smith admitted to “tensions” between DfE and the mayors over this issue, arguing that 16 to 19 education was “a national system” and said she “could not envisage that we would devolve all of that 16 to 19 funding to mayors.”
The committee called for the government to amend its English devolution and community empowerment bill to “make provisions” allowing “appropriate” 16 to 19 education funding to be devolved to strategic authorities. The report did not define “appropriate”.
David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said devolving 16 to 19 education would risk “upsetting” the system.
“We support the idea of locally elected mayors overseeing the 16-19 capacity to meet all leaner needs, perhaps with capital to support it, backed up by a national funding formula which followed every learner,” he said.
“Going further than that is not necessary,” he added.
However, on adult education, the committee found a “disparate and uneven adult skills landscape” and recommended a new “skills co-ordination board” to check that mayors were delivering on national priorities.
SEND neglect
Specialist colleges should receive a one-off capital grant to repair their estates and receive ringfenced funding in the future. These recommendations follow evidence from Natspec, the specialist colleges body, which also convinced the committee to recommend that the post-16 SEND policy brief be switched from the schools minister to the skills minister.
The committee said: “This split in ministerial responsibility has led to the neglect of FE SEND policy, as well as inefficiencies, limited accountability and policy fragmentation.”
Hayes’ committee published its ‘solving the SEND crisis’ report last week, which described post-16 students as “overlooked” and “rarely seen” as a funding priority.
In addition to dedicated capital funds, today’s report repeats last week’s report’s call for an extension of local authorities’ statutory duty to provide home-to-college transport to 16 to 25 year olds.
Clare Howard, chief executive of Natspec, said: “Too often SEND in general, and specialist colleges in particular, have been an afterthought in FE policy or completely overlooked, but in this report the committee has truly listened to concerns and embedded SEND provision within their thinking on FE and skills reform.
“It is now vital that the Department for Education takes these recommendations on board to deliver the fundamental change that is needed to build a genuinely inclusive and effective skills system for all.”
Clare Howard (left)
Small T, please
Committee MPs were also troubled by the “concerningly” high dropout rate of T Level students and “persistent” problems of employer involvement.
T Levels are the government’s flagship two-year technical and vocational qualification for 16-18-year-olds, which are equivalent to three A Levels.
“If T Levels are to become the ‘gold-standard technical qualification’, the government must urgently address a number of challenges,” the report said.
DfE should consider establishing smaller “modular” T Levels, equivalent to one A Level, which would allow students to mix and match academic and technical subjects.
The report also called for a “national awareness campaign” to promote T Levels, despite an FE Week investigation revealing more than £12 million had already been spent on PR and marketing campaigns since the qualifications launched.
A further FE Week investigation last week found underspending on an ambassador scheme meant to boost awareness of the qualification.
The committee also said applied general qualifications should be retained for the long term, and schools should be properly measured on their compliance with the Baker clause.
Resit options
Today’s report comes ahead of a long-awaited curriculum and assessment review, led by Becky Francis, which ministers are relying on to determine the future of the controversial GCSE English and maths resit policy.
The report laid out long-standing challenges with the government’s condition of funding requirement that students aged 16 to 18 who have not attained a grade 4 in GCSE maths and/or English must resit the exams.
The policy is “not serving its purpose”, the committee said, after hearing that “over 80 per cent of those who did not achieve grade 4 at 16 still are not achieving that grade by 19.”
The committee recommended introducing three options for those students.
Route A would direct students who have a “realistic” prospect of passing, based on their GCSE results and prior attainment, should be supported to resit their exams.
Route B would involve embedding maths and English content in FE courses that have been “rigorously quality assured”. This would allow those students to be considered exempt from resits.
Route C would direct students who are considered unlikely to pass despite multiple resits should be offered a chance to instead take on a functional skills qualification in maths or English.
Education committee recommendations in full
To note: Since the report was written, responsibility for skills policy, apprenticeships, adult education, and the agency Skills England has moved from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions. None of the proposals below were costed.
Skills England
Hold the agency to account through annual accountability sessions (although Skills England ownership has now passed to the Department for Work and Pensions)
By June 2026, the government should review whether the CEO’s have been graded at the right level of seniority in the civil service to have the right level of cross-government clout
Data and information on skills gaps and training outcomes should be available through a centralised platform, available by June 2026
An independent review of Skills England should report by June 2027, and, if required, new laws should give the agency full independence
Devolution
“Appropriate” 16-19 education and training programmes should be devolved to strategic authorities through the government’s current English devolution and community employment bill
A “more comprehensive skills devolution” programme should be trialled
Local skills improvement plans (LSIPs) should be audited and reviewed to see if they can more easily link to other skills initiatives, and complex networks of relationships between providers, employers, local government and Skills England can be rationalised
The government’s youth guarantee should be extended from 18-21-year-olds to 16-24-year-olds
A new skills co-ordination board should be established by Skills England to monitor devolved authorities to check they are delivering national priorities and “consistency of effectiveness”
Post-16 qualifications and pathways
DfE should publish an annual report detailing levels of Baker clause compliance in schools and consider whether the threshold for intervening on schools that don’t comply should be lowered
Regional “portals” should link to UCAS to create information and application options for vocational courses, including apprenticeships. This should mean standardising apprenticeship applications and give learners more information about their options
There should be a national awareness campaign to promote T Levels
DfE should consider “overhauling” the T Level transition programme
Smaller, modular T Levels should be introduced so students have the option of blending academic and technical education
Applied general qualifications should be retained for the long term
Communications and planning for future qualifications reform should be improved “to avoid uncertainty and disruption” for providers and students
The level 3 qualifications reform programme should be evaluated
English and maths
DfE should “take action” to improve English and maths attainment in schools
Three options should be available to students and apprentices who don’t achieve a grade 4 pass in GCSE English and maths at age 16:
Students with “a realistic prospect” of achieving a grade 4 should be supported to do so
Certain “vocational” courses should be exempt from the resit rule by building in relevant English and maths content
Those “very unlikely” to secure the grade 4 despite multiple resits should be taught functional skills qualifications
Apprenticeships
SMEs should have access to a dedicated support service with “streamlined” application and reporting systems by April 2026
By June 2027, the levy should be simplified for SMEs
Foundation apprenticeships should be expanded to hospitality, retail and care (health and social care is already an option)
Levy funding for level 7 apprenticeships should be reinstated for the eight industrial strategy growth sectors
Student support services
DfE’s target of 100 per cent coverage of mental health support teams by 2029 must include all post-16 students
Children and adolescent mental health services “must improve”
DfE should fund a 16-19 student premium for those in receipt of the pupil premium
“Local authority-level data” should be used to identify areas where attainment is below national averages
SEND
Post-16 SEND policy should be moved from the schools minister to the skills minister
DfE should “consider” extending the statutory duties on local authorities to provide home-to-college transport to 16-25 year-olds
Under-22s should receive free bus travel and all 16-25 SEND students should have access to a local authority travel training programme
Care-experienced students
Specialised support should be available for care-experienced students transitioning from secondary school to further education or training settings
Data covering care-experienced students’ pathways and attainment through education and employment should be monitored
Teachers
DfE should create a statutory pay review body for colleges with a commitment to closing the pay gap with schools by 2029
Recruitment and retention challenges should be addressed by incentives covering mainstream and specialist colleges
There should be a trades-to-teaching strategy
Funding
Per-student funding for all post-16 education should be increased based on “a detailed assessment of need
Colleges should be exempt from paying VAT
Skills England should work out the resources needed to meet demand for adult education and accordingly “advocate within government for increased funding”
Adult education must remain “a vital tool for social inclusion, personal fulfilment and lifelong learning” at the DWP
Capital funding should also be increased, with options for temporary expansions to cover the demographic bulge
College capital programmes should be extended to include specialist colleges and sixth form colleges
Specialist colleges should receive a one-off grant for urgent repairs, and should have access to a ring-fenced high needs fund
Principals of 76 colleges have been warned they face formal trade disputes with their teachers unless they agree to pay and workload demands by the end of next week.
The University and College Union (UCU) wrote to the principals of 76 colleges on Friday demanding a 10 per cent or £3,000 pay rise for their members, a statement in support of binding national bargaining and actions to tackle high workload.
The letter, seen by FE Week, gives colleges until 10am on Friday, October 3, to agree or face a formal declaration of a trade dispute.
The threat follows the Association of Colleges’ (AoC) recommendation last week that colleges offer their staff a 4 per cent pay award in 2025/26. But AoC admitted “many” colleges would struggle to afford it.
Recent funding increases for colleges have been routed through 16-19 funding streams, so colleges that focus on adult education and/or apprenticeships will see little, if any, extra cash.
Unlike in schools, colleges set their own pay awards, and the AoC’s annual recommendation is non-binding. The 4 per cent recommendation matches the agreed pay award for school teachers, therefore maintaining the pay gap between the sectors rather than closing it.
In its letter, UCU said: “It is unacceptable that, following years of pay restraint, UCU members should be expected to continue to see falls in the real value of their pay, must manage excessive workloads and suffer the consequences of failed national bargaining arrangements.”
The union restated its pay claim from April, demanding the 76 colleges agree to a 10 per cent pay award, or £3,000, whichever is greater.
Colleges should also commit to “meaningful action on workload,” including nationally agreed limits on teaching hours, class sizes, and evening and weekend work, alongside commitments to recruit more support staff and set boundaries around when staff can be contacted outside of working hours.
The union warned that unless colleges also commit publicly to binding national pay bargaining, “the dispute will commence and continue until resolved to UCU’s satisfaction”.
Autumn of discontent
UCU general secretary Jo Grady said last week: “College leaders now have a clear choice; make a serious offer or the sector will be hit hard with industrial action this autumn.”
When announcing its 4 per cent recommendation, the AoC urged unions to join a “united” campaign for “sustained investment” in adult education.
Gerry McDonald, AoC employment policy group chair and CEO of New City College, said: “We understand that many colleges will find it challenging to meet our recommendation, particularly where they have large numbers of adult learners and apprentices. Sustained investment is essential if we are to meet our aspiration for an appropriately rewarded workforce.”
[Update 25.09.25: This article was updated to reflect 76 colleges were at risk of dispute as UCU included The Heart of Yorkshire Education Group on the list in an “internal error”.]
