Latest news from FE Week

Shakespeare for ESOL? It turns out it works

One of the things I never expected to be doing as an ESOL teacher was teaching plays by William Shakespeare.

Teaching Shakespeare to non native English speakers might sound tricky, but for young people rebuilding their lives in Bradford these 400 year old stories are helping them find confidence, belonging and a voice.

It started with an email from our performing arts department asking if anyone wanted to join Shakespeare Club. I was teaching level 1 ESOL, and I thought it wasn’t going to be relevant. But…perhaps it might be nice to do something different? So I took my students along. They loved it, and it became part of our curriculum.

Eight years later, it’s grown. Now 250 16-18 year old ESOL learners take part, and this year we’re piloting it with 19 plus learners too.

Using the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) ‘rehearsal room pedagogy’, the classroom becomes a theatre company.

We don’t want to turn our students into actors. The ‘company’ is about teamwork, building confidence and them feeling part of something.

Some students have no English at all when they start, and the learner profile has changed over time. When I started, we had a lot of Eastern European students. Now we have many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from Afghanistan, Kurdistan, Iran and Iraq.

I always say I’ve got two jobs; teaching English, and helping students feel settled and secure in the UK. For those who don’t have family here, it’s about creating that family atmosphere within the classroom, making them feel like they belong and helping them understand society and British values.

Shakespeare helps with that in a way I didn’t predict. People say, Shakespeare for ESOL?! Even native speakers struggle. But the way we do it makes it accessible.

This year we’re doing Hamlet. The RSC give us a script, then I can edit it down. For E3 and L1, we use the original Shakespeare. For E1 and E2, I rewrite it in very simple English. Then we explore the themes: love and loyalty, relationships, family.

Everyone can relate to those themes. In the safety of the classroom, they bring their own understanding to it. This week we were talking about “to be or not to be”. Students turned it into choices they face: to be or not to be a good student, to be or not to be successful, to be or not to be honest.

At the end of the year, we put on a show. Students take part in the lessons, and the ones who want to perform learn lines. It’s brought cohesion into the department. Students with higher-level language support the lower-level students, and lower-level students want to reach up, even with Shakespearean English, because there’s a kudos in doing it.

There are transferable skills. The techniques we use to unpick Shakespeare help students later with GCSE, because they learn how to handle unfamiliar vocabulary and work out what a speech is really saying.

When we won the Bell Foundation Prize for Excellence in Teaching ESOL, students from previous years told me the difference it had made to them wasn’t about acting but confidence. Former students are now qualifying as nurses, doctors, engineers and IT specialists.

We work with Bradford’s Alhambra Theatre, which offers students the chance to attend workshops and shows. Whilst watching a pantomime, an Afghani student whose father had been kidnapped she said that she forgot all her stress.

There’s a lot of negativity about immigrants and asylum seekers on social media these days. But when you meet these young people, you see that they are amazing: they want to work hard and positively contribute to our community.

Shakespeare’s work, even four centuries on, is helping to support growth in confidence, belonging and an understanding what’s possible for our students’ future selves – and that’s amazing too.

V Levels won’t fix vocational education – T Levels didn’t

For years, England’s education system has made it clear that the only route that counts is the academic route. A Levels lead to university. University leads to a career. Everything else is framed as a back-up. So the government’s goal to tackle ‘snobbery’ around vocational education feels like a great step forward.

The proposed new V Levels aim to give students more flexibility by allowing them to combine vocational and academic subjects after GCSEs. Courses in areas such as digital skills, finance, and education could sit alongside traditional A Levels, with each V Level equivalent to a single A Level.

Giving young people more choice in how they build their education appears to be a step forward. But is another qualification really the change the current system needs?

Why haven’t T Levels worked as intended?

The UK has spent the last decade trying to strengthen technical education. The introduction of T Levels in 2020 was meant to be a major turning point, designed to create a high-quality alternative to A Levels.

T Levels combine classroom study with industry placement, giving students the chance to spend time working directly with employers. In theory, they represent exactly the kind of practical learning many people say is needed to change the system for the better.

Yet, despite the ambition, T Levels have not shifted the vocational education landscape.

Are vocational and technical qualifications valued?

Recognition has been one of the challenges. When T Levels were first introduced, some leading universities indicated they would not accept the new qualification as a direct alternative to A Levels for undergraduate entry. A government-commissioned review also found that some students applying to university were rejected because they had taken T Levels rather than traditional A Levels.

And when we look at employment, a government report from 2025 found just 19 per cent of employers reporting they had a ‘very’ or ‘quite good’ understanding of T Levels. Over a third – 36 per cent – had no understanding at all.

While this doesn’t mean employers or universities will not accept T Levels, it does highlight mixed signals and a lack of awareness. That can leave students uncertain about what doors are open, and which may be closed – and how hard they could have to push to get through.

So the announcement of V Levels raises important questions: if the introduction of T Levels nearly six years ago is still yet to reshape opportunities for young people, why would this new qualification succeed?

Why new qualifications alone won’t fix vocational education

If policymakers genuinely want to transform vocational education, the focus must shift away from the names of qualifications, or broad definitions of what type of study sits where, and towards the conditions that allow learning.

Employer engagement is crucial. Strong vocational systems rely on close partnerships between education providers and industry. Apprenticeships and placements depend on employers having the capacity and incentives to train young people, support them to develop practical skills, and create opportunities that help them move into employment smoothly. Without this infrastructure, no one gets anywhere.

What young people really need from the education system

The ambition behind V Levels is to challenge outdated hierarchies between academic and vocational learning – and that is important. But, ending the ‘snobbery’ will take more than adding another category qualification to the post-16 landscape. It will require sustained investment in further education, stronger partnerships with employers, and a genuine commitment to building pathways that combine learning with real-world experience. Until that is achieved, the deeper challenges remain unsolved.

Young people don’t need a different certificate. They need real opportunities to build skills, gain experience, and move confidently into the world of work.

AI is a mirror. FE must decide what it reflects

We are navigating “second contact” with AI, according to The Centre for Humane Technology (CHT). If our first contact was social media – a decade that commodified our attention – this second wave is more profound. We are moving from the attention economy into the intimacy economy.

In further education, we are uniquely positioned to signpost the opportunities of this shift while safeguarding against its dangers. We do not want learners entangled with AI companions or enmeshed in simulated worlds; instead, we must show how AI can partner for human thriving only when anchored in reality, where educators provide the sense-checking and validation no algorithm can simulate.

From machines to ‘mirrors’

In The Road to Wigan Pier (1937), George Orwell reflected on industrial-age machines with suspicion, concerned by the “mechanisation of the palate” and the loss of human craft. He suggested treating the machine like a potent pill: with extreme caution and an eye on the side effects.

For us in 2026, the scrutiny must be more rigorous. While medical pills require regulatory approval, Generative AI arrived without ‘quality assurance’ from our leaders. In the absence of official gatekeeping, educators have assumed that responsibility. We are quality-assuring a toolset never officially “cleared” for humanity. GenAI is not just a tool, nor is it merely the kind of mechanical substitute Orwell discussed. It is a mirror that simulates a personality it does not possess, with emergent capabilities its own creators did not plan for. Because these systems can create, please, and manipulate with such high fidelity, we risk a reality crisis where mirror neurons are hacked by machines designed to satisfy our every whim, potentially eroding the “social muscle” Orwell sought to protect.

Reclaiming agency

Educators must exercise their power to dictate the tempo of tech in our classes. By co-designing with these tools and adjusting the levers that incentivise deep learning, we can hold tech companies accountable. We must demand they prove their choices are informed by pedagogical incentives before they enter our institutions.

Google’s head of learning, Ben Gomes, argues that while AI has “unlocked” language, it cannot carry desire. If AI is the accelerator, the human educator remains the ignition. Our responsibility is to spark the curiosity that ensures tech serves as an intentional scaffold, not a cognitive surrogate.

As a digital optimist, I see edtech used to amplify our intentions daily. Our duty is to scaffold the ‘why’, turning these tools into a Socratic spine that supports what we need rather than replacing it.

Take Student A, a Manchester United fan with ASC and ADHD. We created ‘The Theatre of Dreams: United Academy’ for him—a bespoke environment to practice English through simulated transfer deadline scenarios. In maths, a ‘VAR review’ mechanic ensures he cannot score the goal until he completes a reverse calculation to verify his work.

Each week, Student A delights in ribbing me about my football team’s failings. In these moments, I role model resilience and restraint. This knee-to-knee connection is where skill development occurs – AI provides the engagement, but mentoring provides the character.

The college as a ‘third space’

FE provides physical third spaces where human skills are forged for workplace mastery. For example, one teacher uses ALICE (Advanced Longitudinal In Care Emulator) with health and social care students to rehearse the emotional reality of difficult patient dialogues before clinical placements.

Another uses Gemini Live to empower ESOL learners with a private, risk-free space for speech practice. For many, the fear of making mistakes inhibits cognitive function; the AI provides a low-stakes way to overcome that anxiety.

While Big Tech is incentivised by “stickiness,” education is incentivised by growth. A “human anchor” is non-negotiable. A machine shouldn’t tell a student they are amazing; a consistent, regulated human should.

We must listen to the anti-edtech movement, such as the “Close Screens, Open Minds” campaign – a group supported by figures like Jonathan Haidt, Hugh Grant, and Sophie Winkleman – with empathy. Their warnings on attention and mental health sound a necessary alarm; they want what is best for the human spirit.

We should be mindful of worst-case scenarios, such as the suicide of 14-year-old Sewell Setzer, but we must distinguish between predatory commercial tech and intentionally scaffolded edtech. Simply turning off tech in the classroom kicks the problem down the road. We are not opposing the sceptics; we are the front-line practitioners of their caution.

Unified pro-human movement

Whether we like the advancement of AI is irrelevant; this is the world as it is. FE provides the physical space and expert coaching required for essential human-to-human connections. We are the place where the analogue and digital meet to enhance our thriving.

I challenge the suggestion that technology has no place in our craft. When used with intention, tech is a magnificent equaliser, making learning more inclusive for every student. While high-profile campaigners may not see what we see daily, I am certain that if they experienced the lived reality of our FE spaces – seeing tech empower a learner with ASC to find his voice, or help a vocational student master theory because it connects to their own ambitions – they would understand our intention.

Nobody wants humanity to surrender to convenience. We are all working toward high-quality learning that develops human capacity. This isn’t a “pro” or “anti” tech argument; it is a unified, pro-human movement.

To learn more about building a pro-human future with AI, see human.mov.

We can’t tackle NEET numbers without fixing 16-19 funding

Our country is on the brink of a grim milestone. Later this month, the number of young people who are NEET (not in education, employment or training) could cross the one million threshold for the first time in 13 years.

Still, every summer, at the very moment when the roots of the NEET problem are taking hold, we allow funding for thousands of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to fall away.

This high-stakes moment is marked by the transition from secondary school into sixth form or college. For the 180,000 year 11s eligible for free school meals, this moment also marks the end of their pupil premium allocation – ringfenced funding to support their education and outcomes. As a result, the minute GCSE exams are over, funding for those from disadvantaged backgrounds falls off a cliff.

The Education Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that each of these young people lose about £1,000 in investment and support at this transition.

This makes no sense. The barriers that young people from low-income backgrounds face do not suddenly abate on that last Friday in June. In fact, the Education Policy Institute’s research shows that it is both at and soon after this transition that the patterns of disengagement emerge.

Meanwhile, we still expect these young people to continue to participate in education and training, build their skills, gain qualifications and develop their confidence, all in preparation for the world of work and adulthood. It has been over a decade since the participation age was raised to 18. Sadly, the way we fund education has yet to catch up.

The disadvantage funding cliff edge is particularly nonsensical amid a crisis in NEET numbers. The 16-19 phase in education is the last opportunity in compulsory education to address and prevent disengagement. We should seize it to ensure that young people gain the strongest set of qualifications they can – the single biggest protective factor against becoming NEET. Impetus’s Youth Jobs Gap Index shows that the correlation between having low levels of qualification and being NEET is twice as strong as the correlation between having special educational needs and disabilities and being NEET. Lacking English and maths gateway qualifications is the single biggest shared characteristic of young people who are long-term NEET. Each step up the qualification ladder roughly halves the chances of being NEET in your early twenties.

The NEETs crisis is not just a post-19 problem. This is why Get Further last year joined forces with 13 other leading social mobility and education organisations, launching a campaign calling on the government to introduce a student premium – an extension of the pupil premium to support 16-19-year-olds facing disadvantage. Evidence from across the Student Premium Coalition shows what is possible when targeted interventions are in place. These include tutoring and mentoring, enriched learning experiences, strengthened transition, pastoral and mental health support, attendance and retention programmes, and tailored academic support to help students achieve essential gateway qualifications, including English and maths.

Colleges, sixth forms and training providers are well-placed to be able to identify and deliver the interventions needed to support the attainment and participation of young people in their final years in compulsory study. But their ability to do so is severely constrained by the steep drop in disadvantage funding. The coalition is clear that the student premium, which would be worth around £430m a year from 2027-28, should be new and additional money, as part of the government’s commitment to tackling the NEETs crisis.

Over a decade on from when the participation age was raised to 18, our country is going backwards, not forwards, on NEET numbers. It is time to invest in our 16-19 education system so that it can fully play its part. Only then, will we make a dent in this crisis and prevent lost opportunity.

AI leadership apprenticeship units: right ambition, wrong delivery model

Skills England has launched three new AI leadership apprenticeship units as part of the flagship reform to the growth and skills levy. The intent is right. Employers tell us they need leaders who understand AI, can make good decisions about it, and can create the conditions for it to deliver value across their organisations. The government has heard that and responded. That matters, and I want to be absolutely clear about it before I say what comes next.

Sadly, in their current format the apprenticeship units are not fit for purpose.

The evidence on how leaders develop is clear. Flexibility beats intensity. After training tens of thousands of leaders at Corndel, we know that live instruction alone doesn’t produce behaviour change. The leaders who change how they work are the ones who combine structured learning with applied practice, peer reflection and self-directed development.

Yet, the government’s three new apprenticeship units each mandate 30 hours of live delivery. Across all three, that is 90 hours of synchronous instruction – nearly three working weeks of getting senior leaders in a room or on a Zoom call. We have tested this directly with employers. It’s no surprise that it simply will not work.

A live delivery requirement is not a learning design decision, or a guarantor of impact. It produces programmes optimised for compliance rather than outcomes. That is an unintended consequence of a system that was meant to increase flexibility, not reduce it.

There is a better way. Corndel is designing AI leadership units around impact – made for leaders, not rules. Genuine blended delivery, where live teaching is one ingredient alongside applied practice, self‑directed learning and peer reflection. Programmes designed around what leaders actually need, not what is easiest to count.

BCG research published last year found that only 5 per cent of organisations are genuinely generating transformative value from AI. What separates them from the rest is not technology investment. It is leadership commitment. Getting AI leadership development right is the highest-leverage intervention available to most organisations right now.

At Corndel, we have made a clear decision. We will not deliver a levy-funded model that is not fit for purpose. Instead, we have built our own AI leadership programme, using the subject matter of the apprenticeship units but designed around what employers and their leaders tell us they need. We’re choosing not to charge the employers we partner with. It will be better than anything the funded model currently allows.

We are launching it with employers, building in their voice from day one. Their experience, and the impact data we gather, will go back to government – in the hope that it helps improve a model that has the right ambition, but serious flaws when it comes to delivering impact on the ground.

We support what the government is trying to do. We want apprenticeship units – whether in AI or more broadly – to work. If the live delivery requirements for leadership programmes are revised to reflect the evidence on how adults learn, and if the funding model is adjusted to make quality provision viable, Corndel will be at the front of the queue.

Until then, we will do what is right for employers and learners.

Capital City College staff strike during exams over workload

Hundreds of staff at Capital City College are striking for four days during this week’s exam period over “workload concerns”.

Members of the University and College Union (UCU) are holding picket lines outside the London college group’s eight campuses between today (Tuesday 12) and Friday.

The union claims the college has “refused to deal seriously” with concerns about workload and student learning conditions since a meeting in January.

CCC told FE Week it is “disappointing” that UCU members have chosen to strike during exam period “when students should be the main focus”.

A college spokesperson added: “We want to reassure students, parents and carers that all exams and assessments will go ahead as planned and will not be affected.”

UCU claimed around 500 of the 1,700 staff at the college group’s 11 centres are striking this week.

The latest strike at the London college comes after a January agreement that included a 4 per cent pay award for staff, additional annual leave, support for workload discussions and a commitment to review incremental pay scales.

The UCU said management had initially promised two meetings to discuss workload issues by the Easter break, but only “belatedly” met with union reps for the first time last week in response to the threat of strike.

The union said its demands include increased tutorial time, more support for students with special needs, and additional student wellbeing staff.

UCU general secretary Jo Grady said: “Our members are on strike this week because management has refused to meaningfully improve staff working and student learning conditions.

“This action could have been avoided had senior leaders met with our reps earlier in the year to progress negotiations.

“Unfortunately, they have refused to deal seriously with workload concerns. We hope they now come back to the table so we can avoid further disruption.”

A CCC spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that the University and College Union has called its members to strike despite an agreement reached in January 2026.

“It is also disappointing that industrial action is taking place during the exam period, at a time when students should be the main focus.”

The spokesperson claimed that “misinformation” has been circulated about the strike, but did not respond when asked for evidence.

In January, CCC also settled a dispute with National Education Union (NEU) members at its sixth form college campus over whether pay should increase in line with Sixth Form College Association (SFCA) pay scales.

After 19 days of strike, the NEU accepted that pay will increase in line with the SFCA for the rest of this academic year only.

CCC is one of the largest college groups in the country, with 12 main centres across central and north London that merged from three individual college groups, including City and Islington College, in 2016 and 2017.

SEND reforms will target ‘shameful’ transitions into FE

Ministers are considering harder accountability measures for schools delivering “shameful” transitions for SEND students moving into college.

Representatives from the Department for Education said in a SEND webinar yesterday that learners with additional needs are being failed by the system when they transition to post-16 education.

The education secretary’s SEND delivery adviser Kevan Collins told delegates that the department was examining destinations data and working with Ofsted to apply “harder accountability” for providers responsible for supporting learners into new education settings.

The action forms part of the government’s £4 billion SEND overhaul, £1.6 billion of which will be directed to schools, colleges and early years settings to improve inclusivity and transitions.

Collins said the current transition system was “not good enough for anybody” and that some of the behaviour from schools was “shameful”.

“I don’t think it’s unfair to say that in a way, young people with additional needs test our system. When it comes to the point of transition, too many of them test it and find it’s not working,” he said.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith said the government was proposing “strengthened” transition planning, whereby schools would be subject to stronger information sharing requirements and colleges would begin planning at least 12 months in advance.

“People in colleges often tell me about the excellent provision that they have, but also how much better it could be for individual young people if they were clear about who was coming to the college or the post-16 provision, what their needs were, and therefore could plan at an earlier stage,” she said.

Reforms will be rolled out from 2029, which entail a new layered system of support, a weaning off education, health and care plans and the introduction of individual support plans for young people with less complex needs.

Smith added that the digitisation of individual support plans will help with passing on relevant information about learners’ needs to new education settings.

Spending on the proposals will begin during this spending review period so families “feel the improvements” before legislative changes take effect.

Rebalancing high needs budgets for FE

Multiple delegates pressed the minister on whether the current level of high needs funding is sufficient to support more learners with varying complex needs in post-16 settings.

Smith responded the government was considering a change to the individual per place high needs funding mechanism so providers can make decisions on provision at an earlier stage.

General FE colleges and other post-16 institutions will receive £6,000 per place from high needs block funding for the 2026-27 academic year.

Local authorities, which administer the funding, had a February deadline for colleges to notify them of changes to expected place numbers for the following academic year.

Smith said DfE was considering “rebalancing” funding for the existing high needs budget so providers decide how they want to tailor provision before learners are enrolled.

“I completely understand that people will be thinking, ‘well, okay, but is this going to get lost in translation between the high needs budget and what’s happening in colleges?’” she said.

“That’s something we’ve got to work through really carefully, including with post-16 leaders, to make sure that people can see that money is coming and are able to use it on well-evidenced provision.”

No money tree for post-16 transport

Following a question on what consideration DfE was giving to post-16 transport, Smith said it wasn’t an entitlement that could be given to all SEND learners without pumping in huge amounts of money.

She acknowledged the issue was around transport entitlements SEND learners have pre-16 that can be “delivered in a different way” once they enter post-16 education.

But she shirked responsibility for committing extra funding to transport provision for young people, adding that it remains a local authority duty to determine SEND transport.

“It is a fair challenge. Look, if there was a load of money to be spent here, I think there are lots of authorities who would want to make the provision for post-16 more full than it is now,” she said.

Smith added: “It isn’t an area where, without spending an enormous amount more money, we could make it an entitlement for everybody. So we’re going to need to keep thinking about how we can support young people to get to the appropriate provision.”

Ministers have previously been accused of appearing “unconcerned” about the impact on young people when they lose subsidised post-16 transport.

WorldSkills UK boss to lead City & Guilds Foundation

Ben Blackledge has been appointed chief executive of the City & Guilds Foundation.

Blackledge has led WorldSkills UK as chief since May 2023, and was previously its deputy chief executive. He will remain in post until early October, seeing through Team UK’s participation at the WorldSkills competition in Shanghai this September.

He will be the first permanent chief executive of the City & Guilds Foundation since the charity controversially sold the City & Guilds awarding and training business to PeopleCert last year.

Blackledge said: “I am delighted to be joining the City & Guilds Foundation at such an important and exciting moment. The foundation’s role has never been more vital, and I look forward to working with the outstanding team, partners and members to apply its 148-year legacy to the challenges and opportunities of today.

“The past 12 years at WorldSkills UK have afforded me the privilege of working with exceptional colleagues from across the skills sector, and together creating world-class opportunities for students throughout the UK. I am looking forward to bringing that experience to help build clearer pathways that unlock productivity, tackle inequality and support a more inclusive economy.”

The foundation’s sale to PeopleCert 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 has also launched its own probe into the conduct of top City & Guilds executives during the sale process. Neither inquiry has reported yet and the foundation is yet to respond to a resolution passed by its members a month ago calling for its own investigation into the sale.

The City & Guilds Foundation said at the time it will use the proceeds of the sale “to expand its role as a social investor and change maker in skills and education”.

As its chief executive, Blackledge will be responsible for an annual budget of £3 million to £5 million for “high-impact grant-making”, influencing policy and developing a long-term strategy. The post was advertised with a salary of circa £130,000.

Jessica Leigh Jones, the recently appointed chair of the City & Guilds Foundation, said: “I’m thrilled to welcome Ben to the City & Guilds Foundation. He brings an exceptional track record from WorldSkills UK, alongside a genuine passion for the role that skills can play in transforming lives and society.

“At a pivotal moment for the UK, Ben’s leadership will be vital as we deepen our impact, building clearer pathways to opportunity and helping ensure that talent, wherever it’s found, can flourish. It will be fantastic to work alongside the energy and vision he will bring to the foundation when he joins us officially later in the year.”

Reflecting on Blackledge’s time at WorldSkills UK, chair of trustees Marion Plant said: “Under Ben’s leadership, WorldSkills UK has strengthened its position as a driving force for skills excellence.

“The board would like to thank Ben for his outstanding commitment, leadership and contribution to championing world-class skills across the UK and wishes him every success in his new role.”

Local government needs powers to tackle ‘fragmented’ post-16 system – report

Local government should be given powers to tackle “cold spots” of specialist FE subjects caused by fragmented and inefficient education systems, according to a report.

This includes combined and local authorities commissioning area reviews, pushing for mergers, encouraging providers to share teaching and timetabling, and supporting new specialist subject “hubs”.

The Association of Colleges (AoC) funded report, conducted by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), analysed data for 16 to 18-year-old exam entries per provider to work out the range of subjects available and class sizes.

The study, published today, found cold spots in local authority areas across the country, where certain A Levels and vocational qualifications in 23 subject areas including creative arts, social sciences, languages and performing arts are not offered by any provider.

It also found “fragmented” markets with smaller providers such as school sixth forms that deliver marginal subjects in “inefficient” class sizes.

Having large numbers of school sixth forms appears to “undermine” nearby colleges’ economies of scale because it is “harder” for them to sustain marginal and specialist subjects, the report argued.

It added that this results in a narrower overall range of subject choices in those areas, because colleges are more likely to withdraw more marginal courses in areas with more school sixth forms.

David Hughes, chief executive of the AoC, said the report shows that a marketised approach “does not result in a high quality, broad and complete offer of courses and institutions that are accessible by every young person”.

He added: “The system we have requires providers to compete for students and plan independently of each other, inevitably leading to a strong offer in some areas and insufficient capacity in other areas. Overall, this means many young people cannot access the learning, training and education which best suits them and which motivates and engages them.”

‘Real consequences’

Researchers looked at 2023-24 exam entry data across 151 local authority areas and found 23 cold spots “scattered across the country” where 15 or more of the subjects were not offered.

While core subjects such as history, geography and sociology A Level were offered in most areas, music technology was not available in 79 areas, dance was unavailable in 73 areas, and A Level German was unavailable in 31 areas.

Cold spots included urban areas such as east and south west London, Greater Manchester, and Portsmouth, as well as more rural areas such as Herefordshire, Cumbria, and the Isle of Wight.

To address this “excessive market fragmentation” and ensure broad subject choices are available for all students, the paper suggested five policy options at “varying degrees of intervention”.

These include the Department for Education (DfE) handing strategic authorities delegated powers or strengthened mandates to “broker collaboration” between schools and colleges around their subject offers and specialisations.

Local government should also “convene” schools and colleges to explore shared provision and timetabling arrangements, as some schools may currently feel “compelled” to offer marginal subjects that attract students despite low enrolments.

Combined and local authorities could also take a more active role, such as commissioning areas reviews “where appropriate” to encourage schools and colleges to merge into “larger, more resilient” institutions that can offer a broader curriculum.

Other measures could include supporting local specialisation through designation of specific providers as “subject hubs”, particularly in creative and performing arts

However, the report also calls for more research into the most effective collaboration models and what drives student and parent choice, as the current evidence body “remains scant”.

The government should also strengthen its oversight of school sixth form expansion to ensure “efficiency and sufficiency” aren’t undermined by having too many small local providers.

The DfE could update its guidance to local authorities and regional directors to make considering system-level impacts of new sixth forms an “explicit consideration”, the report suggested.

At present, new school sixth forms are typically approved or rejected based grounds of quality or viability, with a 200-student rule of thumb.

Young people’s potential limited

Luke Bocock, research director at NFER, said restricted subject options due to fragmented post-16 education systems have “real consequences” for some young people.

He added: “The subjects available to them at this stage can shape what they go on to study, and the opportunities open to them later in life.

“Coupled with this, post-16 education providers face bigger challenges to delivering courses efficiently where the provision in their area is relatively more fragmented - too often in these areas small, inefficient class sizes are the norm.

“Without better coordination across the post-16 education system, these gaps risk limiting young people’s potential and creating inequalities.”

Hughes said: “Every student should have a wide and varied choice that they are able to access. To achieve this, we need a more co-ordinated approach to planning the capacity for the full range of 16-18 provision and institutions locally. Doing this will achieve greater efficiency (with fewer students dropping out and starting again and fewer very small class sizes) and sufficiency (covering the whole range of learning, training and education) while being sensitive to local contexts.

“For vulnerable subjects such as performing arts and languages, the college-based subject ‘hubs’ are well worth trialling. These could preserve and extend access to these subjects, reduce ‘cold spots’, inefficiencies or duplication.”