Latest news from FE Week

Adult education institutions are being dismantled by stealth

As the country’s need for a skilled and adaptable workforce continues to grow and evidence increasingly demonstrates the role that community education plays in improving wellbeing, social cohesion and life opportunities, it is deeply concerning that policy and structural changes appear to be moving in the opposite direction. Rather than strengthening and investing in specialist adult education institutions that have successfully delivered these outcomes for generations, government-led reforms are accelerating a trend towards their merger into larger further education colleges, often driven by financial pressures and structural restructuring.

This is not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a broader pattern that has emerged gradually over recent years. It is a worrying direction of travel. While one or two mergers may be regarded as successful, the longer-term jury is still out. There has been little robust evaluation of whether these changes preserve the distinctive qualities that made these institutions successful in the first place, or whether something important and irreplaceable is being lost.

There is also a wider question about the policy decisions that have brought us to this point. The erosion of specialist adult education institutions has not happened through an open public debate about their value or purpose, nor through meaningful consultation about whether their distinctive role should continue. Instead, it has occurred through changes in status, governance and funding arrangements. The move to statutory college status has weakened institutional independence and reshaped governance arrangements, while funding methodologies designed around mainstream provision for young people often fail to recognise the distinctive costs and benefits of residential and specialist adult education models.

England has a rich history of specialist adult education institutions, many founded over 100 years ago with a mission to widen participation, support social mobility and strengthen democracy through learning. Institutions such as Working Men’s (WM) College, Mary Ward Centre, Ruskin College, Hillcroft College, Morley College, City Lit, Northern College and Fircroft were established with a clear social purpose and a belief that adult education should transform lives, not simply deliver qualifications.

Recent years have seen mergers and restructures across the sector, including Northern College merging into Barnsley and Ruskin College becoming part of the University of West London. While these changes may have brought operational benefits, there has been little assessment of what may have been lost in identity, mission and social impact.

Over time, adult education policy has shifted away from broader lifelong learning towards a narrower focus on employment and economic outcomes. Funding has increasingly followed qualifications linked to labour market priorities, often at the expense of community learning, integration, wellbeing and wider social outcomes. Public spending on adult education and skills has fallen significantly, while participation in publicly funded classroom-based learning has dropped dramatically over the last two decades.

Specialist adult education institutions have played a unique role in England’s learning landscape for more than a century. They were never simply places where adults gained qualifications; they created spaces where people from different backgrounds could come together to learn, live, debate and grow in ways that changed lives and strengthened communities. Their distinctive character bringing together learning, personal development, social connection and civic engagement cannot easily be replicated within the hustle and bustle of predominantly 16-19 FE colleges.

As these historic institutions increasingly merge into the wider FE system, there is a real risk something special will disappear. A distinctive feature of several of these organisations has been their residential element, providing immersive learning experiences and opportunities to build lasting communities.

At a time of increasing social fragmentation and division, we need places that bring communities together more than ever. Residential and community-based adult education has been doing exactly that for over 100 years. We should not underestimate the contribution these institutions have made, or the significance of what could be lost.

Across many countries, adult learning is increasingly recognised as essential to addressing skills shortages, supporting longer working lives and improving wellbeing. Yet at the very moment when lifelong learning has never been more important, England risks diminishing institutions that have spent generations doing precisely that.

Once these distinctive institutions, traditions and approaches disappear, they are incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to rebuild.

The Milburn review is a watershed moment for FE

The prime minister referred to the Alan Milburn review into young people and work as “sobering”. My own reaction was nothing less than jaw-dropping; to see the failure of historic education policy laid bare in such stark terms was certainly not what I expected.

The report points to many factors contributing to a situation where over a million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Milburn sees it as “shameful” that so much was spent on welfare support for young people compared with getting them into jobs. The world has moved on; entry-level jobs are no longer in such plentiful supply. What employers require and what the education system provides are in many ways poles apart, and the ability of employers to respond to the changing needs of this young generation is a key challenge.

The review is being described as a “landmark” and appears to present a watershed moment, perhaps as consequential as the Tomlinson and Dearing reports or, in time, more so. Yet this is “only” an interim report. It sets out the current situation and evidence. A sequel later in the year will provide a suggested direction of travel.

At this stage, here are my takeaways:

First, the acknowledgement that vocational and technical education has been subject to continued policy churn (unlike academic education) must be taken seriously as a core contributing factor to why young people, employers, schools and parents struggle to navigate the system. As far back as I can remember, every successive government has vowed to simplify the landscape and create clarity. Instead, they cause further confusion and unwittingly ensure that further education remains “close to impassable”.

The obsession that traditional sixth form and university education is the golden ticket to success and that alternatives like apprenticeships and technical education are “for someone else’s child” is so deeply ingrained in the psyche of this country. This risks making so many thousands of young people feel second best. It is hard to see how this narrative can change, but it must.

Second, we need to avoid the temptation to rush to piecemeal solutions. As the report suggests, countless initiatives that appear reactive and have effectively been sticking plasters have not worked. In recent memory, I can think of traineeships and Kickstart, now we have foundation apprenticeships and the youth guarantee.

Apprenticeships themselves, arguably the gold standard in getting young people into work, have seen starts for this age category reduce by 40 per cent. Pledging 300,000 new work placements is now the latest well-meaning response. To raise the profile of technical education in schools, we are seeing calls again for colleges to provide day release opportunities – when many cannot accommodate demand for 16–19-year-olds. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do any of these things, but my reading of the report is that we need a fundamental rethink and a much more coordinated approach to how we address youth employment.

Third, the review must lead to a debate about some of the current activities colleges are required to do. There is reference in the report to maths and English re-sits and surely the time is ripe again to discuss the merits of ploughing massive resource and cost into a policy for a return of one in five students being successful. Years of following this policy clearly hasn’t helped more young people into employment. The report’s acknowledgement of the significant strain due to college and school support for mental health and deficiencies in social work must be recognised more fully.

We should also start a conversation that focuses on the “engagement” of young people, broader than the blunt instrument of classroom-based attendance. As a colleague recently said to me, we could have attendance rates that satisfy policymakers and regulators far better by not taking on those who have struggled with this at school – but that’s not who we are, and we meet people where they are.

Finally, there must be reflection on the report’s claim that FE has been made weaker and hollowed out by the lack of adequate funding over a sustained period of time.

Yes, the current government has started to right this wrong. Yet, stark inequalities still exist across the wider education system and in terms of addressing the most disadvantaged young people, including those most likely to become NEET, the report states that FE isn’t some “marginal landscape” but “it is the landscape”. However, it is a landscape that needs more flexibility, parity of esteem with other parts of the education system and demand-led funding to meet the challenge.

The suggestion that funding should be outcomes (i.e. destinations) based needs a cautious response and careful thought – but there is no denying that greater accountability for where students go as opposed to just “bums on seats” and qualifications passed should be treated seriously.

It’s great we’ve been able to demonstrate greater numbers of young people into bricklaying and electrical courses, but how many are we actually progressing into the industry? It’s time to shift the conversation.

City & Guilds threatened with legal action over ‘disgraceful’ staff cuts plan

A union is threatening awarding giant City & Guilds with “legal and industrial action” over its workforce redundancy plans.

Unite the Union claimed City & Guilds, which is now owned by Greek awarding business PeopleCert, is “advertising for jobs” in Greece and the UK at the same time as running redundancy consultations.

A union spokesperson claimed the company is “unlawfully withholding key information” during transfer consultations and advertising for new recruits when it is “legally required” to give its staff at risk of redundancy first refusal on available roles.

Unite general secretary Sharon Graham said: “The way PeopleCert is treating these workers is absolutely disgraceful and will not be tolerated.

“Unite will use everything in its power to defend the City & Guilds workforce.”

FE Week understands about 75 roles are at risk, with the majority within the business’s central support functions.

Referencing a presentation shared with investors last year, the union said it believes PeopleCert is ultimately planning to shed around a third of City & Guilds’ 1,300-strong UK workforce.

The presentation suggested plans to relocate some staff roles to Greece, where personnel costs are “up to 50 per cent lower”, through “natural employee churn”.

The legal and industrial threats are a public escalation of a growing dispute between the awarding business’ staff and their new executives.

‘Inadequate disclosure’

PeopleCert bought City & Guilds’ awarding and commercial business from the 148-year-old charity in October for about £166 million.

The sale is the subject of a live Charity Commission inquiry, with the regulator examining “trustees’ decision making” and large bonuses paid to senior executives after the transaction. PeopleCert itself also launched its own probe into the “conduct” of top City & Guilds executives during the sale. Neither inquiry has reported yet.

According to a leaked letter, seen by FE Week, Unite the Union regional officer Peter Storey accused the new owners of failing to involve staff at a formative stage of the redundancy process.

He also alleged “inadequate disclosure” about why job losses are necessary and “insufficient transparency” around the methodology of choosing which roles should be cut.

Storey said the union would no longer participate in the redundancy consultation.

He added that an “absence of management ownership” has created huge levels of anger and a lack of trust.

The union representative also called for “urgent” involvement of conciliation service ACAS and “direct engagement” from interim CEO Andy Moss.

Storey said: “PeopleCert has been dishonest from the moment it took over City & Guilds.

“Without significant movement from the company, this dispute will continue to escalate, including through potential legal and industrial action.”

‘Process remains ongoing’

A spokesperson for PeopleCert said: “We remain committed to conducting a meaningful collective consultation with colleagues and their representatives in good faith and in accordance with our legal obligations.

“We have provided extensive information on the proposals, responded to requests for further detail, and continue to engage constructively with representatives and impacted colleagues whose contribution to date has been valuable.

“No outcomes have been predetermined. The purpose of consultation is to seek feedback on the proposals, explore ways to avoid, reduce and mitigate proposed redundancies where possible, and consider alternative approaches.

“That process remains ongoing. We have agreed additional time for collective consultation discussions and continue to meet regularly with Unite and colleague representatives. We recognise this will be a difficult and uncertain time for colleagues whose roles may be impacted and are committed to handling the process with care, fairness and respect.”

The spokesperson added their current redundancy proposals follow a review of the business earlier this year and are “separate to previous discussions on the workforce”.

The proposed changes are designed to “further strengthen and enhance” the reliability and quality of City & Guilds qualifications, they said.

More strikes set for England’s largest exam board

Hundreds of staff at exam giant AQA will strike for four more days from Friday over an ongoing pay row.

Around 400 members of Unison will walk out after AQA leaders refused to meet for talks to discuss an alleged 10 per cent real-terms pay cut to staff pay over the last five years.

Unison is calling for pay restoration, which it previously said would require a 7.3 per cent rise this year. AQA issued what it described as a “generous” 5.2 per cent average pay increase instead.

The union warned the latest escalation of the dispute could cause delays in students receiving their results this summer – but the exam board claimed the series will still be delivered “smoothly”.

Assessors, exam paper authors and customer service staff will take part in the latest strikes from June 5 to 8 across three AQA sites, including its Manchester headquarters, as well as its offices in Guildford and Milton Keynes.

The dates have been chosen to disrupt training for examiners planned to take place this weekend.

It follows three days of industrial action last month. Staff have since refused to carry out overtime and on-call work.

Unison claimed that the dispute has so far caused disruption to exam papers being sent out.

An AQA spokesperson said: “The 5.2 per cent pay settlement is affordable, competitive and sustainable for AQA – bearing in mind the rate of inflation is 2.8 per cent, according to the Bank of England. The union’s claim is flatly wrong: our pay rises in recent years have consistently exceeded inflation.

“AQA is an education charity that doesn’t seek a profit – and yet we have awarded a pay increase in excess of our fee increases, which is a generous approach by any standards.”

They added that Unison was attempting to “alarm” students and parents for their own purposes.

“We will not allow results to be delayed – indeed, we can assure those sitting AQA qualifications that the summer exam series will be delivered smoothly and to the high quality that schools and young people have come to expect from us.”

The exam board’s staff previously went on strike on GCSE and A Level results days in 2022.

AQA sets more than half of GCSE and A Level papers taken in England, with about 1.4 million pupils sitting their qualifications every year.

Unison AQA branch secretary Eoin MacGabhann said: “Staff who keep the exam system running and make sure millions of students get accurate results on time deserve to be paid fairly for their work.

“AQA employees have seen the value of their wages slashed in real terms in recent years, while living costs have soared.

“Nobody wants to be on strike, but bosses’ refusal to even talk means workers have been left with little choice.

“Staff know how important this time of year is, but unless AQA is serious about resolving these long-standing issues, further disruption and delays in students receiving grades look likely.”

FE falls as bootcamps boom in priority skills pipeline

Mainstream further education courses linked to the government’s priority industrial strategy sectors have declined while higher education, apprenticeships and skills bootcamps all grew.

Skills England’s first annual skills report showed FE achievements linked to priority occupations fell by 7 per cent between 2021-22 and 2023-24, from 48,000 to 45,000.

Over the same period, apprenticeships in those sectors rose by 27 per cent and higher education achievements by 14 per cent. Meanwhile, the rollout of skills bootcamps now means the short courses account for 18,000 learner achievements in priority sectors.

New individual sector assessments show mismatches between recent training trends and the volumes or qualification levels needed in some priority sectors.

The priority sectors are advanced manufacturing, clean energy, construction, creative industries, defence, digital and technologies, financial services, health and adult social care, life sciences and professional and business services.

Skills England forecasts that priority occupations in those sectors will grow by almost a quarter, creating 1.8 million extra jobs by 2035.

Analysis of the training pipelines into the priority sectors showed the fastest growth was in skills bootcamps, followed by apprenticeships and higher education.

Its annual report said growing course numbers in construction and digital, for example, “suggests that parts of the education and training pipeline are expanding”, but added that course growth by itself was “not a guarantee” that job-ready learners with applied capability and work-based experience would meet demand for specific priority roles.

Level crossing

Skills England’s ten sector needs reports reveal a growing mismatch between recent training trends and the volumes and qualification levels its analysis indicates the economy requires.

Across all priority sectors, 62 per cent of new jobs are expected to require training at level 4 and above and 38 per cent at level 2 or 3.

Adult social care, clean energy and construction are the only sectors where most demand is at levels 2 or 3.

In adult social care, Skills England said 79 per cent of projected new jobs will require level 2 or 3 qualifications and estimated the sector will need 281,300 extra workers by 2035. That is on top of 404,000 workers leaving roles that will need to be replaced.

Recent growth in training is at higher levels, where Skills England said there will be less demand.

FE achievements at levels 2 and 3 dropped by 24 per cent between 2021-22 and 2023-24, and levels 2 and 3 apprenticeship achievements only rose by only 1 per cent.

But nursing and health and social care apprenticeships at levels 4 and 5 grew by 54 per cent and 20 per cent respectively.

Meanwhile, adult social care bootcamps boomed from 240 to 700.

Training in the construction pipeline however appears to be more aligned. Skills England said 59 per cent of projected additional jobs will require level 2 or 3 qualifications.

Its analysis of recent training trends showed building and construction apprenticeships were up 60 per cent, and reported bootcamp outcomes rose from 100 in 2021-22 to 5,000 in 2023-24.

But growth in levels 2 and 3 further education courses only grew by 7 per cent over that period.

Higher power

In other priority sectors, demand is overwhelmingly at higher level training with training track records to match.

In digital and technologies, defence, life sciences and creative industries, at least 80 per cent of projected new jobs are expected to need qualifications at levels 4 and above.

Skills England’s analysis of those sectors’ training needs showed existing provision is already dominated by higher education and higher-level apprenticeships.

The annual report said higher education accounted for more than two-thirds of learners entering priority occupations, while level 2 and 3 routes through apprenticeships or further education accounted for just over a quarter.

It also said further education had lower overall alignment with priority occupations, with 29 per cent of employed recent FE leavers entering priority occupations, compared with 54 per cent from higher education and 48 per cent from apprenticeships.

Built by bootcamps

The clearest example of bootcamps driving growth was in construction, where ministers are relying on the skills system to deliver their policies on housebuilding, clean energy and infrastructure.

Skills England said construction-related course growth was “partly due to the rise in the number of skills bootcamps”.

Construction courses linked to priority occupations grew by 25 per cent between 2021-22 and 2023-24, but that fell to 16 per cent when bootcamps are excluded.

Skills England’s construction skills needs assessment warned the sector faced the largest projected increase in workers of all the priority sectors.

It projected 493,000 extra workers across 30 occupations would be needed by 2035, largely driven by the government’s target to build 1.5 million new homes in this parliament. A further 595,000 workers are expected to leave the sector and need replacing, bringing the total demand for workers to over one million.

Data warning

A technical annex published alongside the annual report and ten skills needs assessments highlighted that available skills bootcamp data is limited.

Unlike FE, HE and apprenticeships, there is no verified “achievement” data for skills bootcamps. Skills England instead used the third and final funding milestone for “outcomes” as a proxy for “evidence of a successful outcome”.

It also said all bootcamps mapped to priority occupations were selected through “expert judgment-based analysis” by DfE’s skills bootcamps team.

Skills bootcamps have faced repeated questions over outcomes and quality over the years.

FE Week reported last year that almost two-thirds of learners in 2022-23 did not secure a job or progress at work after their course, despite starts more than doubling.

Earlier government-commissioned research found more than half of learners on wave two bootcamps already held a level 4 qualification or above, while some participants received “inappropriate” interviews despite guaranteed job interviews being a core part of the programme.

The technical annex also warned against treating the sector forecasts as directly comparable.

Methods used to select priority occupations and project future demand were chosen by sponsoring government departments, with “support from Skills England analysts where required”.

As a result, the annex said methods “differ by sector”.

Across the sector assessments, Skills England repeatedly said projections should be treated as indicative trends and orders of magnitude, not precise forecasts.

DfE unable to show whether £270m Multiply programme improved maths

An evaluation of Rishi Sunak’s £270 million Multiply programme found it successfully engaged thousands of adults who were anxious about maths – but was unable to determine whether their numeracy skills improved.

The adult numeracy scheme, launched in 2022, funded maths courses across England that aimed to boost adults’ numeracy skills and earnings prospects.

An evaluation published yesterday suggested Multiply was successful at helping 210,000 learners – many new to adult education – overcome their “anxiety about numeracy”.

However, the report also admitted that researchers were “unable” to assess how much learners’ numeracy skills improved due to a mid-programme “change in focus” from delivering qualifications to unaccredited learning.

It revealed that officials scrapped plans to test some learners before and after courses due to “very low buy-in” from training providers and participating adults.

Over the three years the programme ran, the Department for Education (DfE) spent £1.3 million on the evaluation carried out by Verian and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

It spent a further £5.7 million on a set of six randomised control trials that piloted approaches to adult numeracy teaching, some of which related to Multiply-style courses.

Only one of these, aimed at parents with primary school-age children, found a “statistically significant” impact.

The evaluation findings came more than a year after the three-year numeracy programme was scrapped by the Labour government in March 2025.

DfE officials produced four “internal” interim reports on the programme since 2023, but have refused to share copies with FE Week.

The evaluations also come in the same week as the launch of a national adult numeracy campaign by the Richmond Project, a charity set up by Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty.

Positive self-reporting

Evaluators found that of the 290,000 total enrolments from the 210,000 learners, 85 per cent would not have happened without the programme.

Surveyed learners said they were attracted to the “flexible nature” of the courses, which included embedded numeracy into topics relevant to learners’ work or daily lives such as cooking.

Most reported benefits for their confidence, well-being, and employment prospects.

A third of learners also reported going on to take another numeracy course and a further 25 per cent a non-numeracy course, with 83 per cent of learners saying their Multiply experience “positively influenced” their decision to continue studying.

However, researchers admitted that a “limitation” of their evaluation was the “lack of objective measure” of whether maths skills improved.

Objectives changed mid-programme

Evaluators blamed the lack of direct evidence of learners getting better at maths on the “change of focus” from qualifications up to level 2 to “short, informal and unintimidating” courses that helped address anxiety about numeracy.

This was a “deliberate decision” based on feedback from providers about what was needed to engage new learners.

The evaluation was originally supposed to collect data on learners’ progress through short numeracy assessments at the start and end of their course.

But these tests reportedly had “very low” buy-in from providers and learners due to the “negative impact” on delivery.

Evaluators tried to offer learners incentives directly but decided that the “administrative and monetary cost” of trying to collect this data was not “value for money”.

‘Change people’s lives’

Announcing the programme while chancellor in 2021, Sunak claimed it would “change people’s lives” by addressing what he called “poor” adult maths skills.

He allocated £560 million for the UK-wide programme, with £270 million reserved for England.

However, its launch suffered a six-month delay to the release of funding in the first year, contributing to a 16 per cent, or £44 million, underspend over the three years.

The £94 million website that was supposed to promote the programme, offer learner “diagnostic” and tuition was scrapped, with less than £300,000 spent.

Lack of clarity

The evaluation also found that employers were “difficult to engage” with the programme.

Local areas were positive about the shift towards informal training and tended to feel that the programme was “good value for money” that complemented existing adult education budget provision.

However, areas including the Greater London Authority and North East Combined Authority complained about an “absence” of a national communications campaign to promote the programme.

Most authorities involved also had major concerns about a “lack of clarity” around funding beyond March 2025, which impacted planning and staff retention.

“There was a strong consensus that demand for community-based numeracy support remains high, and that future funding should build on Multiply’s successes rather than allow them to dissipate,” evaluators concluded.

Former civil servant Andrew Otty, who worked on the early design of Multiply, said: “Multiply’s goals were to improve adult progression towards level 2 maths achievement, to establish an online platform as an unparalleled resource to engage and support adults with numeracy, and to run a series of randomised controlled trials to test whether the local pockets of existing good practice in adult maths delivery as of 2021 could have been scaled up and replicated nationally.

“This evaluation has been published years after the decision was already taken to scrap Multiply and half a decade after the necessary baselining should have taken place.

“It consequently sidesteps the most important question around the impact on maths achievement, glosses over the gross failure of civil servants around the online platform, and – along with DfE – misunderstands the original purpose of the RCTs.

“It is fantastic to see that local areas and colleges innovated successfully to engage learners and build confidence in maths, but they did so in spite of DfE blockers, and this evaluation provides nothing in the way of transparency and accountability.”

The DfE and Rishi Sunak were approached for comment.

UCU Congress: Pooled votes backed for next teacher strike

FE lecturers have backed a national strike ballot strategy that could help the University and College Union stage more walkouts across England’s colleges.

Delegates at its annual congress in Harrogate voted today to pursue an aggregated ballot, which would pool votes across England rather than require each college branch to clear the legal turnout threshold separately.

The move marks a shift in strategy for the union after members rejected an aggregated ballot at a special FE conference in 2024, choosing instead to pursue local pay claims.

But delegates stopped short of calling for coordinated strike action before the end of October after a last-minute amendment failed.

UCU has demanded a 10 per cent or £3,000 pay rise for college teachers alongside workload cuts and binding national bargaining through its new deal for FE campaign.

Pay will continue to be a priority for the campaign after motions by Leeds City College and Bolton College to put national bargaining ahead of annual pay uplifts failed.

Seven motions related to the new deal for FE campaign were debated in a closed private session, which journalists were barred from observing. UCU refused to confirm the outcomes when asked by FE Week.

FE Week understands a motion from South Devon College UCU for an aggregated ballot for industrial action was approved.

On aggregate

Union branches are required to attract a 50 per cent turnout for a majority vote to pass.

UCU members in 32 of 68 colleges passed the turnout threshold and backed strike action last year.

But teachers at 17 colleges ultimately walked out in January, following a swathe of settled pay deals between union branches and college employers.

The move saw pay rises for teachers above the Association of Colleges’ 4 per cent pay recommendation.

The aim of an aggregated ballot is to increase the number of colleges taking part in industrial action by pooling votes nationally.

Paul Bridge, head of further education at UCU, told congress FE has a “charade” of national bargaining when the five trade unions negotiate at the National Joint Forum on pay with the Association of Colleges.

“It doesn’t deliver anything other than a recommendation that’s not fully funded,” he said.

Bridge added that UCU must “concentrate” on demanding ringfenced funding for FE pay.

“Part of what our campaign is about is establishing the flaws in the absence of a sector. It doesn’t have national bargaining, it doesn’t have national T’s and C’s. We have to create that.”

Workload demands

All five motions demanding stronger national efforts to reduce workload were approved.

Delegates called for more serious recognition of teacher stress and a campaign to define preparation for Ofsted visits as workload.

A motion launched by Novus on rebuilding prison education branches after the new prison education service contract was passed unanimously.

Bridge estimated around 300 prison educators have been made redundant since the new prison education service came into force in October.

Novus educator Maria Walker said remaining teachers were experiencing untenable workloads servicing the contract.

“It’s not about educators anymore. We have lost so much knowledge,” she said.

“We are there to fulfil the contract for the Ministry of Justice.”

Paid my dues

Members also debated UCU membership fees.

UCU’s proposed budget for 2026-27 proposes a “limited increase” in membership fees, described elsewhere in documents as a “progressive movement”.

Membership currently costs teachers up to £31.54 per month, with lower fees for lower earners.

The proposals, seen by FE Week, would increase subscriptions incrementally the more a member earns.

Those on salaries of £60,000 or more would pay 3 per cent more in monthly subscriptions, while members earning under £30,000 would see their dues cut by up to 3 per cent.

Durham University argued that “regressive” subscriptions, where higher-paid members pay a lower percentage of their salary in union subscriptions than lower-paid members, should be abolished.

But UCU Cymru demanded a standard annual membership fee reduction of at least 15 per cent to make the union more “competitively priced”.

The Durham motion passed, causing UCU Cymru’s to fall.

Internal strike

The annual congress took place against the backdrop of a continuing unresolved industrial dispute between UCU and its own staff.

Unite members who work at the teachers’ union staged an 11-day walkout in February over allegations of trade union victimisation, which UCU claimed were “categorically untrue”.

Goldsmiths University submitted a motion expressing solidarity with Unite UCU members, calling on the union to donate £20,000 to their strike fund.

Members argued to put the vote back in the order of business after it had previously been removed because of a likely breach of congress rules, which cited risks to the union’s liabilities as an employer.

Defunding Access to HE will shut out the students who need it most

Access to HE diplomas were quietly added last week to the list of 16-19 qualifications ministers intend to defund from August 2027. There was no warning, no consultation and no explanation.

The decision will affect around 20 per cent of the current funded Access to HE learner base.

Participation among younger learners has been rising. Colleges have seen more 18-year-olds turning to Access to HE diplomas, many of them having already tried A Levels or other programmes that did not work for them.

Most of them had not given up on university; they had just not found a route that worked until this one.

Access to HE diplomas have never competed with A Levels or the incoming V Levels, and the policy case for defunding them rests on a misunderstanding of what they actually do. V Levels are designed to prepare learners for skilled employment, which is a worthwhile goal but an entirely different one.

Access diplomas have a singular purpose: preparing learners for academic study at university.

A prospective nurse, social worker or teacher enrols knowing exactly where they want to go.

The diploma gives them one focused year building the subject knowledge, research skills and academic habits that will carry them through a degree. Treating these as overlapping qualifications is not correct.

There is a widening participation argument here that the DfE appears to have given little weight. Access diplomas have long served learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with disrupted education, and those for whom a conventional sixth form was never a realistic option.

When 16-19 learners are removed from these programmes, the consequences go further than those students alone. Mixed-age cohorts are common across Access to HE provision, and in many colleges, it is that mix that keeps a course running at all.

Lose the younger students, and a good number of those programmes close entirely, taking adult learners down with them.

Access diplomas feed into the professions facing the most acute shortages: nursing, healthcare, teaching, and social care. Learners who complete them often return to work in the communities they came from.

The consequences of cutting this route reach well beyond the individual and into the public services that cannot recruit enough people.

The government has stated it wants to raise higher education participation and narrow the social mobility gap. Access diplomas are one of the most direct means the sector has of doing exactly that. They are short, well-regulated by the QAA, recognised by Russell Group universities and carry UCAS points.

For many learners, the Advanced Learner Loan used to fund them is written off once they complete a degree, so public money spent here tends to come back many times over.

What makes this harder to accept is that the DfE’s own guidance contradicts the decision. The qualification funding approval manual lists Access to HE as protected under exemption type 1 of the qualification reforms moratorium, because it serves a distinct function.

The department cannot protect a qualification in one policy document and defund it in another without explaining why. No such explanation has been offered.

Alongside the other access validating agencies, I am calling on the Department for Education to reconsider.

Gateway Qualifications validates a number of these diplomas, and I make no attempt to hide that. The case for reconsideration is about the learners who rely on this route and deserve better than being swept aside by a process that was never designed with their circumstances in mind.

Access to HE is one of the few parts of the 16-19 offer built around the students the rest of the system has consistently got wrong. Removing it without consultation, without evidence and without anything credible in its place closes a door that many of these learners have only recently found the courage to open.

Mayors hand £5.5m in capital grants to independent training providers

Mayors have handed out at least £5.5 million in capital funding to independent training providers over the last decade, data obtained by FE Week shows.

According to freedom of information (FOI) request responses from ten mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) with devolved adult skills fund responsibilities, more than £300 million has been invested into 160 education-related projects at further education colleges, local authorities, universities and independent training providers.

This included at least £5.5 million granted to 30 ITPs, including privately owned businesses, non-profits, and charities.

It suggests mayors are more willing to take risks by investing capital funding in independent training businesses than the Department for Education, which reserves most grants for colleges.

The largest amounts of grant funding for ITPs came from Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) and the Greater London Authority (GLA), which invested in new facilities and equipment for construction, digital and creative skills.

However, the FOI responses to FE Week also show that the investment has only come from four MCAs, with six confirming that they have not provided capital grants to any ITPs.

The six were: Greater Manchester, West Midlands, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and West of England.

As recently as this year, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor Paul Bristow signed off £550,000 in grants to two private training businesses to help fund training facilities that would fill in local FE “cold spots”.

Last year, Tees Valley Combined Authority also handed £114,750 to a local training provider for a specialist welding training facility that aligns with the needs of a local employer.

Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “We are pleased to see the forward-thinking approach taken by local commissioners regarding the distribution of capital funds to non-grant-funded providers, including ITPs.

“However, there are still instances of capital provided to local areas with too many restrictions where the funds must be directed to, particularly around 16-19.

“This goes against the grain of devolution and local choice, and where ITPs have a small, but growing influence, which aligns significantly with the government’s core mission on tackling the NEET crisis.”

‘Second-class’ complaints

The Department for Education and some mayoral authorities have faced criticism for treating ITPs like “second-class citizens” by excluding them from access to capital funding.

This includes post-16 capacity funding devolved to mayoral combined authorities, which the government has decreed can only be directed at “statutory providers” of 16 to 19 education: FE colleges, sixth form colleges, and 16-19 academies.

Some ITP leaders argue their agility and responsiveness mean they are well-placed to use public capital funding to help address post-16 capacity constraints and rising youth NEET numbers.

But rare cases where the DfE has approved funding to ITPs have ended badly, such as a £3 million grant to the north east’s NA College via the Institute of Technology programme.

NA College was a privately-owned business that fell into insolvency in 2024 – with its publicly funded specialist equipment sold at auction.

Mayors’ risky investments

While many of the ITPs that received capital grants in London and Liverpool continue to operate, FE Week has identified two providers that collapsed after securing mayoral funding for buildings, equipment and training facilities.

One of the recipients, St Helens Chamber, received a £93,000 capital grant from LCRCA in 2019 for “digital equipment”.

The chamber entered insolvency last year after the Education and Skills Funding Agency pursued a £550,000 clawback linked to apprenticeship funding claims.

LCRCA invested in St Helens Chamber through an approved £16 million capital grant programme, £4.3 million of which went to ITPs.

Most of these ITPs were local charities such as a local youth association, group training association and community trust.

A spokesperson for the authority said it carries out due diligence, financial health checks and regular reviews before and after investments.

Most grant funding capital agreements include conditions that money could be clawed back if pre-agreed outcomes were not achieved. They are also handed out on the basis that each capital project has a natural lifecycle that expires after an agreed timeframe.

It is not clear, however, what level of protection or guarantee public bodies receive to recoup capital grants, buildings or equipment when a private provider goes bust.

LRCA’s spokesperson said: “Capital investments, whether through ITPs or grant-funded, have a natural life where it is realistic to expect ongoing impacts and benefits to learners, typically around five years, and this is agreed with the training provider at the outset to ensure they are committed to delivering skills provision for this time period.”

Divad Training Ltd, a London apprenticeship provider, was awarded £40,000 from the Greater London Authority’s emergency Covid capital fund in 2020.

The company collapsed three years later with unpaid debts. Its owner, David Obodoechina-Joseph, was later disqualified from acting as a company director for six years.

In total, the GLA said it invested £2 million in 16 ITPs, including a £677,000 grant to The Clink Charity, which trains prisoners in catering skills, to set up an events arm.

It also handed grants of up to £350,000 to privately-owned ITPs delivering construction training, railway safety and IT skills.

A GLA spokesperson said Divad Training was accepted for its £40,000 grant in 2020 after a “full application process”, including questions about its registration on the apprenticeship provider register and Ofsted performance.

The terms of the grant agreement allowed for the funding to be clawed back if agreed “outcomes” were not achieved, including insolvency, according to the spokesperson.

No further details were provided about the supposed protections the GLA has in the case where a private provider goes bust.

The GLA did not confirm whether the authority recovered any funding from Divad Training after it went insolvent.

Hina Bokhari, a Liberal Democrat member of the London Assembly, said the cases show there must be a “high” threshold for due diligence before public money is awarded to private providers.

“That means thorough financial checks, robust monitoring and clear safeguards so public funds can be recovered if providers fail,” she added.