Latest news from FE Week

We want to end the snobbery around post-16 vocational routes

You will have heard a lot about new V Levels vocational qualifications recently and how we want to remove the snobbery from post 16 education.

This is more than a catchy headline; it’s a chance at a future for young people who otherwise couldn’t see themselves thriving in the existing system. And our reforms are much more than V Levels alone. We’re also bringing in new level 2 qualifications that will provide support to lower attainers to help prevent them from dropping out of the system and becoming one of the almost one million people who are NEET.

These reforms will go a long way in putting vocational learning on par with academic and breaking down crucial barriers for young people to get rewarding, well paid jobs. It is central to the prime minister’s ambition to ensure two thirds of young people are in a gold standard apprenticeship, higher training or university by the age of 25, boosting priority sectors in the industrial strategy, and driving economic growth as part of national renewal.

Currently, thousands of vocational courses sit within a system which is incredibly difficult to navigate and does not reflect the skills employers tell us they need.

You already work incredibly hard to support young people and we want to make sure the system matches that effort with the right tools.

The implementation plan

That’s why we have published an implementation plan setting out how we intend to deliver a clearer system of V Levels, T Levels, and A Levels, along with the new foundation certificates and occupational certificates, over the next four years. Crucially, it makes clear how we will support you through the transition because none of this works unless you are supported to deliver it.

We are listening and improving. Change of this scale needs to be pragmatic not dogmatic. For example, the availability of industry placements has proven a barrier to growing T Level numbers in the past. We have worked with the sector to make substantial changes, including scrapping the limits on the percentage of remote hours a student can do and how many employers they work with. This gives providers the scope to deliver placements at scale while making clear our ongoing expectations for quality. We have published that new guidance alongside our implementation plan to give providers time to make those changes ready for the year ahead.

Reform of this scale doesn’t stand still, and neither will our implementation plan. We will keep it updated as decisions are made, informed by conversations with you, so you always have a clear picture of where things stand and what’s coming next.

We are already consulting on the content of the first eight new vocational qualifications. By the end of the year, we aim to have draft content for consultation for over 30 more qualifications from routes such as construction and engineering, social care, sports and health.

Qualification pioneers

To support these reforms, we will work with 16-19 providers to create robust transition plans with a clear timeline and strategy for supporting staff, students and employers through the change. We have set up a new sector-led group known as Qualification Pioneers, a mix of 16-19 providers from across England, reflecting different regions, provider types, sizes and levels of readiness, to help shape what strong provider transition plans look like in practice. They will support engagement between the Department for Education and providers during the transition period, and will help to develop guidance, tools and approaches to help with delivery.

We have also set-up a stakeholder steering group that will also help to shape the delivery of these important changes, giving the sector insight on curriculum planning and what works for your students.

Thank you to those of you who continue to be generous with your time and experience in contributing to subject content development and the consultations we are running. It’s incredibly important that we continue to harness the expertise in the sector and we welcome further contributions by getting in touch with the Department for Education.

You already do extraordinary work with these young people. We want to support you by putting in a qualifications architecture that matches that ambition and is fit for the future. We’re building one, we’re delivering it and we are determined to work with you to get it right.

T Levels go fully remote as ministers scrap work placement limits

Students can now complete T Level industry placements entirely from home, following the government’s latest attempt to rescue the flagship qualifications.

Updated guidance published by the Department for Education removes limits on how much of a placement can be carried out remotely. It also scraps caps on the number of employers involved in a placement.

The changes mean that a student on a standard 315-hour industry placement could complete the entire requirement remotely and divide the hours among as many employers as necessary.

Claire Green, post-16 and skills specialist at the Association of School and College Leaders, said the limited availability of full, in-person industry placements had been a “major barrier, particularly in rural areas, and introducing greater flexibility should make it easier for colleges to deliver these qualifications”.

However, she warned that the purpose of an industry placement is to give young people “meaningful, hands-on experience of the workplace”, and there is a “risk that fully remote or highly fragmented placements could dilute this experience if not carefully managed”.

Red tape removed

The move marks a retreat from the original vision for T Levels when ministers insisted placements must take place almost entirely in person in the workplace, but with 35 hours permitted for “work taster activities”.

That position was softened in 2023 after colleges and employers warned the rules were unworkable. The Department for Education then allowed most students to complete up to 20 per cent of their placement remotely, rising to 50 per cent for digital T Levels.

The latest rewrite abolishes those thresholds altogether.

Officials still “recommend” using remote hours for no more than 20 per cent of the placement “where possible”, with students spending most of their time working face-to-face with an employer.

But removing the percentage limit was necessary to recognise that not all placement employers will have a physical workplace for the student to attend, with the guidance adding that in some sectors, such as digital, it “may be more appropriate for learners to spend more than 20 per cent of their placement working remotely”.

Restrictions on employer numbers have also been removed. Previous guidance allowed placements to be split between two employers, or up to three where firms formed part of the same supply chain or network.

New guidance said providers “should” still aim to use no more than two employers, but exceptions will be made where a student “would benefit from broader sector exposure” or short-term placements are more workable for employers.

For example, a student studying the health T Level could split their industry placement between three different employers across the local NHS integrated care system – including a hospital, a care home and a pharmacy.

The relaxation of placement rules goes further. Ministers have also removed limits on how much time students can spend on team projects and simulated training environments rather than in traditional workplaces. Previous guidance stated that small team projects overseen by employers and time spent in skills hubs or training centres should account for no more than one-third of a placement. The revised rules now only “recommend” that threshold.

The DfE has also widened the use of placements run ‘on site’ at colleges beyond students with special educational needs and disabilities.

A DfE spokesperson said removing this “red tape” would “help more young people to access premium placements and empowers businesses to offer placements that work for everyone”.

Green urged the government to keep the impact of its changes under close review, adding that the “priority must be to ensure that all students benefit from high-quality placements which genuinely support their skills development and progression”.

Low recruitment challenge

The changes mark another dilution of the government’s flagship technical education policy after years of low recruitment numbers and repeated concessions to schools and colleges struggling to make the system work.

T Levels were introduced in 2020 with the promise of creating a prestigious technical alternative to A Levels, combining classroom learning with substantial industry experience. Ministers hoped hundreds of thousands of students would eventually enrol.

Instead, take-up has remained stubbornly low. A report by the National Audit Office last year showed student number forecasts were missed by three quarters, resulting in a near-£700 million spending shortfall, and questioned whether employers and providers could sustain the demanding placement model.

The government has already moved to reduce the size of future T Levels, cutting teaching hours in an effort to make the courses more manageable for students and colleges.

Regulator Ofqual is also working to remove content “not absolutely necessary to demonstrate threshold competence” and cut the assessment burden for T Levels.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Industry placements remain a key part of T Levels. Our updated guidance introduces a new delivery framework for high-quality placements, giving providers more scope to tailor placements to their local context and the needs of their students.

“These updates have been carefully designed based on feedback from businesses to remove barriers to being accessible while crucially maintaining quality.

“Providers remain responsible for delivering high-quality industry placements that support their students to progress.”

Milburn quizzed by MPs on NEETs

Welcome to FE Week‘s live blog from a work and pensions committee session on the independent report into young people and work. The session will begin at around 09.30am. This is an oral evidence session part of the committee’s inquiry into youth employment, education and training.

Appearing before MPs will be Alan Milburn, chair of the Young People and Work Report, an independent investigation into soaring numbers of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET).

DfE axes single awarding body licence model

Ministers are set to scrap the single-licence model for T Levels and will not adopt the contentious awarding body approach for new vocational qualifications.

The decision was revealed in the government’s post-16 pathways implementation plan, published today to support colleges and schools transition from legacy qualifications like BTECs to its new suite of V Level courses.

From 2027, V Levels will be a new vocational pathway at level 3 and sit as third route for students to choose from after school, alongside academic A Levels and technical T Levels.

The implementation plan was promised in last year’s skills white paper and details the transition timeline, as well as policy updates including using the national adult skills fund to offer vocational and technical courses to young adults, and an announcement of the education providers chosen to be “qualification pioneers”.

Here are the key developments you need to know.

Single AO licensing model axed

Using a single awarding organisation (AO) per T Level, as opposed to the the multi-AO approach for A Levels, was a recommendation by Lord Sainsbury in his 2016 review of technical education. The Department for Education adopted the policy when T Levels launched in 2020.

However, the government’s own research warned that with no alternative to step in if problems arose with a contracted body, there was a “risk of system failure”. Exams regulator Ofqual also “advised on the risks related to the single provider model” ahead of their launch. In recent months, DfE officials have aired their view that the exclusive licensing model has been “incredibly challenging”.

Pearson, NCFE and City & Guilds have been the dominant holders of T Level contracts since their launch, but the latter two have gradually reduced their share of the market amid concerns the contract values did not meet delivery demands.

Following a recent relicensing round, Pearson will award 16 out of the 20 available T Levels by September 2027.

The DfE announced today that “going forward”, the department “does not intend to use contracted models such as single licensing” and confirmed that existing T Level provision will “transition away from exclusive single licences and towards an Ofqual-regulated market model”.

Under this model, awarding organisations that meet Ofqual’s recognition criteria will be able to enter the market and offer their own T Levels and V Levels, as well as incoming foundation and occupational certificates.

This would bring T Levels and V Levels in line with awarding arrangements for GCSEs and A Levels. However, demand for the technical and vocational qualifications is much less predictable than their academic counterparts.

Ofqual’s regulatory approach, nationally set subject content and common rules about assessment design and grading scales will “ensure high quality and consistency across qualifications offered by different awarding organisations and support coherent progression between qualifications delivered by multiple providers”, the DfE said.

It is not clear how the value of T Level contracts will change under this new approach.

The DfE said the timing of this transition for T Levels will “respect contractual arrangements and will be managed to protect continuity for learners and providers.

“In the near term, we will market test awarding organisation interest in new T Levels, such as social care and sport, planned for introduction from 2028, to confirm their suitability for delivery through a regulated market.”

Adult Levels

V Levels, foundation certificates, occupational certificates and T Levels will soon be eligible for funding through the adult skills fund (ASF) in non-devolved areas.

The DfE’s planning document was light on further details but said the idea behind the move is to “support integration of adult and 16 to 19 provision and progression opportunities for young adults in particular”.

It acknowledged that the majority of the ASF is devolved, and committed to working with strategic authorities to “help them understand the reformed landscape and support their decisions on whether to fund these qualifications”.

A separate section explained that T Levels will be made available for “young adults” who specifically do not already have a level 3 qualification from autumn 2027. Further detail on eligibility and funding will be provided “in the near future”.

The decision comes a year after an FE Week investigation found a pilot scheme for adult T Level learners attracted just 14 people despite targeting 150, with those involved warning there was “very little interest”.

No V Level ‘partnering’ in 2027 and UCAS points TBC

Ministers have decided that V Levels will be a similar size to a single A Level – 360 guided learning hours – with the intention being that students can mix and match between the two qualifications.

The DfE is considering whether to allow V Levels to be “partnered” with another V Level in the same subject area for 720 guided learning hours – in a similar way to how A Levels in maths and further maths can be taken together.

Along with other criteria, partnered V Levels must “offer the same level of demand as two V Levels taken in different subjects which are not partnered” and also not offer an “alternative large study programme which competes with T Levels”.

DfE expects a “very limited number of exceptional cases” to be granted for V Level partnering and decided that the first V Levels to be rolled out in 2027 – in accounting and finance, digital systems and data, and education – do not meet the criteria.

Officials will now consider if there is a “need” for partnering V Levels part of the 2028 expansion, which will see, for example, two V Levels in engineering and two in health rolled out.

For the 2027-28 academic year, DfE will also not implement any rules that restrict qualifications from being combined to form a study programme. This will allow providers to combine new V Levels in education, accounting and finance, and digital systems and data with existing funded qualifications, such as: A Levels, alternative academic qualifications, applied generals, tech levels and maths and English retakes.

And DfE has promised to work with UCAS to publish the tariff points for V Levels “as soon as possible”.

Finance T Level written off and other subject nuggets

The planning document confirmed the DfE will remove the T Level in finance, which launched in 2022, after no awarding organisation bid to run it in the latest procurement round. The final cohort for this qualification will commence from September 2026.

Officials also confirmed that several subject areas will not move forward as V Levels after testing found they were not viable. These include catering, onsite construction, and hair, beauty and aesthetics.

The DfE said students aiming to work in these sectors would be better supported by other qualification routes already available within the system.

The onsite construction T Level was also previously found not to be viable, while further testing has sparked a potential revival for T Levels in hair and beauty and catering despite previous tried and failed attempts.

DfE also confirmed the department is exploring options for subject areas currently covered by technical and vocational qualifications at level 2 and level 3 but not covered by the incoming suite of post-16 courses, including blacksmithing, criminology, equine care, transport and logistics, and British sign language. Further details are expected by early 2027.

Qualification pioneers revealed

A new sector-led group called ‘qualification pioneers’ has been created to “lead the way for the sector, shaping and sharing best practice as providers transition to the new qualifications”.

As previously announced, schools, colleges and training providers will be required to have individual “robust” transition plans to support staff, students, and employers through the change. The plans must be “owned” by the accounting officer for each provider, confirm “high-level intentions” for delivery from the 2027-28 academic year, and be submitted to DfE by July 6.

Qualification pioneers will “play an important role in helping providers to develop and implement transition plans, modelling effective practice, and identifying practical support needed to help providers navigate the transition to reformed qualifications”, DfE said.

The qualification pioneers for each region are:

North East:

o Education Partnership North East (City of Sunderland College Group)

o Education Training Collective

o Macmillan Academy (Endeavour Academies Trust)

North West:

o East Lancashire Learning Group

o Cheshire College South and West

o Altus Education Partnership

Yorkshire and the Humber:

o Luminate

o Sheffield College

o Thomas Rotherham College

East Midlands:

o Loughborough College

o Leicester College

West Midlands:

o Heart of Worcestershire College

o Newcastle and Staffordshire College Group

o Three Spires Trust

East of England:

o Harlow College

o Suffolk New College

o Saffron Walden County High

London:

o Waltham Forest

o Christ the King Sixth Form College

o Swanlea school

South East:

o South Hampshire College Group

o EKC Group

o Bohunt School in Liphook

South West:

o The Cornwall College Group

o Yeovil College

o Callywith College

National:

o Ark Schools

Independent Training Providers:

o Education for Industry Group

o Access Further Education

AoC wins £20m teacher training contract from ETF

A major CPD programme for FE teachers will be run by the Association of Colleges after the Education and Training Foundation lost the government contract it had held for more than six years.

The AoC will take on the renamed technical and vocational subject teaching professional development this summer, after it beat five competitors for the deal worth £20 million over three years.

The ETF, which the AoC helped set up, had delivered the contract – then called the T Level professional development programme – since the launch of T Levels in 2020.

The Department for Education renamed the scheme to include forthcoming V Levels and new level 2 qualifications.

The DfE expects the AoC to develop “significant” new content to support the incoming qualifications, which begin next year.

This will include “evidence-based subject-specific and pedagogical training for teachers”, plus industry upskilling and training for leaders on growing their vocational and technical provision.

FE staff will have access to free training and in-person activities, as well as upskilling sessions delivered by industry and “collaboration networks” to support peer learning.

Bids bids to run the scheme were submitted in an open tender round earlier this year. The other unsuccessful bidders were Pearson, University Vocational Awards Council, Cognition Education and Avencera (formerly Matt Hamnett & Associates).

The deal is worth nearly £23.1 million over three years with an option of a one-year extension. Contracts officially change hands next month, with activity expected to begin from September.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said: “We’re delighted to have won the contract. We were really keen to make sure it stayed in the sector and could be delivered with the sector for the sector.”

DfE fallout

The ETF’s delivery of the programme had earned it close to £76 million from the DfE.

The charity’s relationship with the DfE soured in 2022 when it emerged the foundation had racked up an unexpected surplus from lower-than-expected costs during the pandemic.

The DfE requested the ETF return up to £7.5 million while the charity’s lawyers argued it only owed £1.5 million.

The ETF ultimately agreed to repay £6.2 million, pushing it into a deficit in 2021-22.

The charity’s contract was nevertheless extended for two years in 2024, and it was awarded an extra £19.9 million.

The programme recorded over 11,800 engagements from more than 6,300 individuals in the 2025 financial year.

Dr Katerina Kolyva, chief executive of ETF, said: “While we are naturally disappointed not to have been selected for the new technical and vocational professional development contract, we are incredibly proud of what ETF and our partners have achieved on the current T Level professional development programme, which ends this summer.

“Our work has supported tens of thousands of professionals involved in the planning and delivery of T Levels, helping to build confidence, strengthen knowledge and improve practice. That impact reflects the expertise, commitment and professionalism of our colleagues and partners.”

The ETF’s staff headcount shot up to account for the TLPD contract and its other grant-funded programmes.

Numbers went from 75 in 2019-20 to 141 in 2020-21. By 2023-24, full-time equivalent staff numbered 176 at the charity, dropping to 144 the following year.

That drop was likely due to the DfE seizing its Taking Teaching Further programme from the ETF mid-contract in March 2023.

Kolyva added: “ETF’s mission is bigger than any single contract. As the professional body for the FE and skills workforce, we will continue to drive the development, recognition and professionalism of teachers, trainers and leaders to continuously improve student and sector outcomes.”

We can’t fix prison education without listening to its teachers

In recent years, much attention has been given to the role of education in reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation within prisons. Yet, while policies and outcomes are frequently debated, one crucial perspective remains largely unheard: that of the prison teacher. I am conducting research as part of an EdD (doctorate in education) that seeks to address this gap by exploring the lived experience of prison educators through the lens of phenomenology, a methodology dedicated to understanding how individuals make sense of their everyday realities.

At first glance, teaching in prison might appear to mirror teaching in any other further education setting. There are lessons to plan, students to support, and outcomes to achieve. But beneath this familiar structure lies a vastly different professional landscape, one shaped by security constraints, complex learner needs and a working environment unlike any conventional classroom. Prison teachers operate at the intersection of education, rehabilitation and the criminal justice system, yet their voices are rarely central to discussions about reform.

This silence matters.

An overlooked workforce

Prison educators play a vital role in offering second chances. They teach literacy, numeracy, vocational skills, and personal development to individuals who often have had disrupted or negative prior educational experiences. Despite this, their professional identity is frequently overshadowed. Are they teachers? Are they part of the prison system? Or are they something in between? These questions are not merely academic; they have real implications for recruitment, retention and professional development. At a time when prisons face increasing pressure to deliver meaningful education, understanding the experiences of these educators is more important than ever. Prison education is now required to demonstrate real rehabilitative results, and educators have responsibilities far beyond classroom instruction and management. These increased expectations will directly influence how prison teachers define their professional identity and role within the prison.

Why lived experience matters

My research does not aim to measure performance or evaluate policy. Instead, it seeks to listen. I am exploring how prison teachers experience their roles: how they perceive their professional identity, how they navigate challenges, and how they make sense of their work within a system that can be both restrictive and transformative.

This approach is significant because it prioritises human experience over abstract metrics. It acknowledges that behind every lesson delivered in a prison classroom is a teacher negotiating complex emotional, ethical, and professional demands. These include managing safety concerns, building trust with learners who may be resistant or vulnerable, and maintaining motivation in an environment where progress can be slow and setbacks frequent.

Challenging Assumptions

There is a tendency to view prison education through a deficit lens, focusing on what learners lack rather than what can be built. Similarly, prison teachers are sometimes seen as operating in a lesser or alternative branch of education. Understanding the lived experience of prison teachers is not just about giving them a voice; it is about informing better policy and practice. If we want prison education to succeed, we must first understand the people delivering it.

This research has the potential to:

Improve professional recognition and status for prison educators
Inform training and support systems tailored to their needs
Highlight pathways for career development within prison education
Ultimately, enhance the quality of education offered to learners in custody

At its core, this study is about visibility. It is about ensuring that prison teachers are not an invisible workforce operating behind locked doors.

Looking forward

Prison education is regarded as a pillar of rehabilitation; pillars require strong foundations, which are built by the educators working within the system. In amplifying these voices, my research aims to contribute to a more informed, humane, and effective approach to education behind bars. Because beyond the statistics, beyond the policies, and beyond the prison walls, there are stories that deserve to be heard.

I found my voice through lifelong learning – others deserve the same chance

Last November, I was invited to a ceremony at the Barbican in London to receive an award. No, Craig Revel Horwood was not waiting with a Glitterball Trophy and a long-overdue apology. Instead, I was greeted by Maggie Galliers, president of Learning and Work Institute (L&W), and presented with the lifelong learning ambassador award.

It was both a surprise and an honour. But it also prompted a question: what had I done to deserve it? I had helped expand learning opportunities for teachers during my time as a minister, but that was many years ago. I have reached grade 7 standard on the piano, but my attempts at Bach hardly justify national recognition.

In truth, the award reflected not just what I have done for lifelong learning, but what lifelong learning has done for me.

Adult education changed my life. It was through the adult learning provider City Lit, and one of its exceptional tutors, Jan Logan, that I found a way to manage my interiorised stammer. That stammer fully crystallised one afternoon at the dispatch box. “He’s the secretary of state and he can’t even get his words out” – I can still hear those words across the Commons chamber.

I was not the first person in public life to face this challenge. Winston Churchill and King George VI – later immortalised by Colin Firth – both navigated similar difficulties. But their stature did not give me confidence in the way Jan did. She helped me believe in myself, while also pushing me to do the hard work needed to improve. When I received the award, I dedicated it to her.

My experience is personal, but the wider lesson is clear. Supporting learning and skills for adults is essential. People are living and working longer, while technology is reshaping jobs and how we interact with public services. If even a fraction of the hype around artificial intelligence proves accurate, the economic shift will be comparable to deindustrialisation.

That makes it imperative to make learning more accessible at every stage of life.

There are reasons for optimism. Devolution in England has given regional mayors greater scope to tailor provision, unlock potential and respond to local needs. But there are also persistent challenges. Public funding for adult education has been under pressure regardless of which party is in government.

At the same time, employer investment has declined. Research from L&W shows businesses now invest nearly a third less in training than they did two decades ago, and at close to half the EU average on a per-worker basis.

Having spent time in the Treasury, I recognise that governments face difficult choices. But widening access to adult education is vital for the country. It delivers economic and social returns: more people in better jobs, more people able to change direction, recover from setbacks, or build new careers, and ultimately healthier and more fulfilling lives.

That is why I was proud to become a lifelong learning ambassador and to support L&W’s Get the Nation Learning campaign. Its aim is simple: to make and win the case for lifelong learning. It is a case that deserves attention.

Nominations for this year’s Get the Nation Learning Awards are now open. Organisations can share their success stories before 4 June and join more than 200 organisations backing the campaign by signing the Get the Nation Learning Charter.

Making apprenticeships a recovery route is creating more productivity problems

There’s a growing contradiction at the heart of the UK skills agenda: apprenticeships are being treated less as a planned progression route into skilled work, and more as a recovery mechanism for young people who have already fallen out of the system.

While the pressure to use apprenticeships as a solution is understandable, it risks asking employers, educators and young people to do too much, too late.

Lifetime Training’s recent data is telling. Around 79 per cent of applications into apprenticeship recruitment are from young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEET), alongside indicators of wider disadvantage.  Are apprenticeships being used to patch earlier system failures, rather than build a sustainable talent pipeline?

The scale of the challenge

According to the Office for National Statistics, around 957,000 young people aged 16–24 were NEET in October-December 2025, approaching the highest level seen in more than a decade.

Behind these headline numbers, around 580,000 are economically inactive, meaning they are not currently seeking work or education.

This matters because the solutions required are very different. For some young people the barrier is access to opportunity. For others it may be confidence, health challenges, caring responsibilities, or previous negative experiences of education.

There is no single NEET group, but a diverse population with a wide range of needs, circumstances and aspirations.

All too often however, support for these groups of young people comes too late and is not adequately tailored to their needs.

Just this month, the London mayor announced that unspent adult skills funding would be diverted to tackle youth unemployment. Not only was there little explanation of how this would be deployed to support people in differing circumstances, but the stripping back of funding for adult apprenticeships risks removing development routes for young people as they progress in their career.

It points to a deeper structural issue in the skills system. The reliance on short‑term or repurposed funding streams suggests a system that is better designed to respond to NEET status than to prevent it, stepping in once barriers are entrenched rather than supporting smoother transitions in the first place.

What does this mean for productivity?

From a system perspective, intervening once young people are already NEET is problematic because it results in support being more intensive, longer-term and costly. Barriers are more entrenched; learners may experience deep lack of confidence, mental health or housing issues that can be more difficult to resolve as time goes on.

When apprenticeships become a late-stage recovery route, the system carries higher risk: readiness gaps widen, completion becomes harder, and employers shoulder more onboarding cost, diluting the very productivity gains apprenticeships are meant to deliver.

With the government explicitly pushing youth-focused reform and new routes (including foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail) alongside a major youth employment drive, it’s vital that apprenticeships are protected as a planned early-career pathway.

In practice, this means urgently rebuilding the stepping-stone provision before level 2 so young people don’t reach apprenticeships when they have already experienced a fractured system.

The importance of building the foundations

Many young NEETs face multiple barriers to learning or work and may not yet be ready to begin an apprenticeship or vocational qualification.

For these individuals, foundation programmes and pre-apprenticeship pathways can play a crucial role by building confidence, work readiness, and core employability skills.

The question policymakers and providers must ask is: Are we investing enough in these pathways that sit before level 2?

From our discussions with employer partners, too many don’t have a concrete understanding of what a foundation apprenticeship is designed to do.

Are they primarily a route for young people who are not yet ready for level 2? Are they a way for employers to widen access and derisk recruitment? A structured bridge into full apprenticeships? In reality, they can do all of these things, but without that clarity, it’s hardly surprising that uptake remains patchy. With clearer understanding and confidence in pathways, employers would have more incentive to engage with schools or colleges, supporting young people’s awareness of their options.

Looking ahead

To ensure young people and employers can fully understand and engage with the options available, the system now needs

targeted, ringfenced investment in pre-level 2 provision. Foundation programmes and pre-apprenticeship pathways should not be funded through repurposed or leftover budgets but treated as a core part of the skills system with dedicated, multi-year funding. Without this, the system will continue to intervene too late, when support is more costly and outcomes are less certain.

Alongside this, government must set out a clear, end-to-end progression framework. Employers and providers need to see, in practical terms, how a young person moves from a foundation programme into level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships, including expected timelines, support requirements and outcomes. This should function as a coherent pathway, not a set of disconnected options.

Employer incentives also need to better reflect reality. While payments of up to £2,000 are helpful, they often fall short of the true cost of onboarding young people who require intensive early support. A more effective approach would include:

Higher incentives for foundation and entry-level pathways
Staged payments linked to progression and completion
Additional support for employers working with higher-need learners
Contribution towards salaries until an individual is work ready

At the same time, schools and colleges must be required to provide clearer, earlier careers guidance on these pathways. This includes:

Embedding foundation and apprenticeship routes into mainstream careers education
Improving communication with parents
Work preparation content and initiatives built into the school curriculum
Ensuring young people understand not just what options exist, but who they are for and where they lead

Finally, accountability needs to shift from reaction to prevention. Success should not be measured solely by how many young people are moved out of NEET status, but by how many never reach that point in the first place. That means setting explicit targets for participation in pre-apprenticeship pathways and tracking progression into sustained employment or further training.

The question is not whether we can afford to act. The real question is whether we can afford to keep intervening too late.

Smaller steps could transform English and maths resits

The Department for Education is currently consulting on proposed post-16 English and maths stepping stone qualifications for students who leave school with a GCSE grade 2 or below. As most of these students study in colleges, how should the sector respond?

Around a third of secondary students do not achieve a GCSE grade 4 in English and/or maths by the age of 16. Although many have developed their literacy and numeracy skills over time, their Year 11 results mean they often arrive at college demoralised and demotivated, while also facing greater socio-economic disadvantage.

College teachers work hard to rebuild these students’ confidence and get them back on track. In 2024-25, more than 70,000 college retakers improved their GCSE grade in either English or maths, and 27,000 (39 per cent) of these improved from a grade 2 or grade 1. From my own experience of teaching basic numeracy, I know that with encouragement, structured support and effective feedback, these students can succeed.

Aiming for fluency in English and maths cannot be optional, and restricting ourselves to the merely ‘functional’ would cap aspiration and add curriculum disadvantage to socio-economic disadvantage. I have spent my professional life arguing against the labelling, tracking and segregation of young people based on prior attainment because we know who loses out in these systems. But there is no magic bullet for raising achievement; it requires a positive institutional culture alongside coherent and well-grounded pedagogy. That is the message of the DfE’s recent publication on effective college retake practice.

So how might new stepping stone qualifications help GCSE retakers? For many students at this level, the gap between where they are and where they want to be can feel too wide. They are a highly diverse group with a broad range of needs, but we know that to re-engage them we must start where they are, while recognising and valuing their progress. The point of a stepping stone qualification is precisely to overcome barriers, break the journey to grade 3 into manageable stages and build confidence for the next step towards grade 4.

The Social Mobility Commission has recognised the importance of smaller, incremental steps rather than a ‘massive leaps’ approach. Social immobility is shaped by a complex interaction of inequalities and will not be solved simply by introducing a new qualification. However, well-designed stepping stones can help support progression.

Providing stepping stones is what colleges already do. Everything we offer students is a step towards something else: employment, higher-level qualifications or further skills development. A good stepping stone should build confidence and mastery while leading somewhere meaningful. It should value incremental progress towards a shared goal and ensure that no one is excluded, segregated or left on a road to nowhere. That is the exact opposite of a two-tier or tracked system.

We also need to avoid myth-making about new qualifications before we know what they will look like. At this stage, the design is still under discussion, but some points are already clear. First, the standard will be pitched at a strong GCSE grade 3 which, like grades 1 and 2, sits within level 1. Progress within a level does not mean standing still; it is real progress and can be measured. Second, there is no suggestion that stepping stone qualifications will be mandatory or that learners will be prevented from retaking GCSEs as soon as they are ready. Third, they may not have a simple pass/fail outcome, with grading at both module and qualification level appearing possible.

Reform always creates pressure and brings opportunity costs. But change in this area is long overdue, and the benefits of a more inclusive and staged approach, alongside the proposed pedagogical support, could far outweigh the initial costs.

College English and maths teachers deserve the best possible tools for the work they do. That includes qualifications which recognise student progress at every stage, from GCSE grade 1 towards grade 4 and beyond. Stepping stones may be exactly what we need to support students who have experienced the stumbling block of “failure” at 16.

Whether you agree or not, please engage with the DfE consultation.