Milburn’s the man to make us think differently about NEETs

In Westminster and beyond, Alan Milburn has earned his reputation for telling uncomfortable truths when few want to hear them. I’ve known him for many years and have seen that fearlessness in action.

Under his leadership, between 2012 and 2017, the social mobility commission became a force to be reckoned with. He confronted powerful elites and elusive prime ministers alike in trying to level the country’s deeply unlevel playing field of opportunity. When the government failed to back his work, he resigned on principle.

Raised by a single mother on Tyneside, Milburn’s first political activism came from fighting for shipbuilding and steel jobs. That early grounding has never left him – which makes him the ideal person to lead a new review into what is increasingly a national crisis of opportunity. Nearly one million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET).

As someone who dropped out of school myself before returning to retake A-levels, I know how it feels to be an outsider. I was lucky: teachers, friends and family gave me a second chance. Many of the young people now labelled “NEET” will never get that chance. I also happened to have an academic bent. This meant I could fit into an education system that valued above all else performance in narrow academic assessments.

If this review is to make a lasting difference, Milburn must challenge three powerful orthodoxies that have long derailed solutions to one of social mobility’s seemingly intractable problems.

The first trap is the deficit approach that still dominates so much national policy. Even the term “NEET” sounds more like a disease to be cured than a description of young people’s lives. Labelling them by what they are not doing defines them as failures rather than as individuals with strengths and futures.

The equity approach I advocate starts from a different place: standing in the shoes of the young people we aim to serve. It asks how we can better understand what they offer, what needs to change in our institutions, and how we can work together.

It’s so tempting for politicians to slip into the blame game. See for example the debate over the underachievement of “white working-class boys”. Too often from the national stage we pathologise the communities we have failed in the past. The problem isn’t necessarily that these young people don’t value education – it’s that our system hasn’t valued them.

So, one simple step: let’s change the language. Instead of “NEETs”, talk about young people in transition, those seeking next opportunities, or those facing barriers to participation.

We also need to look at the bigger picture. The review rightly focuses on the growing mental health emergency among younger generations. Rising anxiety and hopelessness are inevitable when the old life model that guided previous generations – work hard in education, get a stable job, buy a home – has broken down.

Tackling this demands more than therapy sessions or attendance drives; it requires rebuilding a sense of purpose, belonging and opportunity for a generation who feel the system no longer works for them.

My research for the Monday Charitable Trust found that half of those failing to reach a standard pass in English and maths at 16 had already fallen behind by age five. Their trajectories were shaped as much by socio-emotional skills as academic development. Low skills are passed down from one generation to the next. These are structural, intergenerational problems, not short-term policy gaps.

Finally, the review can do something governments rarely manage: breaking down the policy silos. For too long, we’ve treated education, employment and health as separate domains when they are deeply connected. The danger now is “initiativitis”: a flurry of disconnected reforms – the curriculum review, the youth guarantee, the white working-class review – without a unifying vision.

Milburn has never shied away from asking the hard questions. I hope his review will do just that: forcing us to confront the deep issues that threaten to scar a whole generation.

What Victorian philanthropists can teach today’s FE policymakers

Auspicium Melioris Aevi – “Herald of a new age.”

These words beneath the crest of the Working Men’s College, founded in 1854 by a group of Christian Socialists, encapsulate a radical vision: education not as charity, but as a right. It was a means for working people to participate fully in civic and cultural life. 

The Reverend Frederick Maurice, one of the College’s key founders, believed education should form citizens, not just employees. By calling it a “college”, he implied a society where teachers and learners were equal members. This marked a stark departure from the earlier adult educational efforts of the mechanics’ institutes. Liberal studies, humility in teaching and a rich social life became integral to the college. 

Maurice was joined by an extraordinary group of philanthropists – Thomas Hughes (author of Tom Brown’s Schooldays), John Ludlow, the philologist Frederick James Furnivall. It was also supported by figures such as the writer John Ruskin and Dante Gabriel Rossetti, who shaped WM’s early art teaching. [1] [2] 

The college shared its ethos with Birkbeck College, as both prioritised skill acquisition within a broader vision: developing individuals as citizens and community members, not just workers. No single institution can offer every opportunity, but their benefactors instilled a lasting commitment to a wider educational community – a principle that remains relevant today. 

Colleges are communities where people learn from and with each other, not only from teachers or texts. In a world overflowing with information, learning to evaluate and synthesise knowledge collaboratively is essential, whether navigating data systems or developing cultural literacy. Yet current structures and funding rarely encourage this mutual learning. 

Today, we see a revival of analogous impulses among Gen Z: crafts, supper clubs, and collective creativity are being embraced not just as hobbies but as medicine for loneliness, digital fatigue and a loss of connection. These mirror the same drive behind the founders of WM College, who believed that learning should restore community, moral purpose and human flourishing. 

Mathematics and languages were valued not merely as practical skills, but as gateways to higher knowledge – aimed at producing students, not just mathematicians or linguists.

Similarly, the arts were treated seriously. Pre-Raphaelites like Rossetti, Edward Burne-Jones, Ford Madox Brown and William Morris taught evening classes, bringing art to the working classes. Students often discovered renewed purpose, employment opportunities or new skills – echoing today’s need for education that enriches life as well as work. 

As early as 1965, WM College formally admitted female students – pioneering inclusion. These steps reflected not just demographic inclusion but a philosophical one: that men and women are equal in ability and citizenship. 

From the start, WM College fostered a sense of community and inclusion. Students learned from tutors and one another, developing mutual support and intellectual curiosity.  
 
Today, the adult education landscape is vastly different. Responsibility for skills shifts between departments, funding is fragmented, and providers face pressure to focus narrowly on employability outcomes. 
 
Skills policy is wrongly low-down in party priorities, with much talk of trade colleges but little sustained support for adult learning beyond vocational outcomes. Yet the lesson from Maurice and his contemporaries is clear: one need not wait for perfect policy conditions to act. They built a college where formal adult education barely existed, because it was the right thing to do. 

What might today’s policymakers, funders and philanthropists learn from these 19th-century pioneers? 

  • Education shapes society as much as it serves the labour market. WM College’s founders saw it as a tool for civic renewal, building character, social cohesion and moral responsibility. 
  • Long-term commitment matters. The college’s early supporters invested decades of sustained effort, not just funds or enthusiasm. Modern philanthropists should take note. 
  • Community is central. At WM College spaces are created where people of all backgrounds can meet, learn and grow together. In an era of social fragmentation, this model feels urgently relevant. 
     

Today, as young people rediscover the therapeutic, communal, and creative value of making things with their hands, there is fertile ground for adult education that nurtures wellbeing, human worth and shared life. 
The challenge is to act with the courage and imagination of those Victorian philanthropists, who built not just a college but a movement rooted in civic purpose and inclusion.

Accounting needs to modernise so we can tackle the skills gap

Almost four in five UK employers say they’ve got skills gaps in their business. That’s a huge number and it comes at a real cost.

Staff are stretched; productivity takes a hit; quality drops and recruitment costs rise. Finance and accountancy teams aren’t immune. In fact, they sit right at the heart of it.

The role of the accountant has evolved – and continues to do so. It goes far beyond crunching numbers and arranging tax and VAT returns. Our new report shows how employers want people who can lead teams, think strategically (27 per cent), analyse data (23 per cent), and guide organisations through digital change.

Yes, the technical skills still matter – things like budgeting, reporting and payroll – but they’re no longer enough on their own. Transferable skills like problem-solving (27 per cent), leadership and management (25 per cent), as well as critical thinking are now just as important.

This shift reflects the way businesses now work with their finance teams. Accountants aren’t just keeping the books balanced, they’re helping boards decide where to invest, how to manage risk and grow responsibly. That requires confidence, communication and the ability to influence.

Digital skills are climbing the list too. Employers identify AI literacy and automation (25 per cent) alongside cybersecurity (20 per cent) as crucial finance and accounting skills for the future.

Finance professionals need to be confident working with new tech and aware of the risks that come with it. The message from employers is they want a mix; training must deliver the technical, digital and human skills side by side.

Challenges employers face

Unfortunately, while most employers see training as the answer, they’re struggling to make it happen. A massive 84 per cent say they face barriers to upskilling, leading to 10 per cent outsourcing work overseas.

We need urgent action, because every outsourced role is one less chance for UK talent to gain experience, and to strengthen the long-term resilience of the sector.

The biggest problems are lack of time (41 per cent), cost, low engagement (27 per cent) and a lack of suitable training (22 per cent).

However, that doesn’t mean progress isn’t happening. A quarter of employers have upskilled staff in the past year, and one in 10 are using apprenticeships to bring in new talent.

Looking ahead, many are planning for mentoring, professional courses and certified short programmes. That’s encouraging – but employers can’t fix this on their own. They need the government to step-up too.

Recommendations for businesses:

  • Provide clear progression routes to retain and nurture talent, and partner with training providers to upskill employees in automation, cybersecurity and digital finance systems.
  • Work with training providers and awarding bodies to co-design training schemes that meet real-world business needs to provide a pipeline of talent to help your business grow.

Recommendations for government

  • Create an “SME Skills Navigator” service to help small employers access relevant finance training and apprenticeships.
  • Develop a campaign targeted at learners and employers to increase the attractiveness of apprenticeships, with a particular focus on SMEs.
  • Urgently clarify what types of short courses in accounting and finance are eligible via the new growth and skills levy, with clear timelines for implementation.

A joint effort

Finance is the backbone of every business. If we don’t tackle the skills gap, we’ll feel it across the economy – through lower productivity and innovation, weaker growth and fewer opportunities.

The good news is employers are willing to invest in their people. With the right support, they can. Everyone needs to play a part – the accounting industry, government, training providers and businesses – to ensure finance professionals have the full skillset they need to thrive.

This isn’t just about businesses getting the numbers right. Strong finance skills support better decision-making in every sector, from charities to public services to start-ups. They underpin innovation, investment and the resilience of communities.

If we build a pipeline of finance professionals with the right skills, we’re not only protecting the economy today – we’re giving the next generation of accountants the tools to grow it tomorrow.

Fake cards, real risks: building sites need digital skills passports

For almost 30 years, CSCS cards have been a golden ticket to work on building sites but as an FE Week investigation exposed last year, they’re open to abuse.

Not only do unscrupulous individuals offer fake cards claiming they beat anti-fraud technology, but others have infiltrated training centres to sell them to people who aren’t given the necessary health and safety training.

With huge labour shortages in construction, the emergence of fake cards became rife.

Stakeholders must be confident in the skillsets of those they employ. Likewise, newly qualified apprentices awarded a degree, diploma or certification must be reassured they are competing on a level playing field with others in the industry.

Physical cards no longer meet the demands of a modern construction workforce. It’s time to move towards a smarter, digital solution; digital passports.

Causeway Technologies is spearheading a campaign that involves lobbying ministers and stakeholders to make digital skills passports mandatory in every public construction project.

The technology is already used on some of the UK’s largest projects – by more than 600,000 people in the UK. What’s missing is policy leadership to make it mandatory.

A digital skills passport allows employers, contractors and clients to instantly verify a worker’s qualifications, competencies, and health and safety records.

It provides a secure digital profile connecting verified qualifications, training records and on-site experience in one continually updated platform. The worker simply logs in or scans a QR code on a mobile device, instantly sharing verified training, qualifications, and competency data.

Why is this so important? Because whether you’re managing a major infrastructure project or building a single home, you need to know the person doing the job is trained, and the evidence is real. Without digital checks, it’s far too easy for credentials to be forged, missed or left out of date. That’s not just an admin issue – it’s a safety risk.

Causeway Technologies provides the digital infrastructure powering current skills passport systems. Our technology does not oversee the passport itself but ensures stated skills are transparent, portable, and trusted – bridging education outcomes with workforce deployment.

The technology already powers the workforce systems behind Network Rail’s Sentinel and the Highways Passport scheme, the world’s largest passport programme. In total, it is used by over 900,000 workers worldwide.

In the new skills white paper, it was revealed Skills England has been tasked with exploring the further development of skills passports.

The new government agency will “review best practice and learn from previous experience”, but the idea is the passports would list an individual’s skills, competencies and work experience in a standardised way. 

Digital skills passports can provide:

  • Virtual safety: A short-life QR virtual check-in backed by multi-factor authentication means IDs can’t be screenshot. In other words, they change, so can’t be copied.
  • Approved training providers: Skills passports are backed by a list of approved training providers who can add qualifications. Should qualifications be applied fraudulently, it would be flagged and the company responsible blocked.
  • Link to governing body databases: Skills passports can link directly to governing body system databases and be checked. 
  • Photos: All passports have images on them, and true 3D biometric checks can be used for secure sites.
  • Evidence: Unlike a physical card, a skills passport can list not only qualifications but copies of certifications and training hours, all stored on the person’s record.

Of course, no system is immune to abuse and there will always be people looking to cut corners. But that’s exactly why we need better tools to close the gaps. If we want to protect workers, uphold standards and build with confidence, we can’t rely on plastic cards and good intentions.

A digital skills passport should be industry standard. It’s time to move from intent to implementation and set a new standard for skills and safety that takes workforce trust to the next level.

AI will provide the fake evidence that wrecks teachers’ lives

AI is everywhere in education. Students are using it, and staff too. But there is a darker side to the AI revolution.

Some students have become victims of blackmail based on artificially-generated pornographic photos and videos, created from unwisely gifted selfies but also from publicly available pictures on the websites and social media accounts of colleges themselves. 

How many of us are even alert to this?

Rife AI abuse is already the bane of safeguarding leads’ lives. In other countries, teachers have already lost their jobs for producing deepfake child pornography.

But AI is also being used against teachers. It’s only a matter of time before lives are ruined.

The number of complaints against teachers seems sadly to be on the rise. A huge proportion are dismissed as vexatious and not upheld, but final acquittals are often based on a lack of supporting evidence.

What happens when evidence is produced to strengthen a complaint? That obviously makes a case quicker and easier to resolve. Guilt is then easy to apportion and difficult to avoid. 

A video is shown of a teacher making a racist statement in a lesson. Case closed. A photo is presented showing a teacher in a compromising sexual situation. Case closed. An audio recording is played of a teacher propositioning a student. Case closed. The story has been heard before. Another creepy teacher. Another racist corrupting our kids. Lives ruined.

But how can evidence be trusted in a world awash with AI? If a student complaint comes with apparently strong supporting evidence, the teacher involved could never survive for long with no realistic defence. But apparent evidence can now be easily generated in seconds, at the click of a couple of buttons.

That is all it would take to fake the evidence that would break a career. And the speed of technological advance makes it increasingly hard to distinguish real facts from AI fiction. Management’s soothing reassurances about applying common sense cannot cut it anymore.

How could a teacher defend themselves adequately in such a nightmarish scenario? It would be impossible with evidence as crystal clear as can be, in full digital and Dolby quality.

I don’t envy investigating managers, who require the wisdom of Solomon in our age. And I don’t envy the teachers who are about to find themselves in such situations. 

It surely won’t be long before teachers lose their jobs on the back of AI-produced deepfakes. Which obscure but conscientious teacher currently toiling away quietly in an unsuspecting classroom will be first to have their career scuppered, their character traduced and relationships ruined because of a creative and IT-savvy student with a grudge? 

That teacher victim is as yet wholly unaware of how a photo of them could already have been manipulated, or an audio clip secretly recorded and doctored to make them say something misleading which they would never say in reality.

I don’t think we teachers are ready for what is about to hit us. We lack the tools or knowledge to defend ourselves. 

In the government’s latest advice on AI use in schools, there is plenty about how to integrate the technology into the everyday life of a school, and about keeping children safe. But there is absolutely nothing about deep-fake complaints against teachers.

Likewise with the teaching unions’ websites and AI guidance. This isn’t even being talked about yet. But we need to get ready now because it’s coming.

Are we going to wait until an innocent teacher is condemned, protesting their innocence and impotently questioning the evidence that has been used to accuse them?

Where will those teachers be able to turn for support and advice when they are accused? You can bet the nation’s newspapers will show them no mercy when the matter is made public.

The first teacher to have their life ruined by AI is out there somewhere today, planning lessons, marking work, training students in the arts of learning, as yet wholly unaware of the juggernaut that is about to smash into their life. 

And I am sadly sure that in some dimly lit bedroom somewhere soon, the evidence that destroys them will be surreptitiously produced.

We need a ‘UCAS for adults’ and the DWP can help develop it

The skills white paper pledges to “make lifelong learning a reality”. But for this to happen, the adult lifelong learner needs three things: A positive experience of compulsory education, confidence in their ability to achieve success in learning, and assurance that improving their skills and qualifications will enhance the quality of their life and/or increase their earnings.

The first two often go hand in hand. Getting the qualifications at school or college to progress into a well-paid career gives people an ongoing self-belief in their ability to achieve good results. This is true for around two thirds of the school population.

Quite rightly, the document focuses on the 31 per cent who don’t progress well and asks: what can be done to improve non A-level education to get more pupils enjoying and succeeding at school?

Their answer – to replace all technical and vocational qualifications at level 3 with V Levels – addresses only a small part of the problem. The curriculum and assessment review’s recommendations to provide the diversity of young learners with stronger routes to a variety of positive destinations – not only “going to uni” – is much more promising.

The white paper barely touches upon the third prerequisite for the adult lifelong learner – seeing the relevance of continuing formal learning to boost careers. There is only passing reference to an adult careers advice. And in contrast to the moves to simplify 16-18 vocational education, a vision is presented of an adult skills system of labyrinthine complexity.

Adult learners will be confronted with a smorgasbord of options: College-based adult courses, sector skills packages, bootcamps, sector-based work academies, lifelong learning entitlement (LLE) courses and new “apprenticeship units”.

These will be overseen at national level by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education supported by Skills England; at sector level by “sector coalitions” of employers, providers and government; and at local level by strategic local authorities through engagement with local skills improvement plans and control over devolved adult skills funds.

Providers and those responsible for local delivery strategies are questioning how all these training products and services will be effectively coordinated.

And how will students navigate this? Who will provide the lifelong learner with what they most need – clarity over which new learning and qualifications will give them the best returns on their investment?

The answer must surely be to build a greatly enhanced careers advice information and guidance (CIAG) service, accessible to adults across the country – a “UCAS for adults”.

Online services won’t be enough; such a service will need to interact with colleges and adult education services and have regular face-to-face contact, just as UCAS web-based information is backed up by a network of advisers in schools and colleges.

Adult learners are an enormously diverse group who may not have had positive prior experiences of education, with varying readiness for further learning. 

A good quality national adult CIAG service will come at a cost, and in the current financial climate it will be challenging for providers to find additional resources. But the transfer of skills to DWP provides opportunities.

The hubs for much of the Great Britain Working initiatives are local Jobcentres, which until now have been focused on helping unemployed clients find immediate short-term jobs. Giving them a wider remit to look at the longer-term skills needs and ambitions of their clients would enable the development of a stronger network of CIAG services properly resourced to Gatsby standards, and fill some of the gaps, especially for “left behind” adults.

In this respect the merger of the National Careers Service into JobCentre Plus announced last year is very positive. It will bring a new influx of skilled professionals with the right attributes to help deliver a service with real impact.

It was also encouraging to see a Jobcentre in Waltham Forest College held up as an example of good practice following DWP secretary Pat McFadden’s visit; we need more of this synergistic thinking.

The white paper’s proposals provide many of the jigsaw pieces for a properly joined-up lifelong learning strategy. But there are bits missing, and the pieces cry out to be connected to make a coherent picture – of an education system that encourages the lifelong learner to thrive.

We need to deliver a new V Level vision for Level 3

It is exciting to see the curriculum and assessment review (CAR) recommendations for the introduction of V Levels become government policy.

This marks a genuine opportunity to simplify and clarify the post-16 qualification landscape. At present, young people, parents and employers must navigate a complex mix of qualifications, differing in size, grading approach and recognition.

For too long, questions have persisted about the coherence, quality and status of vocational qualifications. While A Levels are well established as a respected academic route, the large and varied range of vocational and technical qualifications has lacked consistency and clarity. CAR’s findings confirmed long-standing concerns about applied general qualifications (AGQs) and the resulting confusion among learners, parents, employers and stakeholders.

Previous reform attempts, from the 14–19 diplomas to proposals to withdraw AGQs, have faltered through issues such as flawed design or political change. Too often, these efforts have failed to recognise that many 16-year-olds are still exploring their direction and should not be forced into rigid pathways too early.

We heard clearly that the previous two-pillar model of A Levels and T Levels was not sustainable and would not meet the needs of all young people or UK PLC.

T Levels are proving valuable as rigorous, occupation-specific qualifications. For example, the T Level in education & early Years is working well. But CAR identified areas for improvement, particularly in the size, duration and complexity of assessment, which are intensified by some pathways having a May completion deadline.

Even with improvements, A Levels and T Levels cannot meet the needs of every learner. Some students want to explore a sector rather than a specific job. Others prefer applied learning or mixed study programmes.

The vision for V Levels

CAR concluded that applied and vocational qualifications require greater coherence and purpose. We therefore support simplifying the current range of qualification types and sizes, while maintaining the flexibility needed to serve diverse learners and employers. Although excessive diversity has caused confusion, it often evolved for good reasons, including the need to engage young people at risk of becoming NEET. Any reform must protect that inclusive intent.

We support the government’s view that most V Levels should be small qualifications, giving students flexibility to combine them in a suite of vocational awards or with A Levels. This approach also supports continued study of maths or English, where needed. However for some disciplines, such as art and sport, larger qualifications will remain essential. Subject experts in these areas need to have the ability to sequence learning around skill development and creative progression.

Some routes to higher education or employment benefit from larger qualifications that offer a holistic approach. For example in social care, broad qualifications reduce unnecessary repetition of common topics such as health and safety. For vulnerable learners, the stability of a substantial qualification can also aid engagement and retention.

Larger qualifications enable teachers to plan and integrate learning effectively, promoting deeper understanding and better progression. By contrast, managing multiple smaller qualifications can increase bureaucracy without improving outcomes.

While it may be tempting to make all large qualifications T Levels, doing so risks undermining the distinct identity and purpose of T Levels as occupation-specific routes. V Levels and T Levels must be differentiated by purpose, not just size.

Moving forward

Drawing on lessons from past reforms, we hope the government’s consultation on V Levels will:

1. Maintain the three-pillar vision (A Levels, T Levels and V Levels) outlined in the post-16 white paper.

2. Ensure that practical effectiveness, not administrative neatness, drives design and implementation.

3. Keep learners’ experiences and progression at the centre, alongside the needs of providers, employers and Skills England.

4. Undertake robust impact modelling to ensure reforms enhance, rather than restrict, the life chances of the largely working-class cohort currently studying AGQs.

The white paper shows strong alignment between CAR’s recommendations and the Department for Education (DfE)’s strategy. It now falls to the sector to pick up the baton, to work collaboratively and proactively with the great team at DfE to deliver on this shared vision.

If we do this, we can avoid the missteps of the past and create an ambitious, clear and impactful post-16 tapestry fit for the future.

Degree apprenticeships less accessible to disadvantaged young people than Russell Group unis

Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to take up degree apprenticeships than to study at elite Russell Group universities, according to new research.

A study by the Education Policy Institute (EPI) has warned that the inclusivity of degree apprenticeships – a route promoted by government as an engine of social mobility – is falling short of expectations and risks becoming “another middle-class preserve”.

Using latest government data, EPI found that just 10.7 per cent of 18 to 24 year old level 6 degree apprentices in 2022-23 were identified as disadvantaged. That compares with 11.4 per cent of undergraduates at Russell Group universities, 19.4 per cent of all undergraduates, and 26 per cent of the wider 18-year-old cohort.

The findings suggest that degree apprenticeships, despite showing strong achievement rates and high post-graduation salaries, are currently “less inclusive” for disadvantaged young people than even the most selective universities.

Ministers and experts have warned of a middle-class grab on apprenticeships since 2018. Similar research by the Sutton Trust has urged officials to get a grip on access opportunities for degree apprenticeships.

Lee Elliot Major, professor of Social Mobility at the University of Exeter, told FE Week: “Degree apprenticeships have huge potential to be engines of social mobility – but only if they genuinely serve students from all backgrounds. We must do better in opening up these routes to all. 

“It would be a huge national tragedy if, for all the rhetoric about expanding vocational pathways, they became another middle-class preserve, reinforcing the stark opportunity divides they were designed to close.”

Alun Francis, chair of the Social Mobility Commission and chief executive of Blackpool and the Fylde College, said it was “not a surprise” to find that degree apprenticeships have a similar profile to Russell Group universities in terms of socio-economic background as they “are in very short supply, so employers tend to seek out those with the highest grades”. 

But, he added, “social mobility is not simply about diversity metrics; it’s also about how the economy grows and brings wider benefits across society.  That’s what creates opportunities for all, not just the lucky few”.

The EPI urged the government to extend the reintroduction of maintenance grants for traditional degree students to include degree apprentices, and expand targeted outreach programmes to widen participation.

Degree apprenticeships boom

Degree apprenticeships were introduced in 2015 to offer an alternative to traditional degrees by combining paid, work-based training with university-level study. The model has been championed by ministers as a way to address skills shortages and open new pathways into higher education without tuition fee debt.

The EPI’s report said that following two years of slow growth, starts on degree apprenticeships rose rapidly from 2017.

Around 2,800 young people aged 18 to 24 started a level 6 degree apprenticeship in 2017-18 compared to almost 9,500 in 2022-23.

Source: EPI

In 2023-24, the most popular sectors for young degree apprentices were health (27.5 per cent of the overall cohort), construction (22.3 per cent) and digital technology (16.9 per cent) sectors.

London remains the most popular place for young people starting a degree apprenticeship (19.1 per cent), followed by the north west (15.1 per cent). Take-up is lowest in the north east (3 per cent of all starts in 2023-24).

Achievement rates are higher among degree apprenticeships compared to lower-level apprenticeships. Degree apprenticeship achievement rates were 71 per cent for 16 to 18 year olds and 63.8 per cent for 19 to 23 year olds in 2023-24. That compares to the national achievement rate of 60.5 per cent.

The EPI said degree apprenticeship achievement rates are similar between students from the most and least deprived areas of England.

But the report also highlights stark differences in completion rates depending on where apprentices live and the sectors they work in. 

Those training in social sciences had a 96.4 per cent achievement rate in 2023-24, while education trainees had 85.7 per cent and health degree apprentices hit 79.8 per cent.

At the lower end, business degree apprentices had a 57.1 per cent achievement rate, those studying in retail had 51.3 per cent and those in construction had 32.6 per cent.

EPI also found that apprentices from minority ethnic backgrounds – including Black African, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian, and those of mixed or other backgrounds – all show lower odds of completing their apprenticeship compared with White British apprentices, after controlling for other characteristics.

Call for action amid positive earnings data

Meanwhile, early earnings data shows degree apprenticeships can deliver strong economic returns. EPI exploratory analysis based on the latest two years of available data shows that one year after graduation, the average young degree apprentice earned around double that of the average young graduate – £36,785 vs £18,555 in 2020-21.

The report added that the “average young degree apprentice salary one year after completion remains larger than even degree-holders who graduated 10 years ago”.

However, EPI cautioned that these positive outcomes risk being undermined if disadvantaged students continue to be underrepresented.

Source: EPI

David Robinson, EPI’s director for post-16 and skills, said degree apprenticeships were “a compelling alternative” to university, but warned that “it is now critical that the government and the wider sector actively work to widen participation and ensure this valuable route is open to all”.

Francis said: “We have chronic problems of low growth, static productivity and regional disparities. But the answer to this problem isn’t to start micro-managing who stands where in the opportunity queue.

“Quite simply, we need much stronger innovation and growth, and a rapid expansion of apprenticeship opportunities of all kinds — across the whole country.”

The government was approached for comment.

Sixth form college teachers accept 4% pay rise

Sixth form college teachers have accepted a pay award of 4 per cent but have rejected workload proposals by leaders.

The national joint council staff side committee, representing sixth form teachers in the National Education Union (NEU) and the NASUWT union, have accepted the pay offer that will match their school counterparts for the 2025-26 academic year.

Over 4,300 NEU members across 72 colleges were recently consulted on the pay and workload offer tabled by the Sixth Form College Association (SFCA), representing sixth form college leaders.

Just under 94 per cent of NEU members voted yes to the 4 per cent pay offer, based on a 62.9 per cent turnout.

The union 2025-26 pay claim demanded a pay increase above the RPI rate of inflation (4.5 per cent) from 1 September 2025 on all pay points and allowances and an extra pay rise from September 1 for London-based teachers.

The SCFA offer, which was accepted, included a 4 per cent “across the board” uplift as well as a 4 per cent increase on all location and responsibility allowances from September 1.

The pay award matches the schoolteacher pay rise for this academic year, which was accepted just before the summer.

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said: “NEU sixth form college teachers have accepted a pay award matching that received by their peers in schools, which goes some way to putting right the pay injustice experienced by non-academised college teachers last year caused by inadequate funding.”

Last year, the SCFA dropped a judicial review threat after it secured a “one-off” £50 million award from ministers to help fund FE college and sixth form teacher pay awards between April and July 2025.

But teachers in non-academised sixth form colleges were excluded from the 5.5 per cent 2024-25 pay award offered to teachers in schools and academised sixth forms.

Around 2,000 NEU sixth form members walked out for eight days claiming the deal would create a “two-tier” sector.

Teachers ultimately approved a 4.3 per cent pay offer and in February, the NEU had suspended two days of strikes to consult on the government’s assurances that no two-tier offers will be made for future years.

In the same period, NASUWT union members in 23 sixth form colleges voted for strike action – in a ballot that “confusingly” included academised sixth forms, who were receiving the 5.5 per cent pay rise that the union was demanding. The strike ultimately did not go ahead.

Workload: ‘We cannot accept these half measures’

The pay claim also asked for several workload flexibilities, including extra planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time for teachers; limits on contact hours; limits on class sizes; strengthened terms and conditions that allow teachers to “rarely cover” only in unforeseen circumstances; and agreed principles on directed time as well as workload.

Based on a 61.4 per cent response rate, 86.6 per cent of members rejected the SFCA’s proposals, which offered “accelerate joint discussions” to an agreed timetable on teacher workload and working time.

The NEU had demanded that the joint discussions would reach an agreed position by the close of the autumn term 2025.

A further workload negotiation between the SFCA and the National Joint Council’s working party on workload will take place on November 27.

“Members have clearly signalled that they expect significant movement by the SFCA on all of their workload demands,” Kebede said.

“While there has been some progress made in negotiations, sixth form college teachers want the employer side to go further still, particularly around genuinely protected time for teachers to plan, prepare and assess as their school counterparts receive.

“We cannot accept half-measures. Now is the time to introduce substantial workload protections across all sixth form colleges, to meet the changing conditions of the 2020s.”

A spokesperson for the SFCA said: “We are pleased that agreement has been reached on the pay settlement for teachers for 2025-26.

“This is a competitive agreement and provides a pay increase for all NJC teachers above the rate of CPI inflation and more than the vast majority of other public sector workers. We are engaged in constructive discussions with the staff side on teacher workload and these will continue during the Autumn term.”

NASUWT was approached for comment.

FE college ballot ongoing

Meanwhile, unions representing FE college staff recently negotiated a 4 per cent pay award, but the Association of Colleges admitted that “many” of its college members will be unable to afford it.

Unlike in schools and sixth form colleges, negotiated pay recommendations are not binding, meaning college leaders can decide pay rises themselves.

Staff unions have been calling for binding national bargaining for several years and the University and College Union (UCU) polled its FE members in the summer and found 86 per cent were prepared to take strike action to secure an “above inflation pay rise, binding national bargaining and a national workload agreement”.

The union wrote to 76 college principals to outline its demands ahead of announcing a formal ballot.

UCU subsequently opened a ballot, which is running from October 13 to November 17, asking members at 68 colleges to vote whether to strike over the above demands.