For Skills England to succeed, the sector must lead

As sure as night follows day, Skills England will not last.
Not because it will fail in its work or because its people lack competence or commitment. It won’t last because it is a political creation – and every time the government changes, the new administration wants to show it’s doing something different. That is the rhythm of Whitehall.

Quangos such as Skills England are born with great fanfare and expectations they will “transform” the skills system. Yet they are constrained from the outset. Ministers demand results yesterday, chairs and board members soon realise the limits of their power, and enthusiasm ebbs away as delivery lags behind political ambition.

Government skills policies tend to sit at 30,000 feet – simplify the funding and qualifications system, fix NEETs, involve employers, upskill the workforce. The flexibility this vagueness provides can be useful, but it leaves others to fill in the detail. That is where representative bodies come in.

Good representation matters

Membership organisations exist to serve their members, so they have vested interests. The best ones use that mandate positively, proposing ideas that make policy work better and help members thrive while delivering government objectives. The worst attack others, highlight problems without offering solutions and forget that the elected government, like it or not, sets policy direction. If you dislike the policies, the remedy is at the ballot box.

Running a membership body is never easy. Every member has a different view. The art is to satisfy enough of them, enough of the time, while demonstrating progress overall. Across the skills landscape, common interests are clear: a shared strategy, proportionate regulation, sensible investment and a bridge between policy and delivery.

What we hear on the ground

At The Skills Network, we partner with hundreds of colleges, independent training providers, local authorities and awarding bodies. Week in, week out, I meet principals and CEOs. The themes are strikingly similar regardless of organisation type. Funding is tight, that’s a given. But the deeper frustration lies in how the system works, or doesn’t. Regulation often seems to get in the way of delivering what government itself says it wants.

We should also recognise some practical truths. Local authorities have political masters; colleges are public sector; independent providers are, well, independent. Whether not-for-profit or commercial shouldn’t matter.  If the funding and rules are right, all can contribute effectively to national goals.

One voice, or many?

Ministers often claim they want a single voice from the sector, but only when that voice agrees with them. In a fragmented landscape, “divide and rule” is easy. Previous attempts to unite the sector have faltered because individual interests trumped collective purpose, critics sniped from outside, sponsors distorting agendas, with no neutral arbiter to manage disagreements.

A sector-led solution

So what might a Skills England-style body run by the sector for the sector look like? One that endures beyond political cycles and focuses on what really matters: defining and delivering an effective skills system and maximising the billions already invested?

Key elements would include:

  • A strong chair, skilled in managing relationships between member bodies, politics and the civil service, and scrupulously non-partisan.
  • Balanced representation from across the delivery spectrum, each with an equal voice.
  • Collective responsibility: members publicly back decisions even when debates behind closed doors are robust.
  • Clear boundaries on when the organisation speaks with one voice and when members can lobby individually.
  • Realism: don’t try to boil the ocean. Set a long-term vision and take steady steps towards it.
  • A small coordinating team working through member bodies rather than creating another bureaucracy.
  • A focus on delivery, representing those charged with implementing government and employer priorities – not necessarily including employers themselves, who define need..

Worth the effort

Building such a body would take time, patience and compromise. There would be many disagreements, and progress would sometimes be slow. But done right, it could make a profound difference to the stability and coherence of our skills system.

Skills England will come and go, as its predecessors did. What endures is the need for the sector itself to take ownership – to collaborate, focus on delivery, and speak with clarity about what works. Only then will our skills system be resilient enough to outlast the next political cycle.

College pulls statement about its future after failing to get DfE sign off

A financially troubled Hampshire college has been forced to withdraw a statement containing claims about the outcome of an FE Commissioner review of its operations after failing to seek “ministerial approval” before publication.

This week, Havant and South Downs College (HSDC), which is under financial intervention, issued a press release declaring that an FE Commissioner-led review has ruled out a merger with another college as its cashflow issues are “in the past”.

However, today the college asked FE Week to “disregard and withdraw” the press release, which it claimed was an “early draft” that was “inadvertently sent” without ministerial approval.

It said: “This was premature and in error as the contents are still subject to details being confirmed and to subsequent ministerial approval.

“We would, therefore, ask you to disregard and withdraw that press release while the details are being finalised and ministerial approval is being sought”.

A “revised” statement will be issued “in the New Year”, the spokesperson added.

The college has also removed a post titled, “HSDC confirms strong and independent future following strategic review” from its website. 

The post asserted that an FE Commissioner-led strategic review of whether it should restructure or merge, known as a structure and prospects appraisal (SPA), had found that the college is “well-positioned” to continue operating independently.

It added: “The process recognised that the college’s financial challenges are in the past and good progress has been made to resolve any issues.”

Troubled colleges are usually required to publish the FE Commissioner’s initial assessments after entering intervention, but SPAs remain confidential, even if they recommend major restructures such as a merger or campus closure.

HSDC was placed in intervention in May this year after “late identification” of expenditure resulted in its predicted £763,000 surplus for 2023-24, becoming a £548,000 end-of-year deficit.

The initial FE Commissioner’s assessment of the college’s challenges, published in October, revealed that trust between governors and leaders had broken down after the scale of the deteriorating finances came “out of the blue”.

That year, it had an overall income of about £42 million, with staff costs of about 72 per cent of its turnover, above the FE Commissioner’s 65 per cent benchmark.

FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave’s team found “inaccurate” financial reporting to governors and a “risky reliance” on future land-sale receipts to fund an “ambitious property strategy”.

Since the intervention, HSDC has implemented a large-scale redundancy programme of up to a third of its 1,000-strong workforce and principal and CEO Mike Gaston announced his retirement.

The withdrawn press release said HSDC governors have “formally endorsed” the FE Commissioner’s recommendation to remain stand alone.

Mike Gaston, principal and CEO, who retires next month, had said the news meant he had “complete confidence” in the college’s future and new leadership, which would take it “from strength to strength”.

HSDC is has a ‘good’ overall effectiveness grade from Ofsted and teaches about 6,500 students across its three campuses in Waterlooville, Havant and Alton.

Brenda McLeish quits Learning Curve Group

The high-profile boss of a large national training provider has suddenly stood down. 

Brenda McLeish will leave her post as chief executive of Learning Curve Group (LCG) today. 

In a statement this morning, McLeish said: “The time has come for me to step aside and allow the next chapter of LCG’s story to unfold. 

“After leading the organisation through significant growth and transformation, I feel this is the right moment to hand over to new leadership who will continue building on the strong foundations I helped create and thrive for years to come.”

As well as stepping down as CEO, ending 17 years at the group, McLeish has also resigned from the board of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers.

“While I will no longer be in the CEO role, I will remain a passionate advocate for Learning Curve Group and the life-changing work it does. Thank you for your support, collaboration, and trust throughout this journey—it has meant the world to me,” McLeish said.

McLeish has been a high-profile advocate of the independent training provider sector, frequently speaking at sector and regional events. She joined Learning Curve in 2008, first as group managing director, before becoming chief executive in 2015. 

A spokesperson for LCG said: “Brenda has been instrumental in building this organisation into what it is today.  We are grateful for her leadership and the strong foundations she leaves behind. We are pleased she will remain supportive of the ‘Purple People’ for a period in an advisory capacity under a consultancy arrangement.

“The LCG strategic board will act as a leadership committee and lead the organisation on an interim basis. The board is already engaged in a succession process to identify a permanent CEO.”

LCG had a turnover of £32 million in the financial year 2024-25 and an after-tax profit of £5 million. However, the group’s latest financial statements also flag a “material uncertainty” over the future of the business due to around £80m in bank loans held by Boyd Topco Limited (a parent entity of Learning Curve) becoming repayable in March 2026.

FE Week has approached Learning Curve Group’s owners, Agilitas Private Equity, for comment.

The news bookends the year which began with a settlement between LCG and the Department for Education, ending an 18-month-long legal battle that alleged DfE “unlawfully” rejected LCG’s 2023 adult education budget bid.

Sixth form college teacher banned for life over sexual messages to student

A sixth form college teacher has been banned from teaching for life after a professional conduct panel found he sent messages of a sexual nature to a student and showed “no remorse” for his behaviour. 

Andrew Bennington taught at Scarborough Sixth Form College from September 2013 until his resignation in January 2025 after admitting he had contacted a learner on social media, including sending a winking emoji, and later a series of inappropriate messages on social media.

In a prohibition order published earlier this month, the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) ruled Bennington posed a “risk of repetition” and that his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and behaviour likely to bring the profession into disrepute.

Around January 2024, Bennington sent a winking emoji to ‘Former Pupil A’ while they were still studying at the college. The TRA did not name the app used, but said it is “known as being a site to facilitate contact of a romantic or sexual nature between adults.” 

The learner told investigators the message, sent on a Sunday evening, made them not want to come into college the next day.

After the learner left the college, Bennington continued to contact them online. Towards the end of 2024, the now-former student accepted a friend request from him on Facebook. The panel found Bennington had sent messages including: “you 18 now??”, “I’ve my iPad for general internet porn” and “you’re just around the corner if you ever want to come round during the week”.

The panel ruled that several of the messages and emojis exchanged were sexual in nature. Some were deemed sexual regardless of Bennington’s intent, while others were found to be sexually motivated after he admitted during the college’s investigation that he was “fishing” to see if the former student “was interested”.

During the college’s investigation, Bennington said he was embarrassed about what he had done, acknowledged he should not have sent the messages and admitted to unsending some of them.

However, the panel concluded that while Bennington had accepted responsibility for his actions, he had not demonstrated any understanding of why his conduct was wrong or the impact on the student, and had shown no remorse.

“There was no evidence that Mr Bennington’s actions were not deliberate,” the panel said, adding that his lack of insight and remorse created an ongoing safeguarding risk.

The TRA imposed a prohibition order with no review period, meaning Bennington is barred indefinitely from teaching in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England.

The decision maker said allowing Bennington to apply for a review would not be sufficient to maintain public confidence in the profession, given the seriousness of the misconduct, the risk of repetition and the “absence of full insight”.

The case comes as legislation laid in Parliament last year extends the remit of the TRA to further education and independent training providers from September 2026.

Phil Rumsey, principal of Scarborough Sixth Form College, said: “The safeguarding team were made aware of possible misconduct by Mr Bennington in January 2025. This was investigated quickly in line with the college’s policies which resulted in a referral to the local authority designated officer (LADO). 

“Mr Bennington admitted what he had done and offered his resignation without notice, which was accepted. The matter was subsequently referred to the TRA with the published outcome. The speed at which this was investigated with the correct outcome shows the college policies are strong and fit for purpose, and on review no changes were deemed necessary. 

“The student involved left the college the previous summer for reasons completely unrelated to this, which the college later verified as part of the investigation. As a result, there has been no significant negative impact on any staff or students. 

“The college had updated its code of conduct for staff in September and all staff received training, which included reference to relationships between staff and students.  We were both shocked and saddened by Mr Bennington’s actions and it appeared to be very out of character from the hard-working, dedicated teacher he was, but we are also confident that this was a one-off.”

To lead on inclusion, FE needs more neurodiverse thinkers at its top tables

Further Education leadership traditionally has been measured by numbers such as retention, achievement and Ofsted ratings. But now the sector is facing issues such as challenges from digital disruption to funding cut pressures, perhaps what we actually need in this sector is a different kind of leader. A leader who sees problems from unusual angles, questions the status quo and builds environments and teams where difference is valued.

In other words, FE needs neurodiverse leadership.

Why this matters

In the UK one in seven people are neurodiverse. Yet when it comes to FE leadership, those voices remain largely invisible. Neurodiverse learners are slowly starting to receive more inclusive teaching and adjustments. However, when it comes to decision-making tables, there is limited representation.

This is definitely a missed opportunity. Research has shown that neurodiverse leaders often excel in various areas such as creativity, pattern recognition and problem-solving. They also have a unique empathy for learners who feel invisible and excluded because they themselves have lived through similar obstacles themselves. I can vouch for this myself as an autistic leader; I tend to have more empathy for students and staff and can see problems in others which I faced. In sectors facing rapid change, these traits are not optional extras. They are essential for resilience and innovation. Research by Deloitte highlights that neurodiverse teams can be 30 percent more productive in some tasks, particularly those requiring creativity and pattern recognition. Similarly, Made By Dyslexia estimates that one in five people are dyslexic, many of whom bring strong problem-solving and communication skills to leadership roles.

So why are there so few openly neurodiverse FE leaders?

  • Many fear that disclosing their diagnosis will potentially impact their selection.
  • Recruitment pipelines reward conformity rather than someone different, which filters out those who think or communicate in a way which maybe seen as non-traditional.
  • Workplace culture still favours narrow expectations of what leadership should look like, from networking events to rigid communication styles.

These barriers create a leadership pipeline that is far narrower than the talent available in our sector.

A CIPD report on neurodiversity at work found that traditional recruitment and promotion processes often filter out neurodiverse candidates because they emphasise conformity over potential. This means leadership pools across sectors, including education, are not reflecting the real diversity of the workforce.

What FE can do differently

If FE truly wants inclusion, it cannot stop just at classrooms. Leaders can create systems and environments that welcome and promote neurodiverse talent at every level.

  1. Rethink recruitment. Job descriptions can list requirements that can often exclude neurodiverse applicants. Having a more flexible process such as task-based interviews or work trials, could surface talent that is missed by traditional methods. 
  2. Mentorship and sponsorship. Neurodiverse staff should have access to mentoring and, crucially, senior sponsors who can advocate and push them as future leaders.
  3. CPD with inclusion built in. Leadership training must go beyond finance and strategy to include self-awareness, inclusive practice and different communication styles.
  4. Celebrating role models. FE needs to encourage more leaders to share their lived experience. This will encourage more young people that being a leader even with neurodiversity is possible.

I know the obstacles that I faced. I also understand the value of different thinking in leadership; The ability to spot patterns others may miss, to connect with learners who feel invisible and to challenge traditions. These should not be seen as weaknesses, but strengths. Harvard Business Review notes that neurodiverse leaders often demonstrate unique empathy and adaptability, qualities that are increasingly valued in complex and uncertain environments. This underlines why representation at leadership level matters as much as classroom inclusion.

A call to action

FE has talented neurodiverse professionals who could bring that same perspective. These professionals have the creativity and resilience which is needed to navigate times of rapid change. But without intentional change, these potential leaders will continue to be overlooked.

If FE wants to lead on inclusion, it must practice what it teaches. That means creating opening leadership pathways to neurodiverse leaders, assessing recruitment, and building cultures and environments where difference is not hidden but valued.

The sector cannot afford to waste talent. The future of FE depends on leaders who can think outside of the box.

We’re training brilliant digital talent only for employers to overlook them

A few months ago, I was speaking with a group of digital bootcamp graduates at an employer led event in the Midlands. One learner in her mid-30s who was sharp and motivated, and retraining after redundancy, had built an entire web app from scratch told me she’d applied for 47 digital roles and heard back from one. She laughed as she said it, but it was the kind of laugh you use to cover frustration.

“Apparently,” she said, “I’m both ‘skilled’ and ‘not experienced enough’ at the same time.”

That line stuck with me, because it sums up what so many FE providers have been telling me while launching Agenda for Change (AFC): the UK doesn’t have a digital talent shortage, it has a progression blockage.

On the provider side, things look good; Strong teaching, relevant curriculum, and high motivation of learners who boast completion rates that you might assume would impress employers. But when learners step out of the classroom and into the job market, the doors often stay shut.

Providers tell me the real problem isn’t the learning; It’s the leap. The first role. The first “yes.”

One head of digital summed it up perfectly for me over coffee: “Ben, we’re preparing people for real jobs employers say they can’t fill but employers still hire like it’s 2009.”

And this isn’t affecting everyone equally. Adults retraining, people switching careers later in life, learners from under-represented groups these are often the candidates who thrive in FE and bootcamps yet struggle the most at the hiring stage. They didn’t follow a traditional academic path, so their applications fall into the “maybe later” pile, no matter how capable they are.

There’s another layer to this too. AI-driven hiring tools are increasingly screening candidates long before a human ever sees their application. These systems tend to favour familiar profiles and past patterns, which means FE learners, career-switchers and those from non-traditional backgrounds are often filtered out by the algorithm itself, not their ability.

All this is happening at the same time that AI is turning digital roles upside down.

Ask employers what skills they need in the next three years and the answer is usually a thoughtful pause. The World Economic Forum predicts that 44 per cent of workers skills will be disrupted within five years.

So, it’s no wonder employers are unsure how to hire they’re still figuring out what roles even exist.

Yet FE is adapting far faster than people realise. Colleges are weaving AI literacy into courses. Bootcamps are shifting towards workflow automation, data literacy and applied problem-solving. Tutors are upskilling constantly, often learning new tools a few weeks before they teach them.

The issue isn’t FE falling behind. It’s employers falling behind FE.

What needs to change?

First, employers need better ways to assess early-career digital talent beyond the usual degree-or-bust approach. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) has repeatedly highlighted that “experience inflation” is locking capable people out of entry-level roles, digital roles included. If employers genuinely want new talent, they need to start valuing skills and potential not just familiar CV formats.

Second, we need far deeper collaboration between providers and employers. Not just guest lectures or advisory boards, but genuine co-design of curriculum, job simulations and entry routes shaped around real working practices especially as AI continues changing the nature of digital work.

And finally, we need to confront a truth that’s been hiding in plain sight: skills aren’t the bottleneck, recruitment practices are.

If employers genuinely want to be “future fit”, they need to start recognising the talent being trained right now instead of filtering it out before it’s even had a chance.

Right now, we are training talented people who could fill the UK’s digital gaps, but they’re stuck at stage one because hiring processes haven’t evolved in step with FE provision or the pace of AI.

That learner who applied for 47 roles didn’t lack skills. She lacked access. And there are thousands just like her diverse, motivated, adaptable, ready to work.

The question now is whether employers are ready to meet them where they are …

A volunteer-led approach could break the resit failure cycle  

The GCSE resit policy is in crisis. In summer 2025, 17.1 per cent of post-16 entries in maths and 20.9 per cent in English achieved a grade 4 or above. Despite billions spent and years of interventions, pass rates remain stagnant, leaving thousands stuck in a cycle of resits.

The curriculum and assessment review rightly called time on this cycle. It found that performance measures have contributed to repeated resits and premature exam entries. In response, the Department for Education will revise progress measures and is pushing for stronger accountability in English and maths teaching – not just compliance. 

But policy alone won’t fix the problem. If we want different outcomes, we need different delivery. One practical solution is volunteer tutoring, which complements classroom teaching without unrealistically asking exhausted teachers to do more. Instead, it taps into a pool of trained volunteers including trainee teachers, retired professionals, and employer-supported volunteers who want to make a difference.

More hours, same outcomes?

From 2025-26, providers must offer a minimum 100 hours of in-person, whole-class teaching in English and/or maths for students below grade 4. It’s a bold bet that time on task will raise pass rates. But growing inputs without changing the design of learning may not improve outcomes, especially for vulnerable groups like care-experienced learners.

The shape of provision matters as much as the hours. Pairing the 100-hour rule with a scalable model of targeted volunteer support would help those who are most at risk.  Volunteers can provide personalised attention that large classes cannot, turning mandated hours into meaningful learning.   

From experience supporting care-experienced learners, a volunteer-led tutoring model backed by strong local partnerships offers three standout features:

Trained volunteers: Delivering structured one-to-one tutorials by specialist volunteer coaches either online or in-person can radically lower cost while sustaining personalisation.

Partnerships remove friction: Working with virtual school heads, local authorities and FE providers identifies learners early and starts tuition quickly.

Progress first, resit second: Focuses strongly on targeting knowledge gaps and confidence, aligned with the stepping stone qualifications recommended by the curriculum and assessment review.  

This combination of teacher volunteering and fast start-up times can complement the 100-hour rule to help disadvantaged learners turn mandated hours into meaningful learning.

A blueprint for what works

FE leaders and policymakers could advocate the following to make this work: 

Blend the 100-hour rule with targeted volunteer-led tutoring. By ring-fencing funds for disadvantaged groups to co-commission volunteer-led tutoring so that learners below grade 3 are quickly aligned and ready for the ‘stepping stone’ approach and content. 

Brokering employer-supported tutoring. By working with business leaders and local authority leaders to leverage local skills improvement plans and recruit regional employer cohorts who provide trained volunteers.

Prioritising care-experienced learners. Setting a requirement for your college to ensure a care-experienced English and maths plan is put in place, with early diagnostics and tutoring offers.

Many will understandably contest whether volunteer tutoring can be reliable and big enough to scale-up. But there are many key learnings the volunteer-led model can introduce and for the interim at least, several reasons to suggest that it can plug the gap.

Prioritising online delivery for volunteer-assisted support would also eliminate travel time and broaden matching, enabling consistent monitoring. For care-experienced students whose placements often change, continuity is imperative for their equity. Volunteer tutoring would complement, not replace the 100 hours. Because volunteer-led tutoring is supplementary, it’s a model that works to provide flexible support that doesn’t cannibalise classroom capacity.

A moment for bold reform

The curriculum and assessment review offers a chance to turn the GCSE resit policy into something that works more effectively for learners, schools and colleges, and the economy. Success depends on designing effective provision for disadvantaged learners. 

Volunteer-powered models like ours (which is sponsored by Harrow School) won’t solve everything. But they solve the central constraint on cost, without giving up one thing that we know changes trajectories for the hardest-to-reach learners – consistent and personalised attention. 

If we pair this with the government’s renewed focus on time, progression and pathways, we can finally build a resit system that works for everyone. 

FE Commissioner: ‘I never intended to force college mergers – but bigger groups have thrived’

Forcing colleges to merge has “never” been the intention of FE Commissioner Shelagh Legrave – but most have “thrived” after forming a bigger group, she has said in her final annual report.

The FE Commissioner’s (FEC) yearly roundup for 2024-25, the last before Ellen Thinnesen takes over in January, delves into the extent of her team’s increasingly “active” support for the college sector during her tenure.

Sector-wide concerns raised by Legrave include the “scale and pace” of Department for Education qualifications reform, adult education funding and “sobering” reminders of governance failures amid recruitment challenges.

Balancing the books has been the main challenge faced by the six colleges that entered intervention last year, with five doing so due to their financial health.

Ten colleges have merged since Legrave took office in October 2021, some after entering intervention and others “voluntarily” seeking financial resilience in a larger college group.

Reflecting on her four-year term, former Chichester College Group chief executive Legrave said: “It has never been my intention to force mergers on colleges, but sometimes this is the right solution.

“It is also becoming much more difficult to survive as a general further education college if turnover is less than £20 million.”

Most college groups have “thrived” following mergers, while their leaders have remained “thoughtful” about ensuring colleges remain “for local communities,” she added.

‘Proud’ of intervention curbing

The total number of colleges in intervention fell from 23 to eight between October 2021 and October 2025, one of the commissioner’s key objectives.

Time in intervention has also reportedly reduced to 84 weeks against a target of 272 weeks, although this year is the first that the annual report has published this metric.

Four colleges left intervention in the last year, with three moving into post intervention monitoring and support. Legrave said she is “proud” of these figures.

‘Sobering’ reminders of bad governance

Without naming the most prominent governance failure in recent years – the multi-million-pound payments to Weston College’s ex-principal Sir Paul Phillips – Legrave emphasised the importance of expert governors making decisions “rooted in public values”.

Legrave’s last orders: build cash, challenge leaders and don’t ignore teaching
Read FE Week’s exit interview with the FEC

Good governance is a “crucial element” in successful colleges but recruitment remains “challenging” in “some locations especially for finance/audit, FE curriculum/quality and those who have the expertise to chair committees”, she said.

Since June 2025, 23 colleges have asked the government’s FE Governor Recruitment Service for help and there is demand for “nearly 50 governor roles”.

The commissioner added: “Sector findings this year are a sobering reminder of where it can go wrong if public values are not underpinning the actions of governors and senior executives.

“Chairs and governors should be focused on continuous improvement. I am encouraged by good examples of boards using external appraisers to assess the performance of chairs or have a senior independent governor, drawing on practice from the private sector.”

Active support

College feedback on the commissioner’s work appears positive, with the latest survey suggesting that 82 per cent have accessed some form of active support and 92 per cent providing positive feedback about it.

Active support, which also offered to 61 local authority FE providers, includes preparing for Ofsted inspections, structural reviews, financial health checks, curriculum efficiency and financial sustainability support (CEFSS), and leadership and governance advice.

“Since its introduction in 2021, ‘active support’ offered through the FEC team has gone from strength to strength and now enjoys very strong, voluntary take-up across the FE sector,” the report said.

During the 2024-25 academic year, 36 FE colleges engaged with CEFSS, with half asking for more in-depth follow up support.

The commissioner’s team carried out financial health checks on four FE colleges and 15 local authorities.

They also started four structure and prospects appraisals (SPAs) and completed two, reviewing whether “a change” such as a merger is needed to “maintain financial sustainability”.

Leaders’ wellbeing

Mental health and wellbeing supervision for FE leaders, offered by UK charity Education Support, has also showed “clear benefits”, the report said.

Since its introduction began in 2023 195 FE leaders have accessed the support, with 68 starting since the start of 2025.

The support includes six fully funded one-to-one online sessions with a “qualified supervisor”, offering leaders a confidential space to “reflect, process challenges, and develop strategies” for managing leadership pressures.

Most leaders who participated reported being “better able to manage stress and anxiety”.

Qualification reforms ‘concerning but exciting’

A “central theme” in discussions with FE college leaders has been the “rapid evolution” of qualifications at levels 2 and 3.

Legrave said the FEC team has had to develop a portfolio of active support strategies to address “concerns” raised about the “pace and scale” of reforms.

She added: “The focus on simplifying skills provision at levels 2 and 3 has had wide-reaching effects, particularly as demand grows for level 1 and 2 places and for more personalised learner support.

“Some institutions and learners have undoubtedly felt the impact more acutely than others, underscoring the need for tailored, responsive support mechanisms.”

However, the commissioner also called the reforms “one of the most exciting opportunities for technical skills provision in recent memory”.

Adult ed and apprenticeship challenges

Legrave said that while government investment in 16 to 18 further education has been “very much welcome”, it is “much more challenging for colleges to deliver adult education”. 

She believes the recent machinery of government change of switching adult education from the Department for Education to the Department for Work and Pensions has “signalled the importance of adult skills in getting more people into work to strengthen the UK economy”. But she also recognised “at the same time, colleges continue to face challenges in recruiting staff in technical areas”. 

Two other key aims for Legrave were to grow colleges’ share of apprenticeships and expand skills bootcamp provision.

Apprenticeship market share has “remained flat”, though achievement rates have risen sharply, while the number of colleges offering skills bootcamps has increased from 52 to 81, her report revealed.

The NEET crisis won’t be solved by fashionable theories

The high rate of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) is a challenge which needs solving quickly. Everyone understands the risk of long-term “scarring”. But if progress is to be made, we need clear thinking, unencumbered by ideology or policy fads.

The government’s measures addressing the problem are disjointed. A number of small, experimental projects were commissioned some months ago, including £45 million invested in youth guarantee trailblazers, alongside smaller initiatives with the Careers and Enterprise Company and the third sector.

More recently, the government has scaled up its response by announcing a £725 million apprenticeship budget uplift, a proportion of which enables mayoral authorities to broker placements for NEETs. A further £820 million will provide a package of youth employment measures, including intensive support from job coaches, work experience placements and subsidised jobs for those in “high-need” areas on Universal Credit for 18 months.

Yet all this does not add up to a national strategy. Coverage is geographically uneven. No single agency “owns” the challenge. There is a multiplicity of approaches, but no underlying narrative to explain rising numbers since 2021, why inactivity has become so widespread, why mental health features so prominently, or why young men are disproportionately represented.

The government has implicitly recognised this by establishing an independent review, chaired by Alan Milburn. Writing for FE Week, Lee Elliot Major welcomed the appointment, describing Milburn as the “ideal man” because of his social background. He argued that “three powerful orthodoxies” had derailed solutions: the dominance of deficit approaches rather than “equity” ones; rising mental health issues; and the problem of silos in government.

The latter third of these is a genuine problem. The term “NEET” dates back to the late 1990s, when it was introduced by the Social Exclusion Unit. The lack of joined-up interventions led to initiatives such as Connexions and the New Deal for Young People. Connexions has long since gone, and with it any single body with oversight of the whole problem. Responsibility for monitoring 16-18 NEETs sits with local authorities, while the Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for 19-24 year-olds. Arguably, neither has the capacity to address the overall challenge. This needs fixing.

Major’s other two “powerful orthodoxies”, and his analysis of them, are a distraction. The claim that deficit thinking dominates policy, and should be replaced by an “equity approach”, rests on the idea that policymakers and educators wrongly treat disengagement as a problem of the individual rather than the system. At times, this perspective can be useful. But there is nothing new about it. The term “NEET” replaced “status zero” because the earlier language was considered too negative.

Equity-based thinking is already widespread and well established. The suggestion that deficit thinking is the system’s default position is a caricature.  The problem is it may have a weak track record of delivering improvement. As a framework, it often generates more heat than light.

NEETs are not a homogenous group. Experiences vary widely by family background, gender, ethnicity and geography. Understanding the recent rise means disentangling both system-level factors and individual incentives and choices. It is complex, and slogans do not help.

What is missing from the debate is high-quality research into young people’s own perceptions and experiences. This is why our commission, which has argued for a stronger focus on NEETs for some time, is commissioning new qualitative research into the lived experience of disengaged young people. Starting in Blackpool, which has an established NEET reduction partnership, we are seeking two additional areas to include.

The other distraction is Major’s account of a mental health “emergency”, which he suggests is inevitable because the traditional life model of “work hard in education, get a stable job, buy a home” has broken down. There is evidence of declining confidence in this model, but relating primarily to graduates rather than NEETs.

This argument seems wide of the mark in explaining rising NEET numbers. Inactivity is a defining feature of the current problem, and mental health strongly associated with it. But the causes more likely include the effects of social media, over-diagnosis of mental health conditions and a benefits system that too often lacks clarity of purpose and undermines individual development rather than supporting it. I share Major’s optimism about Milburn’s appointment, but disagree that his suitability rests on his upbringing or background. We should judge people by what they do, not where they come from. What stands out is his leadership of the Pathways to Work Commission in Barnsley, which successfully combined health, employment and welfare policy to address inactivity. Similar approaches are urgently needed if we are to tackle the NEETs problem effectively.