FE is no longer Cinderella, it’s the government’s Fairy Godmother

FE is often talked about as the Cinderella sector. It is a phase of education that, proponents of this metaphor say, is too often overlooked by policymakers. Having spent time working across different parts of the education system, I always find myself drawn back to vocational education and training. That’s where it all happens.

Each new skills minister – and, increasingly, Prime Minister – wants to stamp their mark on the system, usually just as the ink has dried on next year’s college prospectuses. So far from treating FE like Cinderella, the government is treating it like the Fairy Godmother, hoping it will make all their wishes come true.

The post-16 white paper grants us a first look at this government’s vision for the skills system in the round. It is fully loaded – trying to present a coherent strategy for a national skills system that works locally for young people and adults, the unemployed and in-work, employers and individuals, and for FE and HE. You can feel the tussle between the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and the Treasury as you read the 72-page document. A single overarching narrative is hard to find – the kind of omission that no amount of fairy dust can cover.

This feels like shaky ground to embark on a programme of ambitious reforms from. Ministers should learn from recent qualification reform agendas as they plan the introduction of V Levels.

Most vocational qualification reform begins with good intentions: often, to simplify and to strengthen. The 2005 white paper that underpinned the 14-19 Diplomas following the Tomlinson Review referenced an “alphabet soup” of vocational qualifications. The 2019 ‘case for change’ to consolidate level 3 qualifications, following from the 2011 Wolf Review and 2016 Sainsbury Review aimed to shed light on an “extraordinarily complex and opaque” system. And, the 2023 Advanced British Standard (ABS) consultation document sought “clearer options” post-16.

While there is a zeal for change, too often the purpose of change either isn’t clear or isn’t shared. The 14-19 diplomas promised a bridge between academic and vocational routes, but their aims became muddled and neither universities nor employers really knew what they stood for. The Advanced British Standard (ABS) promised breadth, but quickly became shorthand for something that might simply replace A Levels and T Levels without a clear rationale. There was confusion over what T Levels were preparing young people for: work, apprenticeships, higher technical study, university, or all of the above at different times to different people.

The lesson for the V Levels rollout is simple: before thinking about structures, we need a unifying purpose – one that is sufficient enough to justify the upheaval and public investment of wholesale qualification reform.

What is the problem the government is trying to solve, and where does the current offer fall short? Is it about coherence, about quality, about labour market value, or is it a rebranding of the existing options?

Skills minister Baroness Smith said that V Levels would “build on what’s good about BTECs”. Applied general qualifications like BTECs, Cambridge Technicals and others have currency with the public and, crucially, employers. There will need to be work to ensure the value of V Levels is understood.

If V Levels are about creating a “line of sight” into work, there is too little in the white paper on careers information, advice and guidance. Too often, qualification reform focuses on simplification for employers without thinking about how young people will navigate the new system.

For learners who are still deciding which career path to take and want to take a mix of courses, retaining “A Level sized” Level 3 qualifications feel like the right way to go. The model is popular with industry leaders, and it polls well with the public: 74 per cent of adults think young people should be able to “mix and match” academic and vocational subjects to suit their interests.

But without a shared “why”, implementation could become a firefighting exercise. For those rolling out V Levels, the real test will be whether this reform finally learns the one lesson its predecessors never did: that coherence begins with purpose.

Skilled migrants should train British workers in colleges – report

Skilled migrants should train and mentor domestic workers in places like colleges to fill shortages and quell fears about immigration, a think tank has said.

Under a proposed new “work and teach” programme, skilled foreign workers would have to share their specialist expertise with local businesses and colleges as a condition of their visa.

The proposal was made in a new report by The Good Growth Foundation, a think tank with links to Labour ministers, which recommended linking immigration policy to a “revitalised” national skills strategy.

Experts at the think tank said a “lack of focus” on skills and opportunity for domestic workers is the undercurrent driving growing anti-immigration rhetoric.

Former education secretary Lord David Blunkett, who wrote a foreword for the report, said: “The public’s unease about immigration cannot be separated from their frustration about opportunity.

“When people feel locked out of progress, resentment grows; when they see investment in skills and prospects, confidence returns.”

‘Take back control’

The “take back control” report polled over 2,000 adults from across the country and held focus groups with former Labour voters who intend to vote for the Reform party or alternative left-wing parties in the next election.

Almost two-thirds (63 per cent) said adult and lifelong learning would have the most positive impact on the country and 57 per cent said colleges should play a “leading role” in adult skills.

But only 43 per cent “express confidence” that their local FE college “delivers high-quality, job-relevant training”.

Four in 10 (41 per cent) said funding cuts were the biggest barrier to skills and training opportunities while over half (52 per cent) called out employers for failing to provide enough training or apprenticeships.

Just less than half, 49 per cent, of polled participants approved of the work and teach programme, which would address shortages where there are not enough British workers to train the next generation. Among Labour voters, the approval rating reached 57 per cent.

“The appeal lies in fairness: people welcome immigration when they know it is helping to build opportunity here at home,” the think tank said.

Under the “work and teach” proposal, skilled foreign workers would be “granted visas on the condition that part of their time is dedicated to training and mentoring domestic employees – sharing their expertise with local workforces, SME (small and medium sized enterprises) and colleges”. 

The think tank said this policy would “transform immigration from a perceived shortcut into a visible investment in Britain’s own talent pipeline”, adding: “In a labour market still recovering from years of undertraining and chronic shortages, this approach would make migration a tool for renewal rather than a source of tension”.

One example it gave was requiring an engineer hired from overseas to fill a technical vacancy to spend 10 to 15 per cent of their week teaching specific software skills or advanced manufacturing techniques to a cohort of junior domestic engineers.

‘This proposal is an exciting one’

The report’s authors said this pathway should be tied to “skills transfer plan”, which would mandate employers to build their own strategy for upskilling their workforce and would have to report the plan to the Home Office as part of their licence to sponsor skilled workers.

As part of the skills transfer plan, the government could “explore making safeguards available, such as colleges and other educational providers, for foreign workers to use for delivering training as part of their work and teach visa”.

Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “This policy proposal is an exciting one, bringing two problems together to create a solution: the political tension created by having to bring in skilled overseas workers and the shortage of skilled trainers.”

The foundation also recommended a migration budget that transparently shows how immigrants’ fiscal contributions, such as income tax, National Insurance, visa fees, and the immigration skills charge, are reinvested into the economy. 

Calls have long existed for the government to publicise where receipts from the immigration skills charge are invested. The Treasury has faced criticism for treating it as “simply a tax” that goes into its main “consolidated fund”.

It follows an FE Week investigation that found “zero transparency” over whether the tax actually funds domestic training as was promised.

Recent figures show ISC income fell for the first time in four years, by £100 million.

This week’s skills white paper confirmed the ISC is set to rise by 32 per cent.

The Good Growth Foundation said transparency would help “flip the narrative” that “every gain for newcomers is a loss for British workers”.

“For sceptics, this distinction is decisive. Immigration framed as a substitute for investment in Britons is resented. Immigration framed as a complement – directly tied to expanding opportunity at home – can command broad support,” the report said.

Praful Nargund, director of the Good Growth Foundation, said: “Linking immigration and skills reform flips the narrative from pressures to partnership, giving new arrivals and British workers the chance to work together to fix our country.”

White paper misses the mark by omitting adults

The government’s new post-16 education and skills white paper could have been the defining moment for a genuine lifelong learning revolution. Instead, it risks being remembered as the ‘pre-19 paper’ – a document that narrows opportunity to youth and higher education while overlooking the millions of adults who also need, and deserve, access to learning. 

Although the white paper consolidates the government’s technical and organisational reforms, it’s vision remains narrow. It treats adult education primarily as an engine for productivity – a valid goal, but one that misses its full social and economic potential. Without participation and confidence, the productivity it promises will remain out of reach. 

Adults missing from the story 

In a 38,000+ word document, adult learners like those at WM College barely get a mention. Yet the government says it wants to “level up” skills, drive growth and “leave no one behind.” That ambition cannot be realised while community education remains an afterthought. 

As chair and CEO of HOLEX – representing local authority and community adult education providers across England – we both welcome the ambition to strengthen skills. But economic growth will stall if education policy continues to focus on institutions rather than people. A system that prioritises young people, colleges and universities but neglects adults, communities and lifelong learning cannot deliver inclusive growth. 

Adult learners are not a niche group. They are parents, carers, jobseekers, mid-career workers and older people rebuilding confidence through learning. Providers have the infrastructure and trust to engage adults who are economically inactive or furthest from work. Yet their funding has been eroded for a decade, and the white paper offers little reassurance this will change. 

Essential skills review: the test of intent 

The proposed essential skills review is welcome, but it must not become another consultation that drifts. The consultation will focus on improving outcomes for learners who did not achieve expected standards in GCSE English and maths. It needs to be wider than English and maths, and look at core language, literacy digital and numeracy skills which will not only boost employability prospects, but support lifelong learning and reduce barriers to those who struggle with traditional academic formats.

The review must fund these routes properly, set a clear timetable, and give community providers a formal voice in shaping delivery. Without that, the review risks diagnosing a problem without backing the solution. 

Skills passport: make it genuinely lifelong

The proposed skills passport as part of the UK’s ‘plan for change’ is an interesting innovation, but it is focussed exclusively on the energy sector now.

It is designed to help learners transition between roles and to recognise transferable skills, but it must then record all learning, in all sectors; it would be good to have more details on what the learning has been to enable it to expand from energy into other sectors. 

Equally, if it only tracks accredited or employment-linked qualifications, it will ignore the vital informal and community-based learning that underpins many adult journeys. 

For thousands of adults returning to study after years away, the first step is a short course that rebuilds confidence or language skills. Those experiences must count. A genuinely lifelong skills passport should recognise every stage of learning – accredited or not – so that adults can see, and show, their progression. 

Investment and inclusion must go hand in hand 

Funding remains the core issue. Investment is still weighted toward higher education and Level 4 + courses, yet the greatest economic and social return often comes from supporting adults with the lowest starting points. HOLEX is calling for a £5 billion increase in the adult skills budget this Parliament and for funding to be distributed locally, through authorities that understand community and employer needs. 

A fair, locally driven model would empower the networks already proven to engage and upskill adults who are economically inactive or furthest from work. 

A people’s skills solution 

 The white paper’s emphasis on employment outcomes is understandable, but employment alone does not define success. Adult learning improves mental health, civic participation and family stability – outcomes that are measurable, proven and economically valuable, yet absent from the government’s metrics. 

If ministers truly want a skills revolution, they must recognise that people – not just institutions – are its driving force. A people’s skills solution would put learning power in citizens’ hands, value practical and vocational skills alongside academic ones, and build a system that works for everyone, everywhere. 

HOLEX and its members stand ready to help design and deliver that system. We urge government to embed community adult education in the essential skills review, make the skills passport genuinely lifelong and inclusive, and deliver fair funding so that adult learning can play its full part in growth, wellbeing and community renewal. 

Because adult learning isn’t an optional extra – it’s the backbone of an inclusive, productive and healthy society. 

V Levels: a victory for vocational education, or another V sign to the FE sector?

With the rumours of “V Levels” first revealed by FE Week three weeks ago and now finally confirmed in the post-16 education and skills white paper, many across the sector will no doubt be signalling a V in return.

If you believe this represents evidence of concerns around defunding finally being listened to, you’re likely giving V Levels a (cautious) Churchillian V for Victory. If you’re cynical or have sector reform fatigue, it’s probably more like the V sign off the front cover of Kes.

Of course, we should reserve full judgement until the details are clearer. What we know so far is that they will form a vocational alternative to the existing routes of A Levels and T Levels, they will commence for first teaching from September 2027, and they will be equivalent in size to a single A Level. We also now know that whilst these new qualifications are developed there is no pause to the current defunding timetable. Large and very popular vocational qualifications (known as applied general qualifications – AGQs) in areas such as business, health and social care and science are due for the chop from next year and the year after.

A main concerns around the defunding approach has been the narrowing of student choice through reducing the offer to a binary alternative of A Levels or the new T Levels. It’s a legitimate concern, but the binary choice argument against the reforms never quite stacked up. There were always alternative pathways built into the Level 3 changes. In addition to A Levels and T Levels, students would have the choice to study alternative academic qualifications (AAQs) replacing some of the AQQs and designed to be combined with A Levels; or alternative stand-alone technical occupational qualifications (TOQs) that didn’t neatly align with the T Level architecture. However, these additions to the reforms were arguably poorly understood, lacked the same promotion as T Levels and were largely sidelined in some of the polemics around the risk to student choice.

When the intention to introduce V Levels was first revealed, my immediate reaction was that the government had played a blinder. Given AAQs and TOQs were flying somewhat under the radar, the response was to give them greater visibility as “the third way”. And so simple – add the V to the existing A and T. It seemed a good solution to keep the existing direction of travel largely in place but address the presentation and “brand”.

Now, I’m not so sure. Are V Levels a rebrand of AAQs and TOQs? An evolution? Or a case of back to the drawing board? If the latter, you’d pity anyone taking these replacement qualifications whilst V Levels come on stream, given the lack of currency they are likely to have in the near future.

For V Levels to succeed, we all need to be clear about their intended market, purpose and the destinations they will lead students towards. I have said previously that the barrier to T Levels’ scalability is their size and difficulty compared to many AGQs, with many providers like us adopting entry requirements more in line with A Levels. It seems this has been recognised in the proposal for V Levels, with the consultation stating that it is believed these new qualifications need to be attainable for the average student currently taking AGQs. Whether this will address current concerns about defunding, Level 3 provision gaps and potentially reduced participation in education remains to be seen.

In terms of purpose, we need to understand what makes them distinctive to A Levels and T Levels. From what we know so far, they will be broader in scope than T Levels (although smaller), focused on an employment sector rather than a specific occupational area (although designed against occupational standards) and designed to sit alongside A Levels or other V Levels. There is a danger clarity will fall between stools if we are not careful.

And many people use the terms “vocational” and “technical” interchangeably. The importance of good and clear careers information, advice and guidance will be critical.

Finally, we need to know where these qualifications will take students. Is the primary aim university, given their intention to sit with A Levels? Is it employment, given their link to practical skills and occupational standards? Or are they designed to keep options fully open and align with the government’s new ambition to support two thirds of young people into a broader range and definition of higher-level study?

A lot of questions to be answered, but at least now we have some clarity – and a more defined “third way”. As for where I sit, my ‘V’ is probably more like Winston’s. A victory of sorts for the sector. But ask me again in twelve months.

White paper is a long-overdue vote of confidence in colleges – let’s make it count

The government’s new post-16 education and skills white paper places colleges at the forefront of the government’s ambitions for the country. That is where they should always have been, of course. But were grossly underfunded and overlooked for over a decade from 2010.

Being described as anchor institutions that deliver on economic growth, productivity, place-making and opening up opportunities everywhere for everyone marks a big, positive step forward. It shows a belief in colleges which we have not seen before and backs it up with some of the investment needed to overcome the long-term neglect the sector has suffered.

It also sets a challenge to college leaders and our sector. It is asking colleges to step up to build on the great work being done already to reach more people, including employers. It is asking the sector to open up new pathways and ensure that economic growth truly benefits everyone everywhere.

It is challenge that I am confident we will accept. For too long, our post-16 system has been fragmented, underfunded and overly focused on academic routes. This white paper offers a more joined-up system, one that is responsive to local labour markets, supports productivity and helps more people into good jobs.

V Levels welcome

The introduction of new V Levels alongside A Levels and T Levels is a welcome move. By taking a sector-by-sector approach, and working with fellow colleges and others, we must be ambitious. We must strive to develop pathways in every sector of the economy from Level 2, through Level 3 onto higher technical qualifications and apprenticeships as well as more traditional higher education programmes.

There is also long-overdue recognition that the English and maths resit policy is not working. The introduction of new stepping stone qualifications in English and maths should help more post-16 students achieve and build confidence at Level 1, before hopefully taking on GCSEs a year later. I would love to see that stepping stone available in key stage 4 as well, to offer a positive achievement to the 40 per cent of 16-year-olds who miss their grade 4. But we will need to continue to make that case.

Technical excellence colleges’ strategic role

The commitment to at least 29 technical excellence colleges is encouraging, with their strategic role in the system set out in lots of places across the white paper. These colleges are in essence a test of how far better investment in colleges can see them build their influence with employers, in the labour market and for helping more people get good jobs.

White papers rarely pledge new funding, but this one does pledge to maintain real-terms per-student funding in 16-19 study programmes and sets out the range of capital grants that will be open to colleges. These are important signals that the government is listening, and even more so with the promise to explore local and strategic authority lending to colleges. But of course, we must be clear: the success of this White Paper will depend on sustained investment and genuine collaboration across institutions. This is a topic we have covered extensively in our recent report with Universities UK.

Mind the gaps

There are also gaps. Adult education remains underfunded and undervalued. College staff continue to be paid significantly less than their counterparts in schools. And while the white paper rightly champions collaboration between colleges and universities, it is silent on the need for better alignment with school sixth forms. That is a missed opportunity. But we will keep pressing on these.

This white paper, including the new target announced by the Prime Minister of two-thirds of young people achieving higher learning, gives us a fantastic platform. It reflects many of the priorities that AoC and our members have been championing for years. But it is only the beginning. Colleges are ready to lead this transformation. But we need the tools, trust and time to do it properly.

If we embrace this white paper then together we can continue the momentum and build a system that works for every student, employer and community, with colleges rightly at the centre.

If opportunity is the goal, why scrap the courses that deliver it?

Yesterday morning, the government announced that its new plan to reform vocational qualifications would break down barriers to opportunity. We were pleased to see that the government had fully committed to retain a third qualification pathway to sit alongside A Levels and T Levels – one of the main objectives of the Protect Student Choice campaign.

But yesterday evening, once the details of the plan had been published, it became clear that the timing of the government’s reforms was more likely to create barriers to opportunity.

In July, the campaign published a report that showed tens of thousands of students would be left without a suitable post-16 pathway if the government implemented its plan to scrap applied general qualifications (AGQs) such as BTECs in subjects where T Levels are available.

However, it is now clear that BTEC diplomas and extended diplomas (equivalent in size to 2 and 3 A Levels) will be scrapped from 2026, before the new V Level qualifications become available. 

The government is committed to helping working class students to progress to university and reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET), yet there is clear evidence that the plan to scrap diplomas and extended diplomas will make it much harder to achieve both objectives.

We want V Levels to be a success. But at the moment it is difficult to look beyond the huge qualification gap that will open up next year when these BTECs are scrapped, and the tens of thousands of students that are likely to fall through it.

The premature scrapping of these courses is also bad news for BTEC teachers in colleges and schools, and the huge number of employers that value these qualifications so highly. 

The government hopes that scrapping diplomas and extended diplomas will drive up the number of students studying T levels. In reality, it is more likely to drive up the number of students that disengage from education and/or are forced to enrol on unsuitable qualifications.

The government’s reforms are partly driven by the desire to simplify what they describe as a“confusing” system where “no one is truly sure the qualification they are doing is best for them”. But we have seen little evidence of confusion with applied general qualifications (AGQs). There are 97 AGQs that are available in 24 subjects (fewer than the number of A levels) and a college or school will typically offer a fraction of this number.

More confusing was the government’s decision to proceed with the launch of a new suite of qualifications (alternative academic qualifications) in July 2024, only to indicate yesterday – just one month after students enrolled on them for the first time – that they are being scrapped.

Many of our members were planning to use AAQs to stitch together a backup study programme if the government did not agree to pause the defunding of AGQs. But they will now be less inclined to enrol students on these qualifications given they will be discontinued in the very near future.

One of the benefits of studying an extended diploma is that students can manage their time and studies more effectively by pursuing a single qualification, typically with the same teachers and student cohort. What will objectively be more confusing for these young people (that typically have lower levels of prior attainment than students studying smaller AGQs) is the requirement to select three separate V Levels in the future.

We now know that colleges have enrolled their last students on diplomas and extended diplomas in key subjects such as health and social care, applied science and IT.

And we also know that V Levels – despite the high hopes we have for them – will not be ready until at least 2027 (an implementation timeframe that would break all existing records).

Our priority now is to support members through this transition over the next two academic years. Staff and leaders will be working flat out to minimise the number of young people left without a pathway in 2026 and 2027.

Our message to the government is a straightforward one: don’t scrap existing qualifications until new ones are available. Doing so will create, rather than break down, barriers to opportunity. Colleges and schools will try to find innovative ways to navigate these barriers, but yesterday’s announcement has made the transition to the new qualification system a good deal more difficult than it needed to be. 

Size matters when it comes to apprenticeships

The introduction of shorter-duration apprenticeships has been greeted with a mix of applause and alarm. For some, reducing the minimum duration from twelve to eight months – and now, introducing game-changing apprenticeship units: short, modular courses funded through the levy – represents pragmatic modernisation. For others, it is a betrayal of what the word “apprenticeship” means.

 Yet behind the noise lies a more interesting truth. In loosening the rules, the government may have stumbled onto a rare thing – a genuine scale-economy strategy in public skills policy.

For years, apprenticeships have suffered from diseconomies of scale: high delivery costs, long lead times, inconsistent quality, assessor shortages and bureaucratic fatigue. Now, perhaps inadvertently, the state is proposing a model that treats training as an adaptive system – modular, responsive, and efficient. In policy terms, that is revolutionary.

At first glance, shrinking learning seems to defy the logic of rigour. Apprenticeships have long traded on the virtue of depth – the slow mastery of a craft, not the quick acquisition of competence. But today’s fast-paced labour market rewards capability proven, not time served. Modern economies thrive on fast, flexible, verifiable readiness delivered in timely sprints. For employers, the concern is not how long learning takes, but how well it translates into confident performance.

Having worked in the awarding sector for more than twenty years, I’ve recently stepped into the apprenticeships space. And I’ve been struck by the system’s sheer complexity. It’s not quality requirements that deter engagement but the density of process between intention and outcome. If simplification and faster throughputs of talent deliver better real-world impact, the apprenticeship market will re-energise.

The white paper aims to do exactly that. By introducing apprenticeship units and allowing levy funds to flow more flexibly, government is lowering the transaction cost of participation. More learners can move through the system without inflating cost or bureaucracy, creating headroom in an overspent levy budget for alternative routes to flourish. It’s the policy equivalent of improving factory output by trimming idle time rather than building a new plant.

However, streamlining delivery will complicate assessment. Shorter learning journeys punctuated by formative assessment events make evaluation both more central and more demanding. With less time for reflection and consolidation, the quality of evidence becomes critical. Assessment organisations will need to rebalance from single, summative endpoints toward more agile, cumulative judgements – distributed across a compressed timeline. The introduction of apprenticeship units intensifies that challenge.

Each unit must still cohere into a meaningful whole, ensuring learners can connect, apply and adapt what they know. But smaller provision can invite carelessness; the risk is that shortness becomes shorthand for shallowness. If duration becomes the next metric to game, the apprenticeship brand will corrode in a race to the bottom.

Skills development, unlike manufacturing, relies on reflection as much as repetition. The danger is not that learners will do less, but that they’ll have less time to make sense of what they do. Assessment design will therefore need to hold the line. Done well, it embeds reflection and synthesis throughout the learner journey, turning each stage or unit into a rehearsal for mastery. Done poorly, it fragments learning into a relay of hurdles.

Assessment organisations must now innovate fast – blending a range of assessment methods across a broader and more inclusive offer to sustain validity without over-burdening providers or employers. The sector will need a new fluency in balancing flexibility with fairness. The principles set out in the white paper are sound and future-forward. In an economy where human capital must renew as fast as technology evolves, agility and simplicity are not the enemies of rigour. If collectively we can make the small beautiful and the short powerful, apprenticeships could finally deliver what their architects intended: mass participation, high completion and real productivity.

Apprenticeship units may have been designed to improve flexibility rather than deliver scale-economy. But in skills policy, as in industry, the best efficiencies are often found by accident.

Finally, a real stepping stone for GCSE English and maths learners

As someone who has lived and breathed English and maths delivery in further education for over a decade, I know how much effort young people put into retaking their GCSEs and how hard colleges work to support them. This is why I welcome the government’s announcement in the post-16 white paper of a new level 1 GCSE stepping-stone qualification to support young people retaking these subjects.

When we were planning our response to the curriculum and assessment review back in September last year, a team of us at Get Further sat down to review learning from years of work within the FE sector, and to answer one question: what would really shift the dial for young people struggling to secure the English and maths GCSE qualifications vital to accessing so many opportunities?

We wanted to propose an idea that would help give every young person a real chance to achieve these essential qualifications. Right now, that chance isn’t equal. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are much less likely to achieve a grade 4 in English and maths than their peers, and those who struggle most – including those with SEND and those who achieve grade 1 or 2 at 16 – are much less likely to achieve their GCSE by the age of 19.

Like almost everyone we speak to in the sector, we have always held the unwavering belief that every young person who falls behind at school deserves the chance to catch up on English and maths as part of their post-16 education. We also shared concerns that too many young people are still missing out on essential GCSE grades. We saw potential within the condition of funding policy for powerful changes to be made to unlock achievement.

For us, it was clear that the answer was a true stepping-stone to GCSE – a qualification offering young people facing the steepest barriers the chance to plug gaps in knowledge, embed new learning, gain a sense of achievement, develop their confidence, and rebuild their motivation – all while working towards, and ultimately achieving, the qualification that is most highly valued by employers and the wider education system.

As part of our thinking for the curriculum and assessment review, I spoke to some of the young people who have undertaken resit tuition with us to get their views on a stepping-stone qualification to a full GCSE and on how they would have felt about having two planned years of study before their first full retake. What they told me confirms that this week’s announcement is the right one.

They talked about a stepping stone being “a substantially good idea” as it would “help students cover specific topics that they struggle with” and “help improve the students’ confidence, willpower and determination”. They said it would “remove the pressure of taking the exam within the first nine months” of being in college. And they felt spending more time on something is “good just for yourself, to prove that you’re worth it and you can do it”. Securing an initial grade in a less high-stakes exam is “like a sign that you don’t need to stop, you just have to keep going”.

I’m really pleased for future young people that the benefits of longer study and an intermediate qualification are now going to be realised.

Through our discussions at Get Further, we were also clear that a qualification change alone would not be enough to drive the changes in English and maths attainment that everyone within the sector wants to see. So it’s great to see the suite of plans laid out to accompany this change, including enhanced support for English and maths teacher development, strengthened delivery guidance, the ongoing building of the evidence-base via the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), and the revision of accountability measures.

Qualification development isn’t quick. As a sector we now have a significant task ahead of us as this work gets underway and we prepare to support young people to undertake these new courses. But as one of the young people I spoke to said: “I think taking your time is better, though, because if you really focus and work hard, then you can get it […] Patience is key. Trust in the process”.

New law to bar ‘unsuitable’ FE leaders among skills white paper reforms

The government will legislate to ban “unsuitable people” from FE leadership, introduce a new 16 to 19 funding formula and raise higher education tuition fees in line with inflation, a long-awaited post-16 white paper has revealed.

Ministers also have plans for boosting the number of students who successfully resit GCSE English and maths, tracking attendance in colleges, and are mulling over the introduction of “skills passports” for adults. 

The white paper, 70 pages and 35,660 words long, was published this evening. Officials also tonight launched a consultation on plans for new V Level qualifications, an expansion of T Level subjects and the scrapping of the troubled T Level foundation year (read the full story on this here).

FE Week has pulled out the key new policies that have not been previously announced.

‘Unsuitable’ people barred from FE leadership

Ministers plan to legislate to “bar unsuitable people” from management positions in further education providers.

There have been multiple high-profile cases of college and training provider mismanagement over the past decade, but it is not clear whether any single case has triggered this move.

The education secretary can already “prohibit or restrict an individual” from taking part in the management or governance of a school by “issuing a direction under section 128 of the Education and Skills Act 2008”, according to government guidance.

FE Week revealed in 2023 that the principal of the first college to be put in administration agreed to never work in the education sector again – but this ban, which will trigger a £250,000 fine if breached, was agreed with liquidator BDO, not the government.

Ministers seemingly now want the power to enforce their own bans on FE leaders through the law.

The white paper said extending the power it has to ban individuals from schools to further education providers will “protect staff, individuals, and public money”.

“We want to ensure that leaders of further education providers are the right people to be leading their institutions, ensuring that the highest standards underpin leadership and governance,” the white paper added.

“We will legislate when parliamentary time allows.”

16-19 funding: A formula review and real-terms rise

As per this summer’s spending review, the government will provide £1.2 billion of “additional investment per year in skills by 2028-2029”.

The white paper said this “significant investment” will ensure there is increased funding to colleges and other 16 to 19 providers to “maintain real terms per-student funding in the next academic year to respond to the demographic increase in 16 to 19-year-olds”.

Ministers believe this funding boost will help colleges with the “recruitment and retention of expert teachers in high value subject areas”.

Officials will also undertake a “16 to 19 funding formula review” to “maximise the impact of this funding”.

A revised formula is expected to be in place for the 2027-28 academic year.

Details are light but here’s what the white paper teased the review will explore: “We will look at how we are supporting high-value courses to ensure sufficient funding is reaching the most critical subject areas, for example those linked to priority sectors. 

“We will aim to simplify the formula, whilst ensuring we support courses that drive economic growth and support providers to offer more provision that will help young people to thrive in areas with growth potential.”

Better prepare students for GCSE resits, colleges told

The government appeared to criticise colleges for entering unprepared students for GCSE English and maths resits.

The white paper said too few learners with low prior attainment – a grade 2 or below in English and maths – are “achieving a grade 4 by the time they leave education at age 18 or 19 yet are resitting, sometimes repeatedly, when they are not ready”.

Each student that failed to achieve a grade 4 pass in English or maths at school must study towards the subjects as a condition of their post-16 place being funded. Government guidance makes clear this is a study requirement, not a requirement for students to resit an exam.

“Too many students are entered into resit exams in the November after their GCSE entry the previous summer, without sufficient additional teaching to enable them to succeed,” the white paper said.

To aid the sector, the government said it will introduce a new 16 to 19 English and maths “preparation for GCSE level 1 qualifications designed to consolidate the foundational skills and knowledge needed to prepare lower prior attaining students (grade 2 or below) before they then take a GCSE resit”.

These new qualifications will “build on” Becky Francis’ curriculum and assessment review’s “analysis of the evidence and developing recommendations”.

Officials will “work closely with the sector as we develop the new qualifications and plan to consult in 2026”. 

College and ITP ‘improvement’

The government plans to introduce regional improvement teams in further education, taking a “similar approach” to the regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) programme in schools.

Overseen by the FE Commissioner, these teams will create a “clear governance structure” for the Department for Education to “ensure that each region has the provider capacity and capability to support students at risk of being left behind, and respond to local skills needs identified in local skills improvement plans or by strategic authorities”. 

The white paper said officials “know that many colleges are already performing brilliantly in these areas”, and they will continue to work with them through this new “universal offer of support to all colleges”.

Details on how exactly what this new support offer will entail are sparse.

But the white paper did reveal that regional improvement teams will also look at capacity in the independent training provider market to “identify gaps in provision and to identify effective practice and collaboration across colleges, independent training providers, local authorities and Strategic Authorities, which other areas could benefit from”.

Skills ‘passports’ and apprenticeship ‘units’

Too many adults lack the basic English, maths and digital skills, yet participation in essential skills courses has plummeted over the last decade. 

To get more adults to improve their skills, the white paper suggests a review of English, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), maths and digital skills training. The review will check whether the existing offer of courses is meeting the needs of people classed as most disadvantaged in the labour market and whether they deliver the learning needed to access technical training and jobs in priority sectors.

Meanwhile, Skills England has been tasked with “exploring” the development of “skills passports”. The new government agency will “review best practice and learn from previous experience”, but the idea is the passports would show employers what skills, competencies and work experience an individual has in a standardised way. 

There was no timetable set out for skills passports, but the white paper said it would be tested with unemployed people in jobs and careers service pathfinder areas. 

Sector based work academies will be “significantly” expanded, the white paper suggested but did not quantify. The “highly effective” programmes form part of a package of initiatives aimed at people facing barriers to employment. This also includes a new pathways to work guarantee for disabled people and benefit claimants with health conditions and continuing with plans to devolve skills bootcamps to strategic authorities. 

Short courses funded through the growth and skills levy will be introduced in April 2026 as planned, but with their own special name: apprenticeship units. As previously announced, an initial wave of fundable short courses will be offered for employers in “critical skills areas” such as engineering, digital and artificial intelligence. 

The white paper had little to say about future waves of fundable apprenticeship units, only that decisions will be informed by Skills England’s analysis of employers’ needs.  

Level 4 and 5 awarding powers for FE providers

The prime minister’s new higher education target specifically included expanding training at levels 4 and 5. As announced following his Labour party conference speech, and confirmed in the white paper, the Office for Students (OfS) will become the “single primary regulator” for all providers teaching level 4 and above courses. 

DfE will “encourage” further and higher education organisations to work together on progression pathways through level 4+ training, even floating “novel alternative business models, including federated models and partnerships” between the two sectors. 

There will be a “stronger expectation” on higher education providers to set out how they will deliver technical skills needs identified in local skills improvement plans. 

While there was no timeline, DfE has revealed that it will work with the OfS on a process to grant colleges and training providers their own awarding powers for “occupationally focused” level 4 and 5 higher technical qualifications. 

Awarding organisations will continue to be able to develop and market higher technical qualifications, if they’ve been licensed by the OfS to do so.

All of this will be scrutinised by a new “market monitoring function” within DfE, with Skills England charged with identifying cold spots in supply of higher-level education and training.

HE fees to rise with inflation

Ministers have also decided to raise higher education tuition fees in line with forecast inflation for the next two academic years. 

Legislation will then be brought forward, “when parliamentary time allows”, to enable “automatic increases to fee caps in future years in line with inflation” but only for institutions that meet “tough new quality thresholds set by the Office for Students”. 

Auto enrolment from schools 

Young people leaving school at 16 without an education or training place will now be auto-enroled into provision.

The move comes as part of a range of measures outlined in the white paper to cut the rising numbers of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).

Pilots will test the idea of designating a “default provider” in an area, which could be a college or other provider, that would contact and place a school leaver who hadn’t selected a post-16 option. A process would also be put in place for young people that drop-out in-year. 

“Our ambition is that the default for any young person who isn’t sure of their next steps post-16 is to be in a college or further education provider, rather than out of education and training,” the white paper said.

Funding for education and “wraparound support” is yet to be determined.

Other anti-NEET measures in the white paper include improving data sharing and tracking of young people between schools, local authorities and further education providers. 

New “risk of NEET” indicators will be introduced using “artificial intelligence to enhance this approach”. 

Schools will be asked to do more to help young people at risk of becoming NEET “successfully transition into post-16 education and training” which will be monitored by Ofsted.

Attendance tracker for 16 to 19s

The white paper repeats the government’s announcements from last month’s Labour Party conference around tackling soaring numbers of young people who are not in education, employment or training (NEET) – namely its new “youth guarantee”.

But it also reveals plans for the government to track student attendance in all 16 to 19 providers. 

This will enable providers and the government “intervene early when attendance starts to decline” to try and prevent the young person from becoming NEET.

Officials will take the “best practice” from school attendance tracking and “bring it into further education, to identify those at risk of becoming NEET through data sharing and embedded strategies to address persistent absence”. 

“This will factor in the contextual differences between further education and schools,” the white paper added.

“For example, many further education providers do not expect every learner to be present by a certain time every day so identifying absence will reflect this. We will also draw out existing best practice in further education to strengthen guidance and accountability.”

Teacher professional development

“Expert bodies” like the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, Education Endowment Foundation and WorldSkills UK will develop a new career-long professional development framework for FE teachers in a bid to raise standards and improve recruitment and retention. 

The white paper makes numerous commitments to programmes that support professionals from industry into FE teaching, with technical excellence colleges mentioned numerous times as organisations expected to be at the forefront of new ways to recruit, train and retain teachers. 

It said: “As leaders for their specialism, technical excellence colleges will focus on developing excellent specialist curricula and teaching practice. Through a hub and spoke model, technical excellence colleges will share these with other local providers.”

For example, technical education colleges will lead on providing “cutting edge” professional development to FE staff, alongside teacher industry exchange schemes giving teachers access to industry placements in return for masterclasses and guest-teaching opportunities on modules in FE for industry professionals. 

A call for evidence was launched on Friday to inform new statutory guidance on initial teacher education (ITE). It comes as part of a DfE crackdown on “contested and outdated theories” being taught to trainee FE teachers.

The government also plans to extend its teaching vacancy service to include further education roles and pledged to continue its teacher recruitment marketing campaigns and teacher incentive payments for this academic year. 

FE data will be “safely and appropriately” used with EdTech companies to develop artificial intelligence tools to ease workload burdens on teachers and leaders. The white paper was light on detail, but DfE said AI could “transform and improve” teaching and will “support the technology market to develop the products that leaders and teachers need”.