Kevan Collins to be Phillipson’s SEND delivery adviser

Kevan Collins has been appointed as the education secretary’s delivery adviser with a focus on SEND reform and reviewing how the department engages with councils. 

Collins, the Department for Education’s lead non-executive board member, will take on the additional part-time role for two days a week.

He will focus on supporting the DfE’s delivery unit on SEND reform and reviewing how it engages with councils “to ensure reform programmes are clear and achievable”. 

Ministers released their long-awaited plans to overhaul the SEND system on Monday, which included new duties for colleges and tiers of help for students.

Collins, a former CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation who worked on New Labour’s “London Challenge” school improvement programme, said: “Having worked across the education system, I know that ambitious plans only matter if they translate into real change in classrooms and communities. 

“Children with SEND and their families have waited too long for the support they need, and I’m determined to help ensure these reforms deliver for them. 

“I look forward to working with colleagues across the department and with local authorities to make that happen.”

Collins will earn £577 per day, totalling £60,000 a year in the new role. This is on top of the £20,000 he receives for 24 days work a year in his non-executive DfE board position.

‘Proven track record’

The appointment began this week and will run until August next year, with an option to extend by another 18 months. 

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, said: “Every child, whatever their needs, should have the opportunity to achieve and thrive at their local school. 

“Kevan has a proven track record of driving improvement across education, and his expertise will be invaluable as we deliver the schools white paper and our mission to shift children with SEND from sidelined to included.”

Bridget Phillipson
Bridget Phillipson

Collins was previously catch-up tsar during the pandemic under the Conservative government, but resigned over a lack of funding. 

After the last election, Labour appointed him as school standards tsar and non-executive board member. He was promoted to lead the board last year. 

Collins also previously declared that he is a Labour member and made a £500 donation to the party.

SEND reform will reshape colleges, but workload shock is coming

The devil will be in the detail when it comes to the government’s SEND reforms, but there are key legislative changes on the horizon which stand out for colleges.

The most notable of these is the legal requirement for them to generate and review at least every year individual support plans (ISPs) at one of two levels – targeted and targeted plus – for all learners with identified SEND needs.  We will see whether the scope of SEND narrows in the future, but if the same proportion of students (currently about one in five) are deemed to have SEND, that will significantly increase colleges’ workload.   

Those ISPs will also involve additional and significant legal duties on colleges: 

  1. They will have to generate and constantly maintain the detail of provision in ISPs.  That may make provision more agile for learners but also may cause more disputes between colleges and parents and young people.  There will be more parental ‘co-production’ expected, which again could improve provision but will certainly increase workload.
  2. Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) when issued will be more strategic documents and schools will also have to issue ISPs alongside ECHPs to contain the detail of the learner’s provision. The council’s duty will be “to secure access to support and provide sufficient funding to the setting, within national banding, to deliver the EHCP”
  3. The consultation tells us that “through the introduction of ISPs, settings will be accountable and responsible for delivering educational provision and supporting the child or young person to learn, rather than this being the responsibility of the local authority”.  It appears that no actual specific new legal duties will be imposed on schools/colleges to implement ISPs beyond their current duties to use their “best endeavours” (under SEND law) and to make “reasonable adjustments” (under equality law).  However, the extent of a school or college’s “accountability” in delivering provision under ISPs requires further clarification. Guidance on reasonable adjustments will be issued by the DfE. The department should take the opportunity to rationalise the parallel duties that school and colleges have under SEND and equality law, which have long caused confusion in practice.
  4. The consultation states that “where there are concerns about provision, parents and young people will be able to resolve this directly with the setting, including making use of the improved schools complaints process”.  Whilst schools and colleges need to be accountable, they are already reeling under the weight of AI-supported and generated parental complaints. They will be very concerned about having to manage an even greater complaints workload unless DfE guidance gives schools and colleges robust powers to deal with vexatious complaints when they occur.  

Another necessary and key change will be the transfer of public funding away from distribution through local authority high needs “top up funding” to provide more direct funding of mainstream schools and colleges to support their extended role in inclusion.   It will be crucial for schools and colleges to have flexibility in the use of that funding if they are to deliver inclusion in a dynamic and effective way. The risk is that schools and colleges will be bogged down with producing detailed, costed provision maps for all their learners with ISPs to explain how they are meeting their statutory delivery duties.  

As regards special schools, there is a distinction drawn between state funded and independent special schools.  The common requirement will be that they make provision to deliver “nationally defined specialist provision packages” and “packages will form the basis for future EHCPs, in both mainstream and specialist settings”.  Crucially these packages will be “linked to a nationally set costing framework based on the provision outlined in the package”.  

Recent ministerial comment has focused on examples of excessive private profit being made by independent special schools, and the consultation document contemplates strong legal controls on their governance and activity. 

Legislation is planned to bring the duties and oversight of independent special schools into line with other special schools by creating a statutory definition and standards, aligning their admission duties with that of other specialist settings and requiring them to offer placements based on specialist provision packages and in accordance with national funding bands, and to adhere to the code of practice. 

The government is also considering the changes needed to ensure special post-16 institutions are “treated in a similar way, recognising that this sector will continue to play a vital role”.

Given the complexity and depth of these proposed changes, we are glad to note that the government says it will work with the sector to implement these reforms in a “sequenced, phased and manageable way”.

There is hope in SEND reform if we help steer what comes next

Nobody wants to abandon a sinking ship unless they can be confident there’s a reliable lifeboat. Launching the schools white paper and SEND consultation, Bridget Phillipson tried to reassure families and professionals alike that the new SEND system will not just be a lifeboat, but a stronger, sturdier, better-equipped ship with a reliable captain and crew. 

Understandably, parent groups and some teaching unions are nervous. Previous attempts to reset the system have failed. The 2014 act promised co-production, meeting needs early and a less adversarial system. The 2022 SEND review promised “the right support, in the right place, at the right time”, improving outcomes, restoring confidence and making the system financially sustainable.

With little difference between the ambitions of previous reforms and those presented this time, confidence in the government’s ability to get it right this time is low. 

For specialist FE, there is some hope within these reforms. It is tempered by uncertainty and a lack of detail in key areas, so it is essential that ministers and officials continue to listen to the sector, understand the nuances and challenges, and fulfil their commitment to work up the detail in partnership with us.

Reality check

Before publication, we asked for five things. 

Firstly, we asked the government to recognise that specialist FE has a key role to play in an inclusive system. We did not want to see definitions of inclusion as place-based or driven by cost. It is pleasing to see that there is a recognised role for specialist post-16 in providing quality education for those who need it and in offering training and outreach to support a more inclusive mainstream.

But there are big questions about the development of funding bands for specialist placements, and we have concerns about access to appropriate levels of funding for the minority of students with SEND who cannot be accommodated within block funding limits.  

Second, we wanted fair, sustainable funding for both mainstream and specialist colleges. The commitment to include FE within the £1.6bn inclusive mainstream fund and the £200m training pot is a step in the right direction, but FE must be given a proportionate share. 

We will be pushing back on any proposals that conflate specialist colleges with independent special schools, which themselves have been largely mischaracterised, making three key points: the landscape in FE is entirely different, with no maintained specialist sector; specialist colleges already have stringent DfE contracts, financial compliance rules and inspection; and cost per place is reducing, not increasing. 

Voices and choices

Third, we asked the government to recognise that colleges are not schools. Solutions designed for schools and imposed on FE risk unintended consequences. With 90 per cent of EHCP holders already attending mainstream FE, the case for rebalancing away from specialist placements is far less clear than for schools.

There is a risk that reviews of EHCPs at transition points might result in a loss of specialist placements for special school leavers who need them, particularly post-19. An ambitious vision for inclusive mainstream should not prevent specialist placements, which have a critical role in ensuring that young people are included in society during and after college. 

Fourth, we asked for some specific proposals to address SEND issues in FE. At last, we have a consultation document that acknowledges some of them, although we need to work on the detail: smoother transitions from school to college, investment in high-quality education and workforce development, and an end to the “cliff edge” where support suddenly dries up when young people leave college. 

Finally, we wanted our new ship to be based on a firm foundation of statutory rights, with the voices and choices of young people and their families heard. The assurances made by the secretary of state about bolstering and increasing statutory protections, including for individualised support plans, EHCPs and the tribunal, must not be hollow promises. The quality of SEND support must be raised while keeping the foundations of accountability and entitlements firmly in place. 

Whilst the new ship is being built, we cannot abandon the hundreds of thousands of young people currently in the system. They must be afforded the right to access high-quality FE and specialist support, not be left to sink or swim alone.

SEND reforms spell diet EHCPs and red herring funding

Almost everyone will welcome this week’s SEND reform announcements, which signal a shift from a single, one-size-fits-all EHCP (education health and care plan) model to a more thoughtful three-tiered access route.

Replacing the binary nature of EHCPs with a three-tier model of escalating funding and expertise is a genuine step forward. The old system created perverse incentives: families and providers fought for ‘full-fat EHCPs’ not because they always needed them, but because there was nothing in between. No ‘diet’ version. No faster route to lower-level support. Just all or nothing.

And because there was only the full-fat version, it was deliberately difficult to access. Think of The Gauntlet on Gladiators: a contestant sprinting through a narrow chamber, smashing into five gladiators one by one. That’s the EHCP access route, and the parent is the contestant.

But if you’re an affluent parent, you can pay privately and skip the first two gladiators.

How? Access to funding carries a clinical diagnosis hurdle. State-funded assessment, if obtainable at all, means months or years of waiting because it is expensive and finite. There are only so many clinicians. Private diagnosis removes that wait, and with it, the illusion that access to support is equitable.

The critical question these reforms don’t answer: can learners access targeted or targeted plus support without a formal diagnosis? England already has formally recognised authorities, such as Patoss, a dyslexia charity which independently validates non-diagnostic clinical access routes. These produce the information educators and specialists need to deliver on targeted and targeted Plus expectations, at potentially a fraction of the costs of diagnostics.

If the DfE enables these routes, inclusion becomes something educational leaders can realistically embed into their workflows. If not, we’ve rebuilt the structure but left the biggest barrier to inclusion well-fortified.

There is also an ideological question buried in here: are funding and support programmes only available to public sector providers? Independent training providers and employer providers appear to be ignored entirely. Both are bound by the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010. If they carry the same duty, why can’t they access the same help?

Should a learner who has chosen a qualification delivered by a private provider or through their employer be locked out of the ‘experts at hand’ offer? Should their route into education determine the quality of inclusion they receive?

In the era of identity politics, ideology seeps into many political objectives and even legislation. But it must not be allowed to undermine SEND reform, or discriminate against learners based on their choice of provider.

My third point isn’t a challenge to government. It’s a challenge to leadership. The paper forecasts a 50 per cent decrease in EHCPs. But those learners don’t just disappear. The DfE is offloading accountability for that 50 per cent to you.

Look closely at the announced funding: some was already committed in the 2025 budget and has simply been repackaged. The rest ceases after three years.

The only way to meet this change is to shift from a ‘funded specialists’ mindset to an ‘operational infrastructure’ one. To quote one of the greatest educators (Yoda): “You must unlearn what you have learned.”

The EHCP specialist route is unaffordable. Leaders need to rethink how they deliver slightly less complex support services for significantly less money.

There are clues in the paper. References to embedded support and embedded processes point towards processes and technology over specialists. Both are enhancements that survive the funding cliff edge.

There has clearly been significant engagement between the DfE and Ofsted: the threads between their two recent publications are visible and deliberate. Leaders will welcome this. Consistency in requirements simplifies their ability to embed inclusive practices into operations.

I’ve recently been involved in creating the Ofsted Inclusion Framework, which provides actionable guidance for post-16 leaders on meeting the inclusion requirements within Ofsted’s toolkit and includes free software recommendations. The proposed legal duty to produce an annual inclusion strategy lends real urgency to these recommendations, particularly those that help leaders think structurally about embedding inclusion across workflows.

The diagnosis question and the provider question remain unanswered. Don’t be distracted by the funding: it’s a red herring to soften the real message, which is that you’re now accountable for over half of EHCP services. Leaders who redesign around inclusive workflows will meet their new duties cost-effectively. Those who don’t will be caught short.

Colleges face new legal duties through SEND overhaul

Colleges will face fresh legal duties to produce new support plans for learners with SEND under proposed reforms that set out to reduce the number of young people receiving education, health and care plans.

A Department for Education consultation, launched today, contains proposals to reserve education, health and care plans (EHCPs) for learners with the most complex SEND needs and provide learners with less complex needs with new individual support plans (ISPs).

The overhaul aims for one in eight students with EHCPs to be moved to the new ISPs by 2035, with new statutory duties placed on schools and colleges to develop and deliver the plans.

Colleges, as well as schools, will have access to inclusion funding of £1.6 billion over three years, £1.8 billion to improve access to external support and £200 million for staff training.

Officials are consulting on whether colleges should be required to demonstrate how they use inclusion funding in their accountability agreements.

The consultation is open until May 18.

Inclusion accountability

The DfE said it will work with colleges to develop an “appropriate and proportionate” approach for inclusion support in FE.

Targeted support will give children and young people access to ISPs – interactive and annually reviewed plans developed with parents.

The government is consulting on whether to make it statutory for colleges to produce an ISP for young people with SEND. FE providers would develop them with parents to identify barriers to learning, their provision, any reasonable adjustments and the intended outcome.

Ministers argue that while fewer learners will require EHCPs, more will receive multi-agency support through the new “targeted” and “targeted-plus” layers.

Meanwhile, the specialist support layer will bring out new “specialist provision packages” designed by experts and tested with parents to detail provision based on evidence. In future, they will form the basis of ECHPs.

It follows Ofsted’s renewed framework from November, which shifted more focus on inclusion in colleges for the first time.

Post-16 transition planning to start earlier

DfE vowed to work with colleges and local authorities to design a “clear” approach to support transition from school to college to reduce the risk of SEND learners becoming NEET.

Schools, councils and post-16 providers will be asked to plan for transition needs to begin at least 12 months in advance to allow time to create bespoke learning packages.

“In doing so, they will ensure young people can choose a suitable study programme and are supported from day one through to further education,” DfE said.

From September 2029, subject to legislation, children and young people with an EHCP will have their needs assessed by local authorities at transition points, such as the end of primary school, secondary school and post-16, and either move onto a specialist provision package or ISPs.

Young people with EHCPs in mainstream settings at the point the legislation comes into force would retain them until the end of their current education phase. This in specialist settings will not be required to move to a mainstream setting unless they choose to.

Staff training

The consultation said colleges could be subject to new statutory duties to deliver a national inclusion training programme to all workers in the 0 to 25 system, not just specialist SEND staff.

This will be done through an amendment of the SEND code of practice. A separate public consultation on the proposed changes to the code will be launched after the government responds to this consultation.

Backed by £200 million over three years starting this September, FE staff will be trained on building on “best practice” to ensure learning is accessible.

DfE will also review the equivalents of the special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) in colleges to examine how they can use their expertise “more strategically”.

Experts at hand

The reforms also revealed a £1.8 billion ‘experts at hand’ programme over the next three years, embedding educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and occupational therapists into schools and colleges.

The investment, most of which will be pumped into local authorities and integrated care boards, will be expected to improve access to the experts for general FE colleges and specialist post-16 colleges.

This programme will be available to learners who need the “targeted plus” level of support.

DfE acknowledged that each sector may need to “tailor” its approach.

“An alternative model may be more appropriate for colleges and localised post-16 providers given that their size and therefore commissioning capability is varied and often spread across multiple local authorities,” DfE said.

Inclusion bases

The consultation also detailed £3.7 billion capital investment by 2030 to create tens of thousands of new places for SEND learners in so-called “inclusion bases”.

These bases replace SEN units in schools and are meant to provide tailored learning environments and equipment for learners’ needs.

Colleges are included in the programme and will be able to access the funding to make their buildings more accessible.

Specialist settings cap

The government is also examining the prices that councils pay for SEND places in specialist settings after finding school places were “unreasonably” high compared to state special schools – £62,000 vs £24,000 in respectively in 2024-25.

Ministers will for the first time cap the fees independent special schools can charge councils for provision, with the education secretary vowing to “crack down on providers who put profit before children”.

DfE said it will legislate to require new reporting duties on financial transparency and give new powers to ministers to refuse opening new independent special schools.

Officials added they are considering what changes would be required to ensure special post-16 institutions are “treated in a similar way”.

SEND reform must mean better support, not fewer rights

Reforming the education system for children and young people with SEND is a gigantic task because it requires reforms to so many aspects of education.

Parents are understandably nervous, and many will be anxious that change will mean a reduction in their rights. We need to ensure that the reforms truly improve the system for every learner and aren’t just a way to cut costs.

The reforms set out in this week’s schools white paper are aimed at addressing those challenges head-on, recognising that the status quo isn’t good enough and ensuring no child loses their legal rights. The changes it sets out are well-thought through and have a real chance of making the entire 0-25 SEND system fairer, more effective and more efficient.

The fundamental shift from a system which negotiates funding for every individual towards one where schools and colleges are funded to have the capacity to meet the varied needs of all our children and young people is a game changer. The proposed new individual support plans (ISPs) will be vital in determining personal support and learning needs. But they should not be used to determine the distribution of overall funds for a college to have capacity to meet all those individual needs.

The current system has been a very poor driver for planning the complex mix of support and specialist services needed by children and young people. That’s a big part of the failing of the current system, where parents fight tooth and nail for education health and care plans (EHCPs) and too many families are let down.  

Overall support needs are broadly predictable in any group of students across an area so the funding should reflect that, instead of treating student with SEND as a surprising exception. So, it is good to see the reforms proposing more accurate information about all students with SEND at all ages, not just those who have formal plans now, coupled with a more strategic approach to planning and funding that provision. That way, we can be confident that colleges will have the support in place to meet every young person’s needs.

It’s easier to say than to implement, of course, and we must protect the brilliant work colleges already do. The new funding mechanisms, revenue and capital need to underpin the large proportion of learners with SEND in mainstream college programmes, as well as those in college specialist provision. There are some particularly tricky issues for the 19-25 age group; if some are to remain in education without an EHCP they would be funded via the adult skills fund which is already overstretched and has lower funding rates.  We need to do more work with officials on how many young people this would be, and how they will be impacted.

Our work with ministers and officials over the last year has given me optimism that these post-16 challenges are well understood. There’s a commitment to work with us to address them.

The reforms are likely to require more changes in schools than colleges, because inclusion of learners with SEND is generally lower in schools, resulting in soaring numbers of children placed in specialist provision in recent years. That’s where costs have soared, rather than in colleges. 

The reforms also need to result in better transitions, particularly at age 16. The two or three years our young people spend at college are pivotal for dictating their adult lives. At the moment, transitions into college are often poorly planned and inconsistent, even though we can see very successful transitions in some places. All too often college students slip through the net with adult social care and health services and much more needs to be done to encourage employers to recognise the skills that young people with SEND can bring with them when they transition out to work.

The reforms are designed to ensure that the specialist services needed from age 0 to 25 are secured and available for all, from speech and language therapists to visual impairment specialists. Colleges will want to work closely with schools in their areas to ensure these specialist services are available across the whole age range.

The changes proposed are ambitious, necessary and should result in a better system. There’s no doubt it will take careful planning and close engagement to get this right, to align curriculum reforms, teacher training and specialist support, and the role of local authorities. However, there is also a huge resource to draw on, with thousands of college staff bringing their incredible expertise and passionate commitment to inclusion. And it’s good that the government views this as a long term plan to build a better system for generations to come.

It can be done and we need to help make it happen. The current system is not good enough. We need to get behind these reforms and make sure that they genuinely improve young people’s journeys through the education system so that they can work, thrive and play their full part in society.

As SEND needs rise, apprenticeships face an inclusion reality check

New analysis of individualised learner record (ILR) data shows that the proportion of apprentices declaring a learning difficulty, disability or difference (LLDD) has increased steadily over the past five academic years, from 11.9 per cent in 2020-21 to 16.1 per cent in 2024-25.

That is a 50 per cent increase in the number of apprentices requiring additional learning support compared to five years ago. For providers, this is a material shift that directly affects staffing, delivery models and quality assurance. The challenge is whether the apprenticeship system is realistically resourced to support learners, particularly in the context of Ofsted’s renewed emphasis on ensuring that no learner is left behind.

Better identification, broader need

There are good reasons why LLDD rates are rising. Increased awareness of neurodiversity, reduced stigma around disclosure and improvements in initial assessment all play a role. Many providers have invested in improving screening and learner conversations at the start of programmes.

In 2024-25, learning difficulties accounted for the largest share of declared needs, with 8.1 per cent of apprentices identifying a learning difficulty as their primary LLDD. Dyslexia remains the most common condition at 5.5 per cent.

More notable, however, is the growth in areas historically under-identified. Apprentices reporting autism spectrum disorders have increased more than threefold since 2020-21, as have those reporting other learning difficulties not otherwise specified.

This suggests that providers are seeing a wider range of needs that require flexibility, resources and time. As inspection frameworks place greater emphasis on inclusion, personalisation and progress for all learners, the operational implications of this shift become even more significant.

Pressure concentrated at level 2

While LLDD rates have increased across all apprenticeship levels, the impact is not evenly spread. At Level 2, 20.9 per cent of apprentices now report a primary LLDD need, up from 15.2 per cent five years ago. By comparison, LLDD rates at level 7 remain below 12 per cent but are increasing at the same rate.

For providers, this matters because level 2 apprentices are more likely to require structured support, confidence-building and regular intervention. Rising LLDD prevalence at this level places additional pressure on providers, particularly where funding does not reflect the intensity of support required.

Many providers are responding creatively by adjusting caseloads, redesigning reviews and investing in staff training, but these responses are often constrained by limited resources. In an inspection landscape that increasingly looks at how well providers support disadvantaged learners; capacity pressures are not just operational, they are strategic.

Identification is improving but delivery challenges remain

Apprenticeship funding rules require providers to screen learners for learning support needs as part of initial assessment. Structured screening tools, including platforms such as Aptem Assess, are helping providers identify previously undisclosed needs earlier.

Embedding support into day-to-day delivery by adjusting reviews, tailoring learning activities, and coordinating employer expectations takes time and skilled staff. In a system under cost pressure, this is often the hardest part to sustain. Yet this is precisely the area where inspectors will look for evidence that identification leads to meaningful support and measurable progress.

With LLDD rates rising, providers are expected not only to identify needs, but to demonstrate how those needs are actively supported and reviewed, and how they translate into sustained progress. If we want apprenticeships to remain an inclusive and credible route into skilled employment, learning support needs to be factored into how programmes are funded, staffed and evaluated, particularly as the sector works to uphold a clear commitment that no learner is left behind.

Planning for the learners we now serve

The apprenticeship system is becoming more neurodiverse. Providers are adapting at pace, but adaptation alone cannot bridge a growing gap between learner need and system capacity.

The conversation now needs to move beyond awareness. If apprenticeships are to work for an increasingly diverse learner base, the system must recognise what that support costs in time, training and people. The learners have changed. Providers are responding. The question is whether the system will change with them, and whether it will truly deliver on the ambition that no learner is left behind.

DfE to fund maternity pay improvements in colleges

Colleges are set to receive additional funding to improve maternity pay for their staff, the Department for Education has announced.

The plans come ahead of the schools white paper, due on Monday, which will commit to double the period of full maternity pay for teachers and leaders from four weeks to eight weeks from academic year 2027-28.

Unlike maintained schools, the government has no formal role in setting pay and conditions for staff in further education colleges, meaning maternity policies vary by institution.

However additional funding “commensurate to investment in schools” will be paid to colleges to “support them to improve the maternity offer for their staff”, the DfE said in a statement.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “Having met so many incredible teachers and staff in schools and colleges, I’ve heard how tough it can be juggling between a career you love and starting a family, and I’m concerned that too many women feel they don’t have the support they need to make the right choice for them.”

It’s not yet clear how much funding colleges will receive, or how it will be calculated.

It comes amid government efforts to improve teacher retention, which is expected to be a theme in next week’s schools white paper alongside major reforms to the SEND system.

Poor retention of further education teachers was flagged in the post-16 education and skills white paper, published in October, citing research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies showing 60 per cent leave in their first five years.

While it did not suggest improvements to maternity pay, it did propose bonus payments to teachers in shortage subjects, a professional development framework and increased 16 to 19 funding to help colleges retain staff.

This is not the first time the government has sought to provide parallel funding for colleges alongside a schools-focussed announcement.

Colleges have previously been given additional funding alongside school teacher pay awards. However the funding for these have been allocated through colleges’ 16 to 19 funding, meaning colleges with larger adult education and apprenticeship provision lose out. Ministers at the time “encouraged” colleges to spend this funding on staff pay, but they have no power to force them.

The department has not yet confirmed how this upcoming funding towards maternity pay will be allocated or whether it will be ringfenced.

Apprenticeship reform: An opportunity to future‑proof skills and unlock career pathways

Apprenticeship reforms promise to simplify processes, reduce bureaucracy, and reflect the realities of modern work and learning. The education sector now has a unique opportunity to build something more accessible, more responsive, with a renewed focus on quality.

At City & Guilds, apprenticeships and quality have always been central to their mission. In September 2025, they marked an important milestone: over 100,000 apprenticeship end‑point assessments completed across industries including construction, engineering, digital, and health and social care. Behind those numbers are thousands of people unlocking career pathways, developing industry‑relevant expertise, and future‑proofing their skills in an ever‑changing world. This is apprenticeships at their best.

Rising confidence in apprenticeships

Apprenticeships have evolved far beyond their traditional image. Once seen as a vocational route for a handful of industries, they now range across multiple industries and are highly competitive. Colleges and training providers report growing appreciation among learners for the blend of practical experience and classroom learning. Employers, too, increasingly view apprenticeships as a vital solution to address skills shortages.

In the 2024/25 academic year, apprenticeship starts rose by 4.1% to 353,500, while participation increased to 761,480 learners. Higher-level apprenticeships are booming too: Level 6 and 7 starts jumped by 20.4%, now accounting for 17.1% of all starts. It shows clear confidence in the apprenticeship model across the board.
The reforms aim to build on this success by reducing bureaucracy and giving providers greater control over assessment. This means more flexibility for providers and a better learner experience.

Challenges and opportunities ahead

City & Guilds’ engagement with providers and employers highlights a strong sense of optimism about apprenticeship reforms, as long as quality remains central.
Employers welcome assessment approaches grounded in real‑world working environments to produce apprentices who are more “job‑ready” and better equipped for long‑term success.

Providers, meanwhile, appreciate the shift towards greater internal assessment. Many already have strong quality assurance, trained assessors and established digital processes, positioning them well for the transition. They point to benefits such as more control over scheduling, potential for reduced costs, and a calmer, more familiar assessment environment for learners.

While the sector is enthusiastic, there is recognition that the move to internal assessment may present challenges for smaller or less established awarding organisations (AOs). Adapting to the new requirements, particularly the need for robust quality assurance and digital capabilities, may stretch resources. Delivering consistent, high‑quality assessment at national level demands infrastructure, expertise and investment.

Why an expert skills partner matters

Awarding organisations have a central role to play in ensuring the success of the reforms. As occupational standards align across qualifications and apprenticeships, providers need partners who can help them navigate this shift.

As a leader in qualification and apprenticeship delivery, City & Guilds brings the scale and experience to help providers adapt with confidence, offering an integrated service that supports at every stage.

By working with a single awarding organisation across both qualifications and apprenticeships, providers can eliminate duplication, streamline delivery and benefit from a more joined‑up learner experience. As learners increasingly move between qualification‑based routes and apprenticeships, the value of an experienced AO that understands the full skills ecosystem becomes even more significant.

City & Guilds work with employers and providers to build programmes that are industry‑aligned and designed for long‑term success. Whether it’s future‑proofing skills, reducing administrative pressure or creating smoother learner journeys, they are committed to helping deliver pathways that truly change lives.

Embrace change with City & Guilds

The reforms represent a pivotal moment – a chance to shape an apprenticeship system that is better equipped to unlock career opportunities for learners of all ages. Providers and employers who embrace this shift, supported by partners with the expertise and capacity to guide them, will be at the forefront of delivering high‑quality, future‑focused apprenticeships.

City & Guilds is here to help you lead that change. Working together to build a system that not only meets today’s challenges but equips tomorrow’s workforce with the skills to thrive.

Find out more at cityandguilds.com/apprenticeship-reform