Successes and failures down under can guide FE reform here

Across the world, vocational education systems wrestle with the same fundamental question: how can we build a tertiary system that genuinely serves learners, employers, and communities while avoiding the fragmentation that too often characterises post-16 education?

I’ve worked in both the UK and in Australasia. And I’ve seen first-hand the value of models that seek to unify further and higher education rather than separate them into competing silos. The UK’s FE sector has much to be proud of, but also much it could learn from international practice – particularly in New Zealand and in the state of Victoria, Australia.

New Zealand: Systemic coherence, with cautionary lessons

New Zealand’s reform of its vocational education system over the past five years has been bold. Polytechnics and industry training organisations were brought together under one umbrella, Te Pūkenga. It aimed to avoid duplication, ensure learners could move seamlessly between on- and off-job training and place industry voice at the heart of provision.

At the time of consulting on the establishment of Te Pūkenga, as chief executive of Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) I was directly engaged in workshops with ministers and senior advisors on how the new system might evolve. Our message as sector leaders was clear: if this reform was to succeed, it must be planned carefully and not driven by bureaucratic deadlines. We weren’t saying “don’t do it”. We were saying “if we are to do it, let’s do it properly”.

Unfortunately, the pressure of deadlines and egos won the day. Implementation was beset by challenges that could have been avoided with more considered planning.  Penny Simmonds, who was then chief executive of Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) and is now vocational education minister, is currently defending her decision to break up Te Pūkenga.

The lesson for the UK is an important one: systemic reform can create clarity and coherence, but only if designed with patience, partnership and a willingness to listen to practitioners on the ground.

Victoria, Australia: The pursuit of a unified tertiary system

In Victoria, I worked within a dual-sector university – Federation University Australia, the country’s first cooperative university. This unique model, similar to the designated institution status we hold with the University of Greater Manchester, deliberately blurred the lines between vocational and higher education, offering students flexible pathways that respond to individual needs and regional workforce demands.

At Federation, learners could start in a vocational diploma, progress into a degree, and move in and out of study and work without stigma or structural barriers. This integration didn’t just benefit learners; it also helped employers, who saw skills pathways that were transparent and responsive to industry needs. Importantly, it challenged the hierarchy that so often places higher education above FE. In Victoria, vocational learning is not seen as a “second best” option but as an equally respected part of the tertiary system.

Lessons for the UK

The UK FE sector is often constrained by fragmentation – between schools, colleges, universities, and training providers. We talk about parity of esteem between vocational and academic routes, but too often our structures reinforce division rather than connection

 From New Zealand, we can take inspiration on coherence – but also a cautionary note about reform done in haste.

From Victoria, we can learn how dual-sector approaches can break down artificial barriers between vocational and academic education, allowing true lifelong learning and mobility.  In some areas this already happening; Greater Manchester Colleges is already well underway taking positive action with local universities to collaborate more effectively as a tertiary education network.    

A call for boldness and care

Of course, no international model is perfect. Both New Zealand and Victoria face challenges around funding, quality assurance and public perception. But they share a willingness to attempt systemic solutions rather than piecemeal fixes

Our FE sector needs the same boldness, but also the humility to plan reforms carefully with genuine sector engagement. Rather than tinkering with qualifications or funding rules in isolation, we should ask: what would a genuinely unified tertiary system look like here? And how might we design it to serve learners, communities, and the economy for the long term?

We can either remain in our silos, managing complexity and division, or we can learn from our colleagues abroad – daring to imagine a joined-up system, but ensuring that if we do it, we do it properly.

Creative industries can’t thrive without apprenticeships

Necessity is the mother of invention, according to the proverb. But the UK’s creative sector needs no advice as far as invention is concerned.

These industries are an economic superpower, worth more than the aerospace, automotive, life sciences, and oil and gas sectors combined. And that’s before we even consider the immeasurable joy their output brings to our lives in the realms of music, art, architecture, television, film and fashion.

Nor does this account for the extraordinary potential they are blessed with. The government certainly recognises this, and plans to boost investment in the creative industries from £17 billion to £31 billion by 2035.

But the faster the creative sector grows, the more it’s exposed to skills shortages. These are particularly acute in the higher-level professional and associate roles, standing at 41 per cent and 31 per cent respectively, according to the Department for Education.

The creative industries have many highly skilled positions, and nearly 78 per cent of employers report trouble finding talent. Moreover, two-thirds of employers in the creative sector say they expect their employees will need to upgrade their skills. The sector’s strength, in this respect, could become a weakness.

If we are to address skills shortages, then we need a long-term strategy. It’s vital in a sector that’s both vulnerable to, and at the forefront of, developments in artificial intelligence. New jobs will be created; old ones made superfluous.

Easing restrictions on high-skilled immigration would, of course, help here. So, too, would tailored university courses that close key skills gaps. But if we are serious about a sustainable solution, we must look to apprenticeships – traditionally the most effective way for employers to shape and retain talent.

Unfortunately, when compared to other sectors, take-up of creative apprenticeships is low. They account for fewer than one per cent of all new apprenticeship starts. Since 2019/2020, just 11 per cent of these have been at the higher technical and professional levels which is precisely where the shortages are most acute.

However, poor take-up should not be cause for disappointment but a reason for optimism. Reform the apprenticeship system and we can tackle skills shortages once and for all.

We can encourage young people, especially those from less advantaged backgrounds, into an industry that has long underserved them. A boon for the exchequer, too. Inequality costs Britain £106.2 billion annually, and for every £1 invested in apprentices, the economy gets £21 back.

Fortunately, the government is committed to reform. A new growth and skills levy is planned to revamp the current system. This was also the spur for a series of roundtables held by Birmingham City University and the University of the Arts London – two of Britain’s biggest creative education institutions.

Our new report tackles creative apprenticeships head-on. It highlights key issues, from the ubiquity of short-term contractual work to the lack of employer awareness about the breadth of apprenticeships available, and offers practical solutions.

First, we need a better understanding of demand and provision. A creative skills observatory, delivered through Skills England, could provide this. It would allow us to shape technical and professional provision that responds quickly to future needs, and finally deliver the high-quality training the sector lacks. We also need to harness regional strengths. The kind of provision needed in London, for instance, will differ greatly from that in Manchester.

We must also empower employers. Making more funding available through the growth and skills levy is one route. But we must also – more broadly – take a skills-first, apprenticeship-led approach that gives employers the tools and incentives to invest in talent.

Britain’s creative sector is one of its greatest assets. But in changing times, we must urgently address skills shortages if it is to fulfil its potential. That means more skills, more apprenticeships, and radical reform – so our creative industries don’t just survive, they thrive.

This article was also co-authored by Dr Caroline Sudowrth, Director, STEM Explored Ltd

Trust AI to help deliver FE’s promise of personalised learning

Personalisation has long been the goal in FE. Yet, with diverse cohorts, rising workloads and pressure to demonstrate outcomes, many institutions have struggled to move beyond broad interventions. The solution lies in the resources colleges and universities already hold through their virtual learning environment (VLE): data.

When combined with AI, analytics is transforming how educators identify, support, and motivate learners. The result is a move towards personalised journeys – helping each student progress at a pace that matches their potential. 

Turning data into action 

For years, VLEs stored volumes of data – log-ins, submissions, grades. These platforms acted mainly as storage. Now, with modern platforms in the cloud they are evolving into tools that turn data into actionable insights. 

The pandemic accelerated this change. Viewed warily at first, data is now recognised as a way to build a holistic picture of learners and programmes. Early warning signs, such as missed assessments or reduced log-ins, can be flagged automatically, allowing staff to intervene before students disengage. 

Smarter learning with AI 

AI amplifies what data can achieve. With intuitive dashboards and natural language queries, educators no longer need to be data specialists to uncover insights. Simply asking, “Which learners scored below 70 per cent last week?” can highlight trends and suggest interventions.

This makes personalisation possible at scale. Learners who struggle can access extra support, while those ready to progress can be offered more challenging tasks. Adaptive systems ensure no one is left behind or held back. 

Course-level data can also be combined with wider sources to build a fuller picture of engagement and wellbeing. For example, VLE activity can link with support services, enabling timely outreach about tutoring or mental health. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, institutions can meet learners where they are and guide them along responsive pathways.  

What this means for FE

The implications for the FE sector are significant. Analytics helps institutions see which courses resonate, where completion rates lag, and how to align provision with labour market demand. This is vital given that 86 per cent of employers expect AI to transform their business within five years, with most planning to address skills gaps by hiring talent with new digital competencies. 

The biggest impact is felt by learners. Predictive analytics improve retention rates by identifying those at risk early, while adaptive tools sustain motivation by letting confident learners move ahead and giving others the support they need. Personalisation also extends to format, with course-specific chatbots, podcasts generated from materials, and flexible options allowing students to engage with content in ways that suit them best.  

For educators, data-driven tools ease administration burden. Analytics highlight patterns in engagement and performance that would otherwise take hours to uncover, while integrated systems can flag concerns or generate reports. This frees staff to focus on what matters most – inspiring, mentoring and guiding learners. 

To fully realise these benefits, institutions must address two challenges – skills and trust. Many educators aren’t confident using AI-powered tools. Digital literacy must extend beyond technical training to include strategies for embedding adaptive learning into curriculum design and assessment. 

Trust is equally important. Data must be collected and shared responsibly, with transparency about how insights are generated and used. Clear policies and frameworks give staff and learners confidence that analytics supports success. 

Personalised learning is already being delivered in institutions worldwide. By harnessing the power of data and analytics, FE institutions can create more engaging, equitable and future-ready learning experiences. 

Educators must be equipped with the right tools so they can focus on guiding, inspiring and supporting learners. With thoughtful adoption, the sector can ensure every learner benefits from an education that adapts to their strengths, responds to their challenges, and prepares them to succeed in a global workforce.

Exam success is nothing without the ability to build relationships

When discussing education reform, the main focus is generally on exam changes, funding battles or Ofsted results. But an often-overlooked challenge which can impact learners’ wellbeing is how to connect with others.

As someone who has taught and been a leader in further and higher education, I’ve seen first-hand how many young learners, particularly those who are neurodiverse or from disadvantaged backgrounds, struggle to develop and maintain relationships – not just romantic ones, but friendships, workplace bonds and networks that will impact and shape their future opportunities. This is rarely taught in a structured way.

Growing up, I often felt misunderstood and struggled to connect socially with my peers. These challenges shaped my drive to ensure that learners don’t face the same isolation I did.

This is why I have developed what I call the BRIDGE model. It is a framework to help learners build the social, emotional and relational skills they need to thrive, both within and beyond the classroom.

Why this matters now

There are a vast number of learners who leave college with good qualifications but have limited confidence when navigating relationships. Employers talk about “soft skills” as though they’re a nice-to-have. But they’re not. They are career-defining. Research has shown that resilience, teamwork, empathy and communication play a huge role in success.

For learners who struggle with autism, ADHD or social anxiety, the stakes can be even higher. Without targeted support many learners feel isolated, misunderstood and excluded.

We would not think about sending learners into the world without literacy or numeracy, so why do we allow them to leave without the relational skills to form partnerships, be able to work in a team, or maintain healthy relationships?

What BRIDGE means

The BRIDGE model is built around six pillars:

  • B – Building trust: enabling safe spaces where learners feel valued and listened to
  • R – Resilience: helping learners recover from setbacks and navigate rejection or failure
  • I – Interpersonal skills: teaching the basics of communication, empathy and listening
  • D – Digital relationships: supporting learners in order to manage online communication and social media pressures
  • G – Growth mindset: fostering self-belief and adaptability in order to improve personal connections
  • E – Emotional intelligence: developing awareness of their own feelings and those of others

Each pillar is designed to be practical, not theoretical. So, it is embedded into tutorials, pastoral support and enrichment programmes.

From theory to practice

At Apex College, I’ve piloted elements of BRIDGE in mentoring and tutoring. We ran small workshops on “resilience in relationships” using role play and reflective discussions. Students who had previously struggled to interact in group tasks started leading discussions. One learner told me: “This is the first time I’ve felt like someone taught me how to actually connect with people.”

We’ve also embedded BRIDGE into tutorial sessions by introducing a short ‘digital relationships’ strand, in which learners would reflect on how social media had impacted their friendships and self-esteem. They produced their own digital wellbeing pledges and shared strategies for managing group chats and online pressures.

Additionally, we trialled peer mentoring sessions where second-year learners supported first-years in applying growth mindset strategies during coursework challenges. This boosted new learners’ resilience and empowered the mentors themselves to take leadership roles and develop empathy.

Imagine scaling this across FE. It could sit alongside employability skills, ensuring that learners aren’t just qualified but genuinely prepared for life.

A call to the sector

This isn’t about creating another tick-box initiative. It’s about recognising a gap in our system and stepping up to fill it. We know that learners who feel connected are more likely to stay, achieve and progress.

So, it’s important to build bridges, not barriers. Let’s ensure we give learners the adequate tools to succeed not just in their exams, but in relationships, workplaces, and communities.

If FE really is about preparing learners for their future, then relational education should no longer be optional. It should be essential.

The grim reality of adult education on life support

This summer, I reached a significant personal milestone – 60 years old. It is also a moment to reflect on the fact that I have spent half my life working in the further education and skills sector. 

I love this sector and especially the transformative power of adult education. But the past six months have been incredibly tough. Since the Department for Education’s announcement in February regarding cuts to the adult skills fund (ASF), small adult education providers like mine have been fighting hard to balance budgets and plan for an uncertain future. 

Let us be clear: the government has made a deliberate choice to protect funding for schools, 16–18s and apprenticeships, while reducing the ASF pot. It is a difficult decision no doubt, but one that will have a profound impact on my ability to help my local adults upskill and meet the evolving needs of the economy. 

As a principal, one of the most painful responsibilities I face is cutting courses – and cutting staff. This summer has involved doing both. 

The reality is stark is we can now only offer significantly less than we could just a year ago. In my case, that means around 20 fewer qualification courses available to local residents, at a time when demand has never been higher. 

Saying goodbye to long-serving, loyal staff members is especially difficult. This year’s funding reduction has forced me to make significant cuts to staffing costs. We have undergone two restructures over the summer, resulting in the loss of teaching staff and reductions in our student services team.  

Both have been equally painful. What we do so well at Redbridge depends on the brilliant people who deliver it. And losing them will inevitably affect the quality and reach of my service. 

The future 

As a small local authority provider, we rely heavily on our ASF grant. Being small also means we feel the impact of cuts more acutely. While we will manage this round of reductions, I cannot continue to salami-slice my service indefinitely. We remain outstanding – for now – but with another new inspection framework looming, who knows where we will be next time round? 

So, what is next for the adult education sector? Honestly, I am not sure. The immediate future looks – to put it optimistically – challenging. We will need to keep cutting just to stand still. 

Personally, I remain unconvinced that apprenticeships alone can meet the needs of adults living busy and complex lives. We still need flexible, accessible routes to retraining – which is what the ASF gives us. 

Half of my budget goes toward ESOL provision, and demand in Redbridge far exceeds supply. We urgently need a different funding model for this, one that could immediately ease some of the pressure on the adult skills budget. 

Of course, every crisis presents an opportunity. It forces us to innovate and find more cost-effective ways of working. We are exploring the potential of immersive technology and AI to enhance delivery. But these tools can only go so far in supporting adults to enter a highly competitive job market. 

As things stand, I fear for the long-term future of our sector. I believe we need to urgently explore collaboration – merging or federating with other specialist adult education providers – before it is too late. 

Milestones offer a moment to reflect. And right now, I’m not sure I can face making further cuts to provision and losing even more of the outstanding quality that I currently can provide. I have potentially got seven years to go, but how far will I make it? 

The challenge for resits runs deeper than exam volume

As debate around post-16 resits reforms grows, our latest research shows that just a third of college tutors think the current volume of assessment for post-16 GCSE maths and English is appropriate and more than half of students believe it’s too high. And our work with the Education Policy Institute on their recent resits report also shows that the disparity in outcomes across the country means we need to consider more effective solutions.

However, the resits challenges go far beyond paper count or length. Unless we also address the problem of what students are learning – and how – reducing these will have limited impact.

Key areas of concern

  • Just 31 per cent of tutors think resits give students a second chance.
  • 62 per cent of college students believe that resitting the same content makes students feel they’re going backwards, not forwards (echoed by 58 per cent of tutors).
  • Only 54 per cent of those facing resits feel motivated to take them.
  • 65 per cent of students have missed maths or English lessons and/or exams due to anxiety or confidence issues.
  • Just 51 per cent of tutors think the maths specification meets post-16 learners’ needs (65 per cent for English).
  • 41 per cent say students are less engaged the second time around.

What can we do for assessments now?

As we look to what we can change within existing qualifications, our focus needs to be on improving students’ exam experience.

Short-term adjustments such as reducing the number of exams in maths or changing the content volume in English have widespread support.

In maths, 64 per cent of tutors and 66 per cent of students favour fewer (possibly longer) exams to reduce exam anxiety, boost attendance, and ease logistical pressures on colleges.

For English, 75 per cent of tutors and 73 per cent of students said they would change the exam structure to break down the papers into smaller sections over more exams. To facilitate this, streamlining content and assessment will be key.

Reducing the number of text types, time periods, and writing tasks avoids repetition, improves relevance, and better aligns with the needs of FE teaching contexts.

As one college resit student told us: “It feels repetitive and boring and makes me less likely to want to learn because I already feel like I know it, even if I don’t.”

What next?

Adjustments to exam length and structure may help in the short term, but they only treat symptoms. We need English and maths GCSEs that are designed specifically for post-16 students that build the relevant skills young people need for their lives and future careers.

We need qualifications with parity of esteem that better recognise student success, remove the expectations to repeat previously mastered skills and give educators and employers a clearer view of students’ literacy and numeracy skills. 

Across English and maths, tutors and students were clear they wanted assessments that feel relevant, achievable, and meaningful.

For English, tutors called for:

  • Content relevant to college students’ lives and futures (77.5 per cent)
  • The ability to build up credit/marks across more than one exam session (76 per cent)
  • Provision of anthology of texts to remove ‘unseen’ aspect (76 per cent)
  • Greater focus on writing skills (76 per cent)

For maths, they said: 

  • Content that feels more relevant to everyday life (e.g. money, work, practical maths) (79 per cent)
  • More in-class support and practice (78 per cent)
  • Digital/tech-based assessment options (78 per cent)
  • Reduce overall assessment time (76 per cent)
  • The ability to build up credit/marks across more than one exam session (76 per cent)

Time for a resits rethink

The evidence points in one direction: it is time for a resits rethink.

That rethink should be rooted not in continued debate but in trialling and piloting new approaches, giving us an evidence-informed view of what really works.

We’re working on what this looks like.

We are already trialling new assessment models in colleges across both maths and English. While in their early stages, the aim is clear: to give students the chance not only to demonstrate the expectations of a grade 4, but to break the demoralising cycle of resits.

Two students summarised our collective goal when they said that they need a “better way to learn” for resits and a “better way of doing exams”.

If we can deliver both, resits can become a bridge instead of a barrier to achievement.

Defunding English lessons for migrants will fracture communities

When Reform UK say they want migrants to integrate, but at the same time propose slashing English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) funding, they undermine their own stated goal. You cannot have integration without communication.

Integration is more than assimilation. It is a two-way process – a relationship between newcomers and the communities they join. It is about language, yes, but also about building trust, participating in civic life and contributing to the economy.

If we remove the single most important tool for this – language education – we risk creating isolated communities, mistrust, and greater division, exactly the opposite of what Reform say they want.

The Home Office’s own 2019 Indicators of Integration Framework identifies language and communication as key facilitators of integration. People who learn English are more likely to find work, volunteer, and build relationships outside their immediate community.

The 2011 Census shows that 89 per cent of the UK’s foreign-born population already speak English well or very well – proof that most migrants are willing and able to learn. The real barrier is access. 
 
Integration is not about one group changing while the other stands still – it is a mutual process. When we provide language education, we equip migrants to participate and at the same time strengthen communities by enabling real dialogue, reducing tensions, and fostering shared understanding. 

And yet, ESOL provision in England is already stretched thin. Funding dropped from £247 million in 2010/11 to £186 million in 2023/24 – a 25 per cent reduction in real terms – despite sustained demand.

In 2022/23, 150,000 places were funded, the highest in a decade, but concentrated in just a few large cities and nowhere near enough to meet need. Cutting further will simply lock more people out of the system. 

Further cuts would mean classes shut down at colleges such as WM College, waiting lists getting longer, and people who desperately want to learn English being told there is no space for them.

It would mean skilled professionals – nurses, engineers, care workers – being unable to retrain and fill labour market shortages because their English is not strong enough. It would mean parents being unable to support their children’s education because they cannot read school letters or talk to teachers.

It would mean neighbours who cannot talk to one another, breeding misunderstanding and fear. 

The economic cost would also be significant. ESOL is not just a social good – it is an economic investment. People who speak English are more likely to work, earn more, and pay more tax. They are less likely to rely on benefits. Cutting ESOL may save money on paper, but it will create greater demand for welfare, health services and housing support down the line. 
 
Research from the Learning and Work Institute shows that every£1 invested in ESOL returns multiple pounds to the economy through higher productivity and tax contributions. Cutting ESOL is therefore a false economy that undermines growth at a time when the UK needs skilled, work-ready people more than ever. 

Reform’s proposals also assume local authorities could simply “opt out” of providing ESOL. In reality, ESOL funding comes largely through the adult education budget, commissioned nationally by the government (or by combined authorities where powers are devolved).

Councils can influence provision, but removing it altogether would create huge service gaps and put them in breach of statutory duties to support community cohesion. It would also risk tension with employers who depend on skilled migrant labour but need workers who can speak English.  

Integration policy in England is already patchy compared with Scotland, which has had a national ESOL strategy since 2007. The current fragmented approach is failing to deliver for learners or for society.

The European Commission has long emphasised that language programmes are central to successful integration, and countries like Sweden offer comprehensive packages including language, civic education, and job preparation as standard. England should be looking to strengthen its offer – not dismantle it. 

Language learning is not a luxury.It is not something people can simply pick up on an app like Duolingo. It is a human right, a civic necessity, and a key to unlocking social mobility. As the author Khaled Hosseini wrote, “If culture was a house, then language was the key to the front door, [and] to all the rooms inside.” 

The message is simple: integration cannot happen without language. And language cannot be learned without access to culturally supported education. Integration done well benefits all.

Replacing paper with the cloud is a pie-in-the-sky CO2 solution

My college went paperless years ago. I’ve lost count how many photocopies I’ve done since then.

Thankfully, my laptop screen provides me with a little personalised counter of how much my printing has cost. It was accumulating, un-reset for years, so the figure was astronomical. House deposit levels of finance seemed to be involved.

I felt like a monster when I clicked on the little green numbers, only to be warned of how many trees have been felled for me, and how much carbon I’ve frittered away on my mindless papery rush towards photocopier-driven armageddon.

When we’re all struggling to survive the coming climate catastrophe and dystopian wasteland which follows, I’m scared my little counter might then count as evidence against me. It may be the testimony of those judgemental green digits that leads to me being buried alive in an eco-pod from which a tree will one day grow. A fitting revenge for Mother Nature, who is plainly tired of being pulped up and printed on. 

Honestly, I don’t know how a college can become paperless. I’ve seen the figures about the energy it would save. But none has yet included the money saved on photocopiers, paper and ink. No doubt the ink savings alone would run into millions of pounds per student if my home printer is anything to go by.

I would love to work in a truly environmentally-friendly college. When our new campus was built years ago, its smaller carbon footprint was heralded. The dream was good and the hopes were high, but they somewhat died, running aground on the rocks of reality, institutional busyness and plain human apathy. Nobody talked about sustainability after the first few years in the new-build. Then we became paperless. After a fashion, at least. 

Of course, the purpose of paperlessness was to embrace online access. It was a brave new world. If we were not working with paper, we could live the dream of surfing the world on the web and save work in the intangible ever-accessible, albeit securely locked cloud. A lot simpler than unblocking scrumpled-up jams, being delayed by empty ink tanks, and restocking vacant paper trays.

But I haven’t yet seen the comparative calculations on the carbon usage of cloud storage and the enormous energy consumption of AI per student. I fear it might be dizzying. Hungary is currently constructing two nuclear power stations to support its drive to become a data-centre hub. So our college’s banks of ever-recharging laptops, the cloud storage we provide, the increasing use of AI, the emails flying around, and every other electronic communication we’ve adopted to replace paper have no doubt given us enormous carbon footprints.

If being paperless was just to save money, that was one thing. But if it was for sincere ecological reasons, we may have merely displaced the problem, much as large economies export their carbon costs to smaller countries. I suspect our overall carbon use has risen since seeking to forego paper. So we may have saved money, but have we saved the world? What of e-waste, the hardware junk we all discard, and the energy used on storing thousands of redundant files online?

I don’t really know how to go paperless – or full-on cloudily stored and artificially intelligent, either. I’m stranded, one foot planted on wood-pulp and the other immersed in the cotton-wool insubstantiality of the cloud.

In my classes, students need to annotate and analyse with paper and pens. But we obviously use online storage too. We could just be a little less papery, but it surprises me how much paper digital-native students want and need. Their folders are bursting by the end of the year. When I send them documents, they just print them out because the online version will only otherwise get lost in the undergrowth of the virtual forest.

Papered or wholly electronic, we face a difficult choice. There’s enormous environmental cost in using paper, and another in going paper-free. Whichever way, I will still need to think through my practice for the sake of the trees – unless AI can work out an answer for me.

Project power: ASDAN expands its qualifications portfolio

ASDAN is preparing to launch two new project-based qualifications that will give learners more opportunities to build confidence, develop transferable skills and progress in ways that feel meaningful to them.

From September 2026, ASDAN members will be able to register learners for the Foundation Project Qualification (FPQ, Level 1) and Higher Project Qualification (HPQ, Level 2) (pending Ofqual approval). They will sit alongside the existing Extended Project Qualification (EPQ, Level 3), creating a complete progression pathway.

For ASDAN, this development is much more than a portfolio expansion. It’s a natural continuation of its learner-centred ethos.

“Project qualifications are so closely aligned to our DNA as an organisation,” says Cath Moss, ASDAN’s Qualifications Manager. “They allow learners to demonstrate their skills in a context that’s meaningful to them – whether that’s through an academic dissertation, an artefact, or a project linked to work experience. That freedom is incredibly powerful for engagement.”

Building on firm foundations

Project qualifications were introduced nationally in response to concerns that too many young learners lacked the skills needed to succeed beyond school. Independent research, including the Wolf Report review of vocational education, highlighted the need for qualifications that could strengthen independence, critical thinking, and applied learning.

All awarding organisations that deliver project qualifications do this against the same regulator-defined objectives. The difference lies in how they are supported and contextualised.

Where some awarding bodies focus mainly on written dissertations, ASDAN embraces a wider range of evidence – including artefacts and work experience projects. This aligns directly with ASDAN’s tradition of flexible, skills-based learning and ensures that learners from diverse backgrounds and pathways can participate fully.

Why project qualifications matter

The benefits of FPQ, HPQ and EPQ are broad and significant:

  • choice and autonomy – learners select their own project topic, giving them ownership and motivation
  • transferable skills – planning, research, evaluation and communication are embedded throughout
  • recognition – EPQ carries up to 16 UCAS points; FPQ and HPQ provide stepping stones with GCSE equivalence
  • engagement – learners who may struggle in traditional settings can thrive when learning is contextualised

Cath highlights the impact:

“Being able to choose the context for their study is transformative. It allows learners to demonstrate what they can do through a topic of personal interest, rather than being limited to what a syllabus dictates.”

Seamless progression

The introduction of FPQ and HPQ strengthens ASDAN’s progression ladder. Learners can move from ASDAN’s Short Courses and Personal Development Programmes (PDP) into its Personal Effectiveness Qualifications (PEQ), and then on to project qualifications at Levels 1, 2 and 3.

This means providers have options at every stage. Learners not ready for Level 2 can start with the FPQ, while those building towards higher education can aim for the EPQ with the confidence and skills developed along the way.

“Wherever your learner is at now, we can take them from where they are and support them towards achieving a project qualification at the right level,” Cath explains.

Relevant and recognised

For employers, parents and higher education institutions, project qualifications are easy to recognise and understand. They carry the same weight and kudos as general qualifications such as GCSEs, while offering learners greater flexibility in subject matter and an alternative way of being assessed.

This dual value of credibility in the system and relevance to the learner, makes them particularly powerful in today’s education landscape, where engagement and progression remain key challenges.

Looking ahead

First teaching of the FPQ and HPQ is planned for September 2026, but ASDAN is already working with their members to prepare for delivery. Their arrival will give providers new tools to keep learners engaged, build core skills and offer credible routes to further study or employment.

For ASDAN, they represent more than new qualifications. They reaffirm the organisation’s mission: enabling learners to flourish by connecting learning to their interests, aspirations and real-world experiences.

Find out more

ASDAN’s new project qualifications will offer a powerful way to motivate learners, strengthen progression, and deliver results that matter.

To learn more, visit asdan.org.uk and fill out this expression of interest form – the ASDAN team are ready to speak to you about your options.