Latest news from FE Week

GCSE resits 2026: English and maths pass rates fall as entries surge

The proportion of post-16 students achieving a grade 4 or above in GCSE English and maths resits has fallen as entries have surged.

In maths, 15.3 per cent of 219,135 learners aged 17 and over who resat the subject in England achieved a grade 4 or above this summer.

That was down from 17.1 per cent last year, when the cohort was 6 per cent smaller at 206,732.

The grade 4 and above pass rate was 21.2 per cent in 2019, before the pandemic.

In English, 19.8 per cent of 187,558 post-16 students who resat the GCSE achieved at least a grade 4 this summer, down from 20.9 per cent last year when there were 175,118 entries.

The English pass rate was 30.3 per cent in 2019.

Despite the falling pass rates, the number of students securing a grade 4 or above increased marginally in English as the size of the cohort grew.

A total of 37,136 students gained their level 2 English GCSE this summer after failing to do so at school, compared with 36,599 last year.

But in maths, the number achieving a grade 4 or above fell, from 35,351 last year to 33,527 this summer, despite the cohort growing by 12,403 students.

Ofqual chief regulator Sir Ian Bauckham said the rise in 18- and 19-year-old entries (see breakdown below) suggested more learners were attempting to secure the qualifications for a third or fourth time.

He said there had also been a “long-term shift” away from functional skills qualifications towards GCSEs, which could be changing the makeup of the resit cohorts.

The results come as the government continues to face pressure over its policy of requiring 16- to 19-year-olds without a grade 4 in English and maths to continue studying the subjects.

The condition of funding rule, introduced in 2014, has been criticised by colleges for driving repeated GCSE resits.

Education secretary Lucy Powell told The Times yesterday that GCSE results day had highlighted “one of the most pernicious examples of the education system setting kids up for a cycle of failure: the number constantly resitting English and maths”.

She said she wanted to end the resit “treadmill of failure” and pointed to “stepping stone” qualifications now being developed as a way of improving results for resit students.

A consultation on new level 1 English and maths qualifications for 16- to 19-year-olds who leave school with a grade 2 or below closed in June.

The qualifications were proposed last year by the independent curriculum and assessment review, led by Becky Francis, as a way of better preparing learners to achieve a grade 4 in their post-16 GCSE resits.

Bauckham told FE Week he was “anxious” to get on with developing stepping stone qualifications as they could play a “really important part”.

Pepe Di’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said today’s results showed that the current condition of funding policy was failing.

“This year’s post-16 resit results reinforce the fact that the government policy of then force-feeding them a relentless diet of GCSE English and maths in post-16 education is simply not working,” he said.

“Tinkering at the edges of the qualification system will not solve this problem. As long as we continue to grade students in this way in these gateway subjects of English and maths we will continue to damage their future prospects.

“If the government is serious about tackling the not in employment, education or training (NEET) crisis it must grasp this nettle and rethink how we assess English and maths.”

Gender gap narrows

More females than males continue to enter post-16 maths GCSE resits, but the gender gap in pass rates has disappeared.

This summer, 15.3 per cent of both male and female entries achieved a grade 4 or above.

Last year, 17.8 per cent of males reached the threshold, compared with 16.4 per cent of females.

In English, there continues to be more male than female entries for GCSE resits, although the gender gap in pass rates has narrowed slightly.

The proportion of male students achieving a grade 4 or above fell from 17.9 per cent last year to 16.8 per cent this summer.

Among female students, the pass rate fell from 25 per cent to 23.8 per cent.

18-19 year olds struggle the most

Students aged 18 and 19 continue to have the lowest GCSE resit pass rates, while those aged 20 and over perform significantly better.

The condition of funding rule applies to 16- to 19-year-olds, meaning older learners are not required to continue studying English and maths if they have not achieved a grade 4 and therefore are more likely to study the subjects by choice.

In maths, 16.4 per cent of 17-year-olds achieved a grade 4 or above this summer, compared with 10.4 per cent of 18-year-olds and 10.3 per cent of 19-year-olds.

Among those aged 20 and over, the pass rate was 32.5 per cent.

In English, some 21 per cent of 17-year-olds achieved a grade 4 or above, compared with 16.1 per cent of 18-year-olds and 15.6 per cent of 19-year-olds.

The pass rate rose to 29.6 per cent among learners aged 20 and over.

SEND reforms will only succeed if colleges change too

There is no doubt that we are entering a period of significant change in FE. Qualification reforms, the schools’ and SEND white paper Every Child Achieving and Thriving, and the post-16 education and skills white paper are all aligned with the new Ofsted framework, which places inclusion, equity and opportunities for skills development at the heart of its purpose.

For me, having worked in forward-thinking, inclusive and proactive FE settings all my career, the revised SEND policy and legislative changes feel like a welcome approach to provide a level playing field and address some inequities.

I fundamentally believe these changes will be highly impactful if their intent is fully realised. Recognising that more young people will receive earlier diagnosis and support from a network of specialists through the ‘experts at hand’ approach, as well as the use of nationally standardised assessment and documentation and the sharing of information between settings, can only benefit young people with SEND.

The essential element to this, however, is the co-design and co-production of the revised system.

FE colleges have often tried to ‘fix’ the issues in the current SEND system themselves, forgetting that a wider network of professionals and experts exists in their shared ecosystem. Families, parent and carer forums, local authorities, the NHS, employers and organisations within the voluntary and care sector are all trusted and superb sources of external help, feedback and guidance to ensure colleges deliver the very best provision, supporting students on their PFA (preparing for adulthood) journey.

Colleges should deeply reflect on how they use their network to enhance their SEND offer and student outcomes.

What is more often missed are the opportunities for the college to use its own resources to support students with SEND on this journey. As seen in my own organisation, this starts at the very top, with a clear vision and intent statement from governors through to senior and middle leaders.

This should then translate into policy and action at the curriculum and business support level. Imagine a college where every business support department offered work experience to a student with SEND as standard, where the sports curriculum across the wider college delivered health and fitness programmes to students with SEND, or health cooking and nutrition was delivered by hospitality students.

Imagine a college where health barriers and anxiety were removed by collaborative working with health students, or the creative teams supported the artistic and musical cultural development of students. This approach is taken at EPNE, but these opportunities are not seen in all colleges.

When they are, the impact on organisational culture and SEND awareness is tangible, as is the progress students make on their academic and personal development.

Collaborating with colleagues who have a keen and vested interest in SEND is also pivotal in transforming SEND inclusion in a college.

Real impact is delivered by embedding a SEND champion model, where colleagues from all areas of the college come together in experiential learning. This also supports SEND advocacy across the college. Setting up SEND clinics and planning for inclusion training for teachers can also deliver a significant impact on inclusive pedagogy. This ensures that the organisational training being delivered is relevant to the setting, and areas for development are addressed ahead of the implementation of national SEND training.

EPNE is a nationally leading college group for its SEND provision and an Education Training Foundation Centre for Excellence.

The introduction of the SEND reforms means we are fully reviewing our approach to inclusion. Key aspects of the journey of students with SEND are being re-mapped. This includes the initial assessment, transition, meeting needs decisions and allocation of courses from a ‘seamless’ start perspective. The full review of scaffolded curriculum ladders, including the new level 1 maths and English offer, is also being embedded within our annual planning cycle.

While the introduction of new policies may feel challenging and will result in a need to review SEND practices, they also provide a huge opportunity to truly pause, reflect and improve the SEND offer, and deliver improved, equitable outcomes for all.

Four lessons from six years as an FE college chair

Two seemingly unrelated life events have happened to me recently. I stepped down as chair of Barnet and Southgate College after six fantastic years, and I saw The Odyssey at the cinema. Through scenes of storm-lashed boats, it occurred to me that FE governance does in some ways feel comparable to steering a steady course through choppy seas and unpredictable headwinds. Being chair of my local FE College has been the professional privilege of my career and has taught me many lessons.

The most important has been how critical FE governance is to enabling colleges to stabilise, grow and thrive during tumultuous times.

That recent years have been challenging for the FE sector is not in doubt. Emerging from the pandemic, colleges have had to support students impacted by lost learning. Ongoing qualification reform, Ofsted framework changes, shifting stakeholder engagement priorities, devolution – to name but a few – have complicated long-term planning. All of this during an initial period of historic underfunding, while FE staff continue to contend with cost of living challenges.

Barnet and Southgate College has not been immune to this. When I became chair in 2020, the college had recently been judged ‘requires improvement’ and was dealing with a significant financial deficit at the end of 2019-20 of £1.2m. Most of the governing body were coming to the end of their term, so significant change was imminent. Reductions in adult education funding were hitting the college particularly hard, in a geographical area where competition for enrolling 16-18s was consistently fierce.

Amidst these challenges, the college was able not just to stabilise, but eventually grow and thrive. Our governance played a fundamental role in enabling this. The college received an Ofsted ‘good’ (with ‘outstanding’ for apprenticeships), converted a historic financial deficit into a healthy surplus, grew student numbers year on year, underwent successful structural transformation, and set an ambitious new strategy for 2030.

Reflecting on my time as chair I learnt four key lessons for how governance can support college stability, growth and transformation:

1: Focusing governance structures, processes and culture on delivering success

Introducing a new committee structure, refreshing data flows and redefining governor skillsets delivered an immediate step-change in our governance quality. Building a sense of team identity and empowering our governors to work directly with the college’s senior executive unleashed the powers of their experience and skills. Making the governing body more visible to college staff also brought governance out of the shadows, so their purpose was clearer.

2: Putting learner impact at the heart of decision-making

Student governors were newly recruited, and wider ‘meet the student’ sessions for the governing body helped triangulate information and led to more informed decision-making. Delivering growth required more students coming through the doors and staying with us. Governance deep dives on the recruitment and enrolment process, plus the challenges in improving attendance, helped drive executive focus on these areas.

3: Fostering relationships between the governing body and the college executive team

These were the foundation for success. Committee chairs worked in partnership with their direct equivalents in the executive. Myself and our CEO/principal developed a hugely productive working relationship through clear and honest communication, availability, coaching and mentoring, and above all trust. This was particularly key as new senior leadership structures were built.

An enhanced role for governors in performance management of senior postholders also made clear how ambitious the governing body was for college success.

4: Being ambitious for the college, and expecting it back

Recruiting excellent governors meant setting high expectations for our college. Our governing body challenged the college leadership to be bold, to be transformative for our students and to enhance our role as a local and regional skills stakeholder. The college’s ambitious ‘Strategy 2030’ was the result – an approach we are all hugely proud of.

Much is rightly now expected of colleges. Within a supportive and challenging environment, governors can – and must – continue to drive their institutions forwards through the storms they face to deliver growth and learner success.

Australia, Canada, and a lesson for England’s 14-16 routes

The prime minister’s recent proposals on 14-16 routes have reignited an important debate about pathways and, importantly, repositioned technical education as a first-choice route rather than a second-best option.

Drawing on my Churchill Fellowship, which funded my exploration of work-connected learning systems in Australia and Canada, I believe the bigger lesson lies elsewhere.

The systems that impressed me most did not begin by asking what new qualification should be created. They began by asking how progression could be intentionally designed around young people, local opportunity and long-term outcomes.

Across every system I visited, one thing became increasingly clear: while the models differed, the underlying design principles were remarkably consistent.

People before institutions

Education systems are designed around young people’s journeys into opportunity rather than organisational boundaries. Schools, FE providers, higher education institutions, employers and local services see themselves as integrated contributors to one progression journey, deliberately removing barriers that prevent young people moving successfully into adult life.

Progression must be designed

Successful transitions are never left to chance. They are engineered through curriculum, work-connected learning, technical pathways and employer engagement. The strongest systems design both progression and re-engagement, ensuring young people can move forward, or find their way back, through intentional pathways.

Experiences should carry recognised value

Learning beyond the classroom counts. Work experience, technical projects and employer-designed learning contribute to recognised achievement, giving young people trusted evidence of their capabilities alongside and within academic qualifications.

Partnership creates infrastructure and opportunity

Employers, FE providers, universities and intermediary organisations are not simply external partners; they are integral parts of the progression system itself. Genuine co-design, enabling timetables and shared responsibility make ambitious pathways possible, at scale.

Progression is shaped by people and place

National ambition provides consistency, but local systems bring pathways to life. Education, employers, civic leaders and communities work together to reflect the distinctive opportunities and workforce priorities of their area.

These principles came to life in very different ways.

South Australia’s flexible industry pathways (FIPs) demonstrate how regional government can enable local innovation while maintaining consistently high standards. FIPs are accessible to15-18-year-old learners in every school. Co-designed with employers, government-approved and aligned to regional workforce priorities, they make intelligent use of existing qualifications while creating rigorous, employer-informed pathways into sectors that matter to local economies.

In July 2026, I visited Calgary, where more than 12,000 learners had enrolled on funded summer technical programmes, completing around 120 guided learning hours through intensive three-week vacation courses. Alberta has expanded opportunity not by creating more qualifications, but by delivering existing accredited programmes with greater flexibility around the core curriculum. They add opportunity in and around the core curriculum rather than competing with it. Ministry-approved locally developed courses allow successful programmes to be adopted across the province, combining local innovation with consistent standards.

At Fusion Collegiate in Calgary, flexible programmes enable young people to access connected pathways designed by local skills needs, while carefully designed discovery routes keep learners connected to progression. Their impressive “gap year” pathways programme re-connected lost learners up to the age of 20 to tangible jobs and progression into the workplace, when the young person was ready and supported as an end-to-end pathway.

Different models, the same design principles: progression designed around learners, recognised value for experiences, genuine partnership and shared local responsibility for creating opportunity. Ultimately, every one of these systems sends young people the same message: there are multiple successful futures, and each deserves to be planned for with equal ambition.

That may be the most important lesson for England: successful progression is designed, not left to chance.

If Andy Burnham’s proposals are the catalyst for genuine reform, our focus should not simply be on creating new pathways. It should be on creating the conditions that allow purposeful progression to flourish: curriculum flexibility, mature local partnerships, intelligent use of existing qualifications, coordinated delivery across institutions and accountability measures that reward purposeful progression alongside attainment.

England already possesses many of these building blocks. The challenge now is to connect them into a coherent progression system.

My forthcoming Churchill Fellowship report explores further examples from Australia, Canada and Ireland and practical recommendations for England’s education and skills system.

Ultimately, this is not simply a debate about qualifications or technical education because there isn’t one future worth preparing young people for. There are many. Our responsibility is to give every young person a clear line of sight to the future they choose, and the means to get there. That is what it means to design progression well.

For technical education to succeed, creativity can’t be an afterthought

For too long, young people have been told that academic routes carry ambition and status, while technical and vocational pathways are somehow second best.

Giving young people earlier access to technical education from age 14, with skills training, work experience and stronger employer connections, is an important moment. So is the ambition for mayors to develop local pathways with schools, colleges and employers from September 2028.

Young people should see routes into skilled work where they live, rather than leaving their home region to believe serious opportunity exists.

But if Andy Burnham’s “hard hat and graduation cap” ambition is to work, we must resist treating technical education as one single thing.

Creative technical education is different.

That point was made powerfully in the House of Lords recently, when Baroness Caine warned against a one-size-fits-all approach and highlighted Birmingham Ormiston Academy and the partnerships helping to build Birmingham’s screen cluster.

Her intervention was important because the creative economy is project-based, often freelance, and built around portfolios, networks and collaboration. Around 90 per cent of creative businesses are micro-enterprises. More than 30 per cent of the workforce is freelance, and in film and television that rises above 50 per cent.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith was right to confirm no qualifications will lose funding approval in 2026–27, commit to no further removal of funding for creative art and design qualifications until 2030, and convene a creatives advisory group for qualifications reform.

That is the right direction of travel. The creative sector does not need reform done to it. It needs reform done with it. This matters especially at level 3. For many young people, level 3 creative qualifications are not a holding pattern before university. They are the bridge between school and industry. They are where young people discover whether they are editors, producers, performers, designers, lighting technicians, coders, animators, production managers, filmmakers, game designers, stage managers or entrepreneurs.

They are also where many young people develop the confidence, discipline and professional behaviours that employers value but traditional academic qualifications do not always measure.

That is why breadth matters. Portfolio matters. Rehearsal matters. Studio practice matters. Live briefs matter. Collaboration matters. Time to experiment matters.

A narrow qualification model will not build a broad creative workforce.

At BOA Group, we see this every day.

Since Birmingham Ormiston Academy opened in 2011, BOA Group has grown into a specialist multi- academy trust rooted in Birmingham’s creative and digital economy. Across its three academies, learners produce, perform, code, design, edit, rig, film, rehearse, collaborate and present through real projects, specialist facilities and industry-connected pathways.

Our new Imagine Everything strategy responds to a national challenge: how do we build a stronger talent pipeline for sectors that are growing quickly, changing constantly and still too often closed to young people without networks, confidence or access?

Our answer is to bring together high standards, professional practice, technical confidence, work experience, employer partnership, enrichment, progression and a network that lasts beyond school.

The test for reform is simple. Young people must see where new pathways lead. Level 3 qualifications that work should not be abandoned before replacements have proved their breadth and progression value. Creative apprenticeships and placements must reflect freelance work, project cycles, small employers and regional clusters.

Will the new system strengthen the creative pipeline, or weaken it?

The prime minister has opened a vital national conversation. The skills minister has created an opportunity to get the creative detail right. Now government must learn from what already works.

The creative economy does not need a skills system designed for another world of work. It needs one designed for this one.

That is what BOA Group is building in Birmingham. And it is why this moment matters.

It’s time to stop the madness of GCSE resits for all

For many young people finishing school, GCSE results day is a cause for much celebration.

But each year, around 30 per cent do not achieve the minimum “standard” (grade 4) pass. Most of these pupils will enrol into FE Colleges, although too many will end up not in any form of education, employment or training (NEET). There will always be roughly 30 per cent who don’t achieve that all important set of grade 4 passes because that’s how the exam system works: there must be “winners” and “losers”.

For the hundreds of thousands of young people forced to re-sit GCSE maths and English classes, the outlook is grim. Only one in five are successful in their resits, and the results this summer are even slightly worse than that, especially for maths. Despite numerous calls for the sector to do better and intense scrutiny from Ofsted, the success rate will never be much better than one in five: If you a “loser” first time around, you’re much more likely to be a “loser” second time around when you are pitted in a system predicated on sorting the wheat from the chaff.

Of course, this time of year always brings people like me out to criticise the GCSE resits policy. The DfE responds with its defence, and it all goes quiet until the next set of depressing results. Perhaps this year there is a slight shift. The noise of opposition gets louder. A UCL research report outlines the impact of the GCSE resits policy on young people’s mental health. The new Secretary of State talks about the effects of the cycle of failure and it is welcome that there is now a renewed commitment to review the policy. Perhaps we stand at last on the cusp of change. It is a moment and opportunity the sector must grasp.

Yet we mustn’t be complacent. The counter responses so far have included that the system is being reformed to bring in new “stepping stone” qualifications at level 1. But these won’t be available until the end of the decade, and the clue is in their designation: stepping stone. The expectation is that young people will still sit the GCSE before the end of their post-16 study. Then there is the argument that young people now have at least 100 hours of tuition in each subject. That has no impact on the large numbers who were so demoralised the first time around that getting them to attend ten hours is an achievement.

The defence trotted out that the DfE do not require us to enter young people each year for the exam and we should in fact only enter them when they are ready, which might not be for two years, also doesn’t hold water. This is thinking based on a simplistic understanding that every young person in an FE college is studying a neat two-year programme.

The reality is far more complex. It’s a brave college that will chance this given the risks to their data if a young person leaves after a one-year course. The perverse incentives in the performance and accountability system means the stakes are too high.

None of these things are adequate solutions to a policy that should have been scrapped the moment the current government took office.

We also need to ask about the policy: what is it fundamentally trying to achieve? GCSEs are essentially based on content supporting progression to A Levels, which in turn are based on supporting progression to university education. They don’t necessarily guarantee progression into work – although it must be conceded that having them on your CV does open doors.

In all my many conversations with employers, I have yet to find one that fully supports the GCSE re-sit policy. Yes, they want their employees to be reliable, punctual, numerate, good communicators, think on their feet, work well with others, not be welded to a mobile phone and so on. But adept at quadratic equations? Nineteenth century texts? Nope.

The stark reality is that for all the time, effort, cost, tears and regulatory reprisals for only one in five young people being successful in GCSE re-sits, we have over a million NEETs. The recent Alan Milburn review points out how the requirements also “further constrain limited FE capacity”, and how the system “risks locking out a significant minority of young people from taking meaningful steps towards work at a critical age”.

In a system of finite resource, wouldn’t it make much more sense to put more effort in supporting young people into work rather than a policy that guarantees failure for 80 per cent? I do believe we should still provide GCSE re-sits for every young person who wants them. But this madness of forcing everyone to do them must end.

T Levels are not yet a technical education success story

The government has been eager to talk up one of the big stories of this year’s results day: an increase in the number of learners awarded a T Level, up 65 per cent from 2025. Government voices heralded the increase as progress towards parity of esteem between academic, vocational and technical routes. The Prime Minister called the figures “brilliant”, with the education secretary saying the rise was “very encouraging”.

The 65 per cent increase in T Level entries does sound big. But percentage increases do tend to sound impressive when working with very small numbers.

In reality, T Levels accounted for a mere 1.8 per cent of overall level 3 entries. The number of students taking T Levels did rise – but from 11,989 last year to 19,665 in 2026.

For context, 321,000 students in England took at least one A Level this year, 16 times as many as gained a T Level. There were 195,000 applied general qualifications awarded, including BTECs, even though the latter faced funding withdrawal limbo. Strikingly, there were more than twice as many AS levels awarded in England this year than T Levels – despite AS levels’ steep decline in relevance since AS levels separated from A Levels a decade ago. With 56,800 16 and 17-year-olds now not in education, employment or training (NEET), there are now three times as many NEET young people as gained a T Level this summer.

We all want T Levels to be a success story. Ideally, T Levels’ success would legitimise a wider expansion of exactly the sort of high-quality technical routes everyone is calling for, including new plans for Year 10 pupils to combine technical education and ‘real world’ experience with core academic subjects – all part of Burnham’s plans to “value the hard hat as much as the graduation cap”.

But T Level figures are not yet a success story. They may even be a cautionary tale. The government is betting big that there is real demand for technical routes, from learners and from employers. The numbers suggest this is far from a safe assumption.

One of the biggest barriers to T levels’ success – as with apprenticeships, as with most attempts to integrate industry placements with formal education – is that on-the job training is terrific in theory but hard to deliver in practice. Offering learners industry placements relies on a placement actually existing, and strong employer buy-in remains elusive. This does not bode well for expanding technical routes to younger learners. If 16-year-olds are struggling to find placements, it is hard to imagine 14-year-olds will fare much better.

There is also a real risk that the government is taking learner demand for technical routes for granted. Taking on employers is hard; compelling young people to take qualifications they do not want to take is harder still. Policymakers have little understanding – and even less control – over learner appetite for technical qualifications. What little research exists into learner attitudes to T Levels suggests relatively low satisfaction.

T Levels’ size also means learners must pigeon-hole themselves early, committing to a specific trade track at 16. New technical routes for younger learners will sit alongside core academic subjects like ‘English, maths and science’. But adding a technical pathway at Key Stage 4 will – by design – take slots away from other GCSE subjects and reduce curricular breadth.

If few 16-year-olds want to narrow their options early and commit to a trade, will 14-year-olds feel differently? Expecting very young teens to know how they would like to spend more than fifty years on the labour market seems quite a tall order.

It is still early days for T Levels. Many T Levels awarded this summer were delivered for the first time this cycle, and deserve time to bed-in. Other early teething problems, including retention rates, are slowly being ironed out.

Young people deserve strong academic, vocational and technical pathways at level 3. As of 2027, V Levels will join the offer at post-16, providing welcome clarity in the vocational offer. But prematurely treating T Levels as a technical education success story to be replicated earlier in the system isn’t the answer. It certainly won’t make parity of esteem come any quicker.

What colleges want from English and maths stepping stone qualifications

This year, more than 179,000 16-year-olds finished Year 11 still needing to improve their results in one or both subjects. Without that all-important grade 4 they are expected to continue studying one or both, and many will retake the GCSE at colleges. Around 60,000 of them will be successful in gaining grade 4 in one or both subjects.

The issue of how best to support college students retaking their GCSE English and/or maths is hotly debated, but there is agreement that good levels of competency and fluency in English and maths are key to students’ future progression, citizenship and employment prospects. Students often start their retake programme feeling demoralised and disengaged, which can hold back their progress. They are also more likely to be experiencing greater material disadvantage compounded by a sense of failure.

For many students at this level, the steps to progression can seem too big. We have to start where they are and value and recognise their progress. The development of new ‘stepping stone’ qualifications for students who leave school with a GCSE grade 2 or below, which was recommended by the curriculum and assessment review (CAR), was the subject of a recent DfE consultation. An Ofqual consultation on the detail is expected shortly.

The retake discussion can sometimes feel polarised between the ‘GCSE at any cost’ and a ‘there must be better way’ positions. This is why we decided to survey both teachers and leaders across England, in partnership with Mathematics in Education and Industry (MEI) and the FE Literacy Movement. We wanted to establish whether there is any consensus around key aspects of these proposals.

The survey drew 310 responses from colleges across all the English regions, sorted into two groups: 224 individual English and maths practitioners submitting their own views, and 86 principals or other senior leaders on behalf of their college. There was broad alignment between the views of principals and practitioners and the survey found that both groups overwhelmingly support:

The aim to address student disengagement, build confidence and support achievement (98 per cent support).
A modular structure (89 per cent) with no more than three or four modules (79 per cent) to allow students to experience success in smaller steps than in a GCSE, and with credit gained for each module (90 per cent).
The need for specific resources, guidance and staff development (97 per cent).

Respondents highlighted issues of assessment, progression, student engagement and practicability. For example, some respondents felt it was important to “keep the number of modules low to avoid excessive assessments” and to “combine modular assessment with a summative element”.

Many respondents referred to motivation and engagement: “The biggest issue we face is disengagement… we need to break the pattern of failure,” said one.

Many also emphasised the case for a stepped, modular approach to “help learners feel a sense of achievement”, and “to experience more immediate success”.

Providing stepping stones is what we do in colleges; everything we offer is a step towards something else, whether that’s employment, higher level qualifications or further skills development. A good stepping stone should help build confidence and mastery and lead somewhere useful. It should value the incremental steps towards a common goal and ensure that no one is excluded, segregated or stuck on a road to nowhere.

College English and maths staff work incredibly hard to rebuild students’ confidence and get them back on track. These are the people who will need to make stepping stones work for students, they know that with encouragement, structured support and consistent feedback within a positive institutional culture, these students can succeed. They deserve the best possible tools, including qualifications which recognise every step of student progress from GCSE grade 1 towards grade 4 and beyond.

Stepping stones will not solve the retake challenge on their own. But it seems that the college staff who will be delivering them feel that these qualifications could play a useful role as part of an effective national English and maths upskilling strategy.

Let’s not leave ESOL to chance

August typically means exam results and preparation for the new academic year. However, with a new prime minister, this year is looking a little different. With a clear devolution agenda, as seen in the devolution of 16–19 funding, the education sector is rapidly trying to work out what this all means in practice and how it might work.

In theory, this policy shift in policy could help regional leaders to ensure local provision reflects local need. But Greater Lincolnshire’s recent decision to defund all English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) provision from 2027 has shown how local mayors can potentially frustrate national ambitions. This hinders the government’s aim of ensuring better adult English language provision that helps people integrate and contribute to their local communities.

Existing courses cannot replace ESOL

ESOL courses are vital for people to build fulfilling lives as citizens in the UK. So, skills minister Jacqui Smith’s recent call on all devolved authorities to remove the three-year residency rule for access to courses is an important and welcome step for adults learning English as a second language. The first of its kind since adult skills devolution, this order means that everyone can now have access to education from day one.

However, what this doesn’t do is reinstate ESOL provision in Greater Lincolnshire, which is still due to be defunded from next year. As a result, learners who would normally access ESOL will potentially be able to access other courses.

But the alternatives, such as functional skills English and GCSEs, are far from ideal as they’re designed for first-language English speakers. Many learners won’t have sufficient English to access these courses, leaving them without the provision that can unlock their skills or participate in their community.

Making English language learning accessible

The case of Greater Lincolnshire reiterates why national guardrails are urgently needed to ensure that ESOL provision is not left to chance. Many learners already face a postcode lottery; if we want people to be able to play a bigger part in their local communities, they must be able to access quality English language learning, regardless of where they live. The government’s review of national ESOL provision offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change this, and to make language learning more accessible and relevant to today’s learners.

A national framework

As devolution expands to further regions and with potentially many more responsibilities devolving, it is essential that the ESOL review delivers a national framework for ESOL, establishing guiding principles, clear expectations and accountability for provision. The Bell Foundation’s calls for change outline the roadmap to achieving this and ensuring better and fairer access to ESOL.

A framework for ESOL provision has never been more needed. The number of adult learners attending these classes has increased by nearly two thirds in the last five years alone. Despite this demand, ESOL investment through the adult skills fund and its predecessor funding streams has seen a 25 per cent drop in ESOL funding between 2010-11 and 2023-24 in real terms.

The government must grasp the nettle of how to meet this significant demand for ESOL at all levels. This means understanding ESOL is an investment and a key driver of community cohesion. Learning English enables people to access healthcare, education, public services, and community life. With appropriate provision that unlocks skills, learners, local communities will benefit as a result.

Part of a national framework should also ensure that practice and evidence is accessible to regional and local decisionmakers. Some effective ESOL practice already exists, but devolution has created a fragmented landscape where this isn’t necessarily known about everywhere. There is a clear need for a “what works” mechanism to share successful approaches and evidence as well as highlight where approaches are not working effectively.

As we await more details on how devolution will unfold, a national entitlement to ESOL would ensure that ESOL is valued and that everyone is able to integrate and contribute.