Skip to content
8 October 2026

Latest news from FE Week

Universities must be part of the next chapter of skills devolution

A skills system that responds to the changing needs of people, employers and local economies is an ambition we can all share. But as greater responsibility for skills moves closer to local communities, we need to think carefully about who that system serves and which institutions are around the table shaping it.

I saw why this matters when I recently joined the University Vocational Awards Council (UVAC) on a visit to Liverpool Hope University in my constituency.

There I met 30-year-old Louis Abernethy, who grew up in Liverpool and now works at King David Primary School. Louis had already spent several years working in education, but without a degree felt his opportunities to progress were limited.

The cost of university had been a barrier and he had reached the point of considering leaving education altogether, despite his passion for the sector. A degree apprenticeship offered another route: Louis can continue working while studying at Liverpool Hope and apply what he learns directly in the classroom.

Nobody in his family had attended university and, as he put it, university was never something he had considered an option. He is now working towards becoming the first person in his family to gain a degree and hopes to use his experience to support other working-class boys facing similar barriers.

Louis’s story demonstrates why we need an all-age approach to apprenticeships. There is rightly a strong focus on helping young people, including those not in education, employment or training, access opportunities to begin their careers. But that should not mean losing sight of people already in the workforce who need to develop new skills, progress or retrain.

An all-age approach is not about choosing between younger and older learners. It means providing strong routes into employment for young people while ensuring opportunities to learn and progress remain available throughout people’s working lives.

Louis’s experience also challenges how we talk about academic and vocational education. He has not chosen between going to university and taking an apprenticeship. He is doing both.

That matters as the Milburn review considers how our post-16 education and skills system should evolve. Degree apprenticeships demonstrate why the traditional divide between academic and vocational routes is increasingly outdated. Greater parity requires us to recognise the value of different forms of learning and make it easier for people to combine them and progress between them.

Devolution provides an opportunity to put these principles into practice. Liverpool City Region has been responsible for devolved adult skills funding since 2018 and last year committed £68 million to adult training, including level 3-5 provision developed in consultation with employers.

As local control grows, universities should be considered part of this regional skills infrastructure, rather than simply providers brought in once priorities have been determined. They are major employers and anchor institutions, convene employers and other partners, and contribute research and intelligence about emerging economic and workforce needs.

This will look different across the country. Liverpool City Region is prioritising sectors including life sciences, maritime and advanced manufacturing, while other strategic authorities will develop skills strategies reflecting their own economies. That is precisely the point of devolution.

A genuinely responsive system therefore needs strong relationships between universities, colleges, employers and local leaders, while ensuring opportunities remain available to people at every stage of their careers.

Louis’s experience shows what that can mean in practice. At 30, his apprenticeship has allowed him to remain in a profession he loves, work towards becoming the first person in his family to gain a degree and develop skills he can use every day.

That is what an all-age skills system should enable: opportunities to enter work, retrain and progress, wherever someone is in their working life.

 

Last call for FE’s social action champions

Colleges have just over a week left to nominate their volunteering and fundraising champions for this year’s Good for Me Good for FE awards.

Entries close on 9 October for the fourth annual awards, which recognise staff, students and teams who have made a difference in their communities.

This year, a special award will honour David Gallagher, former NCFE chief executive and supporter of the campaign, who died earlier this year.

Nominations are currently open for twelve categories covering student and staff volunteers and fundraisers, volunteering projects, inspirational role models and community partnerships.

Student and college changemaker excellence awards will also recognise achievements through the campaign’s volunteering programme, which rewards learners’ skills and commitment with digital badges.

One winner and two highly commended finalists will be selected in each category, with successful nominees announced at the Association of Colleges’ annual conference in November. Winners will then be invited to a House of Lords celebration hosted by former higher education minister Lord Johnson of Marylebone on 11 December.

Among last year’s winners was USP College, which received the volunteering accreditation excellence award after taking part in the pilot that helped develop the changemaker programme.

More than 100 students contributed 1,080 hours to community projects.

The college said: “This programme gives the students something tangible for their hard work, and many ended up doing far more volunteering hours than were required, which was fantastic!”

Queen Mary’s College took last year’s overall award after nearly 1,000 first-year students raised more than £30,000 for over 100 charities through its social action programme.

Mark Henderson, college principal, said: “We are so proud to receive this award, but it is all about our first-year students. They absolutely shattered our expectations, putting in huge effort and raising an amazing amount of money. It just shows what young people can do when you give them an opportunity and put your trust in them!”

The individual fundraiser of the year award went to James Shields, an accounting lecturer at Loughborough College Group, who raised more than £10,000 to support a colleague with a rare brain tumour, organising sponsored walks, raffles and a half-marathon.

This year’s judges include FE commissioner Ellen Thinnesen, AoC chief executive David Hughes, Natspec chief executive Clare Howard and Chartered Institution for Further Education director Lesley Davies.

The awards are sponsored by NCFE, NAMSS and FE Associates, in partnership with The Skills Network. FE Week is the media partner.

Nominations must be submitted through the Good for Me Good for FE website by 9 October.

Is the LLE really a ‘worklong learning entitlement’?

Not too long ago, Sir Alan Tuckett warned that England was “overwhelmingly obsessed with initial education”: a clockwork model that begins with early years and ends with labour-market entry.

At first glance, the lifelong learning entitlement (LLE) looks like a serious attempt to break that model – unless, that is, one considers that ‘lifelong learning’ has never been a settled concept. Its definitions encompass economic purposes, certainly, but also personal development, democratic participation, social connection and learning valued for its own sake.

The LLE adopts a narrower interpretation. It connects learning to employment, retraining, skills needs and future economic return. In that sense, it might more honestly be called a worklong learning entitlement. That is not to diminish the importance of learning for work in an ageing economy, but worklong and lifelong are not synonymous. That distinction has consequences, especially for older workers, and is precisely why the policy deserves scrutiny.

Awareness itself is already a problem. An omnibus survey found that only 12 per cent of adults had heard of the LLE, with a steep decline among those aged 45 and over. Information campaigns may improve that figure. But if the economic interpretation of lifelong learning is repeatedly communicated, some adults may reasonably conclude that the offer is intended for a certain worker at a particular career stage. The challenge is therefore not only telling people that the LLE exists but ensuring they can recognise themselves as legitimate learners within it.

From January 2027, eligible learners will be able to use LLE funding for approved modules as well as full courses. Modularity is presented as flexibility: learn when you need to, build credit over time and retrain as needs change.

But flexibility for whom?

I argue as an educational gerontologist with just over a decade of experience in FE that we cannot design effective lifelong learning policy without fully understanding the nuances of learning across the life course. My research into the LLE’s policy texts found that its language “imagines” an adult learner who is employable, self-managing and able to navigate learning as an investment.

Modularity may not improve access for all eligible learners. A prospective learner still needs at least a rudimentary understanding of credits and residual entitlement, financing and digital accounts, as well as the ability to accommodate interruptions and sustain a learning pathway over time. For some, such autonomy will be liberating. For others, it may create further barriers to participation.

Chronological age is also a poor proxy for a learner’s ability or motivation to learn. Older learners are profoundly heterogeneous. Yet the assumption of a “frictionless learner” appears built into policy design: confident, informed, digitally competent, able to tolerate debt and free enough from competing responsibilities to assemble their own learning pathways.

There is another reason these hidden assumptions matter in FE. The LLE is frequently discussed from a higher education (HE) perspective, despite the fact it will be enacted substantially through FE providers. Colleges have long acted as a vital safety net for learners who became disengaged or felt “written off” during compulsory schooling. This is arguably the context where the distance between the reform’s ideal learner and learners’ actual lives will reveal itself: employment gaps, caring duties, financial constraint and changing health circumstances affect the decision to commit to formal learning.

Real lives experience unpredictable friction

In more established lifelong learning systems, movement in and out of education is ordinary. Instead, the familiar framing in the LLE of the older “returner” to education subtly reinforces the very assumption that education belongs at the beginning of life, and anyone studying later is exceptional.

Meanwhile, despite this lack of a sophisticated conception of lifelong and life-wide learning, England is extending working life through the rising state pension age. The LLE’s age-60 tuition-loan boundary, seven years before state pension age, highlights that contradiction.

And while policy attention to the unprecedented numbers of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) is critical, population ageing is not a temporary policy challenge. Longer lives and extended working lives mean that growing numbers of older people will remain in employment through choice or necessity, while continuing to need and want opportunities to learn, retrain and adapt.

The LLE could well become an important step towards rebuilding access to higher levels of adult learning. Avoiding another policy blind spot, however, requires equitable access to education throughout increasingly longer working lives.

Approved providers therefore have an opportunity as implementation begins. Human-led guidance, age-inclusive recruitment, recognition of interrupted learning experiences and pathways that do not presume linear progression can make modularity work for today’s adult learner.

 

AI is moving fast. SME training is stuck in the slow lane

There’s no shortage of ambition among small businesses when it comes to digital skills. SME owners I speak to know that AI and data capability will underpin their future competitiveness.

And AI adoption is rising quickly. A recent study by the Resolution Foundation found that nearly half of businesses are now using AI in some form.

Yet while AI adoption is growing, the use of it in businesses remains relatively shallow. The same study found that only one in 20 businesses say they are using AI extensively.

The challenge now is how businesses unlock the technology’s true potential, one that’s solved by SMEs addressing foundational skills gaps in their businesses.

Of course, SMEs can’t address these skills gaps alone. Trade associations, local authority networks, and external training providers each have an important role to play in helping them to level-up their AI capability.

But if we think of the SME AI capability gap as a round-shaped hole, this support network – with the best intentions – is often offering a square peg to fill it. Much of the support available isn’t designed with the day-to-day reality of the SME in mind. So, what’s holding SMEs back and what could optimal support look like?

The expectation and opportunity gap

In an SME, one person might handle customer data, manage suppliers, oversee compliance and run social media – often all in the same week. Naturally, it’s difficult for most funded training to be built specifically around the many hats SME employees may be wearing.

Apprenticeships, skills bootcamps and most regional funding routes are designed around a single, defined specialism – a data analyst, a cyber apprentice, or even a dedicated AI role. These routes are great at producing people who can walk into a specialist role. But SMEs need generalists, and these routes aren’t built to add a capability onto a role that already covers five other hats.

SMEs cannot always afford to open up dedicated digital or AI roles, and when they do bring people in, they need someone who can contribute across the business from day one. When those expectations are not met on either side, the development stalls.

Calls for more funding tend to be the go-to solution for addressing skills gaps. But layering new schemes and funding streams on top of the routes available risks building in added complexity. SMEs aren’t short of options, but they are short of time, management resource, and confidence that the next programme will fit their business.

The mismatch is more likely to be solved by how training and support is delivered around them.

Building the pathway

In practice, that means a blend of support rather than a single course. At Kaplan, this is the model we have built through Education 4.0: combining expert-led tuition, AI-enabled learning support and flexible digital content that adapts around the learner and their working pattern. And crucially, it means the learning is contextualised to the size and sector of the business, not built around enterprise-scale case studies that bear no resemblance to how an SME actually operates.

But delivering the right model is only part of the challenge. Devolved funding currently skews toward FE and HE institutions, which can mean SMEs are directed toward providers whose traditional delivery models – full-day release, fixed timetables, classroom-based programmes – do not flex around how small businesses operate.

Independent providers working at national scale can bring something different here. Support teams can guide both apprentices and SME leaders on integrating training and getting a return from it, while a wider employer network offers credible use cases and implementation advice from businesses that have already balanced growth with skills investment.

This isn’t about the quality of local provision. It’s about SMEs being able to reach the delivery model that fits them.

Many of the SMEs I speak to have already been through training that didn’t fit their business, and it’s left them wary of the next offer. Flexibility has to be demonstrated before it’s believed.

Government ambition on skills is real, and it’s matched inside small businesses. What’s missing is a system that lets SMEs act on it. That means training that builds real-world capability and makes a measurable impact, delivered in a way that fits around the business rather than pulling people out of it.

Providers who can combine strong content with genuine support for managers and mentoring will be the ones that help SMEs make AI adoption genuinely stick. That is the partnership SMEs need, and it is the one the skills system should be making easier to access.

 

 

What’s in your learners’ emotional backpacks?

I have been exploring an idea I have come to think of as the ‘emotional backpack’.

The concept is simple: every learner arrives in our classrooms carrying things we cannot necessarily see. For some, that backpack may contain anxiety, financial pressures, caring responsibilities, difficulties at home, SEND, previous educational failure or a fear of getting things wrong.

We rarely know exactly what is inside. But we often see the effect of its weight.

A learner refuses to start a task. Another arrives late for the third time that week. Someone who understood something yesterday suddenly cannot recall it. One becomes confrontational when challenged, while another quietly withdraws.

It can be tempting to interpret these moments simply as behaviour: they are not motivated, they do not care, they are being difficult. Sometimes, the reality is more complicated.

The emotional backpack is not about explaining away poor behaviour or removing expectations. It encourages us to look beyond what is immediately visible and ask: what might this learner be carrying that is making learning harder today?

And while we cannot necessarily remove what is in the backpack, we can make sure we are not adding unnecessary weight.

When assumptions become barriers

Empathy asks us to suspend judgement long enough to understand another person’s perspective. That becomes particularly important when we consider unconscious bias.

A student who regularly arrives late can quickly become labelled as someone who does not care. A quiet learner may be seen as disengaged. Someone who challenges a decision becomes ‘difficult’, while a learner who repeatedly asks for instructions may be assumed not to have listened.

Once those labels take hold, it becomes easy to interpret everything that follows through the same lens.

Yet lateness might be connected to caring responsibilities or unreliable transport. Silence may be anxiety rather than disengagement. Repeated questions might indicate processing difficulties or an unmet additional need.

That will not always be the explanation. The aim is not to replace one assumption with another.

The point is to remain curious.

Rather than asking, ‘What is wrong with this learner?’, perhaps we should ask, ‘What haven’t I understood yet?’

From survival brain to learning brain

At the recent Surrey FE Teaching and Learning Conference, where I delivered a session on this topic, I used the shorthand of moving from a ‘survival brain’ to a ‘learning brain’.

When a learner is preoccupied by stress, anxiety or other pressures, learning is competing for their attention. Someone can therefore be physically present in the classroom but have far less capacity for attention, memory, problem-solving or self-regulation than we might expect.

Recent Education Endowment Foundation evidence on metacognition and self-regulation in 16-to-19 education is particularly relevant. Drawing on 39 studies, it reports an average impact of more than eight months’ additional progress.

Crucially, it cautions against assuming learners already possess the skills to regulate their learning. Teachers should model, scaffold and guide learners in planning, monitoring and evaluating their learning before expecting them to do so independently.

Our role is not to diagnose what is happening in a learner’s life, nor do teachers need to become therapists. It is to create classroom conditions that give as many learners as possible the opportunity to move from simply coping towards being ready to learn.

Inclusion happens in ordinary moments

This feels particularly timely at the start of a new academic year.

Ofsted’s renewed inspection approach places greater emphasis on inclusion, with particular attention paid to disadvantaged learners, those with SEND or high needs, learners known or previously known to social care and those facing other barriers to learning or wellbeing.

But inclusion cannot exist only in policies, support plans or specialist teams. It has to be visible in everyday teaching.

We should see it in whether learners understand what they are being asked to do, whether resources are accessible, whether teaching takes account of different starting points and whether learners feel safe enough to admit when they do not understand.

Specialist support remains vital, but inclusion belongs to all of us.

And inclusive practice is not about removing boundaries or avoiding difficult conversations. It combines clear expectations with an understanding that learners may require different support to meet them.

Small things can lighten the backpack

The encouraging part is that this does not always require dramatic intervention.

Predictable routines can reduce uncertainty. Clear explanations, manageable chunks of learning and effective modelling can make tasks less overwhelming. For some learners, simply knowing where to begin can be the difference between engaging and switching off.

Relationships matter too, because relationships allow us to notice.

We notice when the learner who normally contributes has gone quiet. We recognise when persistent lateness is unusual. We begin to understand when frustration may actually be fear of failure.

Sometimes changing a single question can alter an interaction. Instead of asking, ‘Why haven’t you done this?’, we might ask, ‘What is stopping you from getting started?’

The expectation has not disappeared, but the conversation has changed.

Empathy must still be courageous

Understanding that a learner is carrying a heavy emotional backpack does not mean carrying it for them. Nor should disadvantage, trauma or additional need become reasons to expect less.

In fact, learners facing the greatest barriers arguably need us to be most ambitious for them.

Sometimes the empathetic response is additional support, a scaffold, a different explanation or more time to process. At other times, it is a calm but clear boundary.

The message can simultaneously be: I recognise that this is difficult, and I still believe you are capable of doing it.

Those statements are not contradictory.

Teachers cannot remove poverty, bereavement, family difficulties, insecure housing, caring responsibilities or every challenge beyond the college gates. Nor should we expect them to.

But we can consider whether the environments we create add another weight to the backpack or make it a little easier to carry.

Sometimes what makes the biggest difference is deceptively simple: a calm welcome, a predictable lesson, one achievable first step or a teacher who notices that something is not quite right.

So when a learner is struggling, perhaps the question should not only be, ‘Why aren’t they learning?’

It might also be: ‘What might they be carrying today – and what can I do about the part that is within my control?’

Forget AI cheating. Cognitive offloading is more of a worry

The biggest threat posed to education by generative AI is not academic integrity, it is cognitive offloading.

In FE and the wider education sector, concerns around AI tend to largely focus on how it is providing learners with the tools to “cheat”. This is an argument which ignores the reality that education and modern work practices now exist on a continuum of AI partnership. It isn’t the case that all AI use is bad and no AI use is good, but clearly the process of AI replacing learning is something that we need to safeguard against.

The optimal way to ensure that learners cannot use AI to replace learning is through assessment redesign. Even ahead of widespread curriculum reform, assessments at Middlesbrough College are being enhanced to focus on process over product, with an increasing variety of authentic assessment throughout all programmes.

When evaluating assessment methods prior to the academic year, curriculum staff would ask themselves the question, “could a learner use an AI tool to pass this assessment with no learning taking place”? If the answer was yes, that assessment would be redesigned. We are committed to ensuring our learners leave us with the knowledge, skills and behaviours to thrive in their chosen career path, we are not teaching them how to be meat proxies.

Cognitive offloading is not a new concept, but it has been supercharged by AI. It is now possible to outsource the entire process of generating ideas through to creating solutions, with significant negative implications. The result of chronic cognitive offloading is that learners find it harder to concentrate, harder to formulate arguments, harder to think critically and in short harder to learn. This of course not only affects them whilst they are with us, but in their next steps in education and the workplace.

Taken one step further, cognitive offloading has the potential to lead to intellectual obesity in our learners. Still only a novel hypothesis, the gist of intellectual obesity is as follows. Imagine, you spend 90 minutes consuming easily digestible, dopamine-inducing mental “junk food” in the form of TikTok videos or Instagram reels for example. Following that you sit down and try to design an engaging, well-researched presentation. You will probably find it difficult to focus as it takes time for your brain to reset following such a flood of stimulation. But don’t worry, AI can help take away the discomfort of looking at a blank screen trying to think about how you will approach the problem, it will do the cognitive ‘exercise’ for you. By failing to do that mental ‘rep’, the next time this situation occurs, it is even harder to do your own thinking.

We are striving to tackle AI-induced cognitive offloading with our learners at Middlesbrough College from the beginning of their journey with us and throughout their programme. As I write this, we are in the midst of delivering face-to-face digital inductions to all of our first-year full-time learners. During these inductions, which take place over the first two weeks of term, not only are learners provided with guidance on the essential digital skills that employers are seeking, we also cover the effective and ethical use of AI.

The key message we relay is how AI can be used effectively as a study partner, but not as a means to replace learning. Checking for understanding, revision aids, breaking down tasks into actionable steps and preparing for interviews are just a handful of the beneficial uses of AI that we promote to our learners, whilst steering them away from using it to provide answers and results which circumvent the learning process. In addition to this, our Thrive tutorial AI content, which is delivered by personal tutors throughout the year, has been redesigned around these same principles and is delivered in a way which is contextualised to the level and individual needs of learners.

It is not only incumbent upon us as FE professionals to instil the principles of effective and ethical use of AI in our learners to protect their cognitive health, it is essential that we practise these behaviours ourselves. Let us spare our colleagues from the bane of AI workslop and remember that in the age of AI, authenticity has more currency than ever.

 

 

It’s time to end the academic-technical divide

For too long, academic and technical education have been treated as separate routes. Yet we should not expect young people to choose between them at an early age. That divide does not reflect what young people need or what employers value.

The government’s proposals to expand technical education for 14 to 16-year-olds are a step in the right direction. Giving young people access to high-quality vocational learning can widen opportunities and connect education more effectively to the needs of the workforce.

But we should be more ambitious.

Rather than creating a stronger technical route alongside an academic route, we should use this opportunity to rethink the architecture of education itself, creating an integrated tertiary system in which academic knowledge, technical capability, vocational learning and practical experience combine.

Schools, colleges, universities and employers are often incentivised to operate in isolation. Building an ecosystem with a shared ambition will allow for seamless progression between education, training and employment, with strong regional accountability.

We also need to challenge long-standing assumptions. Technical education should not be seen as the only option for practical learners, or those who have not thrived in mainstream education. Equally, those who pursue an academic route should not miss out on practical opportunities.

Employers increasingly need people who can combine different types of skills. Engineers need mathematical and theoretical knowledge, health professionals need academic knowledge and practical competence, and designers need theory, creativity and technical capability. Modern work is increasingly interdisciplinary, yet our education system still asks young people to make artificially binary choices.

Skills England’s 2026 annual skills report shows that more than a quarter of job vacancies are hard to fill due to skill shortages. This highlights the importance of developing the transferable skills that enable young people to succeed in the workplace – from communication and teamwork to problem-solving and adaptability.

It also underlines the need for an education system built around the workforce of the future, where academic, technical, vocational and occupational learning are complementary. The ambition should be about progression, not just pathways, where young people can move between these routes without being labelled or trapped by a choice they made at 14 or 16.

The new V Levels policy is encouraging as it creates greater scope for learners to blend academic and vocational learning, allowing combinations of qualifications that better reflect individual interests. We now have the opportunity to embed that principle across the wider education landscape, so qualifications become components of one system.

We need clear, mapped progression routes to higher apprenticeships, university and employment, ensuring that every stage of learning connects meaningfully.

Nearly one million young people aged 16 to 24 in the UK are not in education, employment or training (NEET), highlighting the need for education providers and employers to work together to smooth the transition from education to the workplace.

At Leeds City College, our 14+ Academies, which offer a direct-entry option for young people in Years 10 and 11, provide an opportunity to build connections early by creating an environment where real-world and employability skills sit alongside academic learning.

Universities must be part of the conversation too, working closely with FE providers to widen access and remove barriers to learning. Our strategic alliance with Leeds Beckett University, alongside our own HE provision at University Centre Leeds and Leeds Conservatoire, is based on that ambition: retaining our distinctive identities and strengths while deliberately designing provision, progression and collaboration so that learners experience a coherent educational journey rather than institutional silos.

This matters because skills needs vary across different areas. A successful tertiary system should reflect local economies and communities, with employers helping shape the provision and local businesses and institutions all working together to help young people progress.

The economy doesn’t need more technical education at the expense of academic education. It needs people with the right blend of knowledge and skills.

 

National adult skills fund contracts to end in August

Nationally procured adult skills fund contracts will end next year as the government expands its “pathway to devolution” programme.

The Department for Education today said current contracts will expire on August 1 and it will not run a national procurement exercise for the 2027-28 academic year.

Instead, the government will continue to expand its pathway to devolution programme, under which funding delivered through directly procured contracts in non-devolved areas is transferred to local authorities.

These councils will then be able to commission providers to deliver adult skills training based on local skills needs, the DfE said.

The announcement confirms the direction of travel reported by FE Week earlier this year, when independent training providers warned their national ASF allocations were being squeezed as more funding was handed to local authorities through the pre-devolution pilot.

National contracts were cut from £77 million when first procured in 2023-24 to £37 million in 2025-26, with the number of providers falling from 57 to 45. FE Week reported that some providers had seen their allocations fall by as much as 90 per cent since the first year.

The DfE said the proportion of ASF funding delivered in non-devolved areas would reduce each year as more areas take responsibility for their adult skills budgets.

It added that grant funding agreements will be unaffected by the change.

Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said the decision not to run a national ASF procurement for 2027-28 was a “significant change for independent training providers and other providers without guaranteed contracts”.

He added: “When current national contracts end, there will be no equivalent national procurement route, and providers will increasingly need to access local commissioning markets.

“In principle, local commissioning could better align provision with local skills needs, but it also changes how providers access the market, particularly those operating nationally or across several areas.”

Luke Muscat, CEO of Leep Group, which has held a national ASF contract since the 2023 procurement, said the end of nationally procured adult skills fund provision should “not come as a surprise” as the “direction of travel has been clear since adult education funding began to be devolved in 2019”.

He told FE Week that for training providers, managing several smaller contracts with local authorities will create “more administrative pressure than delivering one national programme”, but said this is “our challenge to manage and should not obstruct the development of better local solutions”.

Muscat added that the greater concern was whether every new commissioning authority “has the capacity to succeed”, given Leep Group’s experience of working with smaller local authorities showed that “many teams are already stretched”.