The right decisions for FE will be better made locally than in Westminster

Labour’s conference this week showed that we are not just offering an alternative to the Conservatives, we’re already planning for the better future our country deserves. Over the last eight months Labour Leader Keir Starmer has set out the five missions Labour will take from opposition into government, and at conference he made plain our determination that a complete revolution in how we deliver skills in this country will be at the heart of our whole approach.

Last year we set out that the next Labour government will bring leadership and ambition to our skills system by creating a new national body – Skills England – to drive the change we need. He explained how we will devolve and combine power and budgets for skills and adult education to combined authorities, ensuring the right decisions and the right priorities are taken by the right people in the right places. And he pledged the reform of the failed apprenticeships levy into a wider growth and skills levy that genuinely drives learning in every workplace, large and small.

While the Conservatives have been content to drift and fail, Labour hasn’t sat still. As Labour’s new shadow skills minister I’ve been keen to hit the ground running. This week we have set out the next steps towards building a skills system that works for everyone, delivering opportunities for individuals to upskill, companies to grow, communities to thrive and for Britain to succeed.

The network of Technical Excellence Colleges that we’ll develop will be key to that. Under Labour’s plans, education providers will work hand-in-hand with local businesses and employers to align skills and training provision with local need and real job opportunities. And they will drive deepening cooperation and collaboration between higher and further education across our country, building on the work many successful institutions already deliver and bringing those opportunities to every corner of our country.

We want to see local and national government working as one, not at odds

We want to see local government and national government working as one, not at odds, to ensure local skills plans meet national strategic priorities to grow the economy and reskill people in the jobs of the future. We are determined that we will unlock opportunity for people right across our country.

The Britain Labour wants to build won’t just be rich in skilled jobs one distant day; it will require hundreds of thousands of them to get there. More skilled NHS staff. Higher standards of workers in adult social care and childcare. Construction skills to meet the demand for 1.5 million new homes and a new generation of new towns. And the engineering expertise to deliver the energy security and the net-zero future our world so urgently needs.

Labour is determined that in government we’ll not just bring a change of policy and a change of focus, but a whole new approach – governing for the long term, putting our country first, and seeing the difficulties we face as challenges to be tackled, not one to be exploited for political point-scoring. Our country has a proud history, and our young people deserve a bright future: a future that only Labour can deliver.

Teachers must see their fair share of extra FE funding

Our members have just voted ‘yes’ to strike action at 32 colleges in the fight for fair pay and conditions. Given the state of further education, this should come as no surprise. 

Pay has been held down so much that college teachers now earn £9,000 less than their counterparts in schools. Workloads are so high that staff say they are forced to work an average of two days extra each week, unpaid, just to keep up. 

After our ballot started, the college employer body the Association of Colleges (AoC) met with us and recommended a 6.5 per cent pay uplift. The recommendation confirms what we know: that after years of campaigning by UCU, further education is finally getting some of the funding it needs. 

Indeed, many employers can afford to offer much more than 6.5 per cent – and should do so.

Make no mistake, there is no chance the AoC would have put this offer on the table were it not for the pressure we are applying. However, there is one important difference between the 6.5 per cent pay offer accepted by teachers and the recommendation put forward by the AoC: colleges are under no obligation to implement the uplift. 

Each year we see many colleges failing to implement the recommended pay rises – even when these have been as little as one per cent. This is why, as well as a decent pay rise, we are demanding a new national bargaining framework for the sector with binding outcomes, so all staff get a pay rise.

So far, the AoC has failed to address workload concerns or make any concrete commitments to a new bargaining framework. Our members aren’t getting a fair deal, but college bosses have been splashing the cash elsewhere. 

From 2020-22 the amount spent on buildings and equipment jumped by 50 per cent, but money going to staff crept up by just one per cent. In 2022, college leaders increased their own salaries at quadruple the rate recommended to workers that year. One principal got a total package of over £360,000. 

The AoC accepts colleges face a staffing crisis, and far too many college staff are themselves in crisis. 

Our members aren’t getting a fair deal, but bosses are splashing the cash

They have told us that financial struggles are impacting their mental health, with many saying their pay cheque doesn’t even cover the bare essentials. We have reports of staff rationing their heating, skipping meals, and using food banks. This situation is completely unacceptable, and it‘s untenable. 

No worker should have to choose between eating and heating. Our members are entrusted to transform the lives of our young people and give adult learners a second chance at education, the very least they deserve is a salary that can pay the bills. 

Considering this situation, it is sadly no surprise that colleges have lost a fifth of their teaching staff since 2015. One member told us: “There is no hope, it’s a difficult job and even small treats like a meal with a friend are out of my reach. My debt keeps mounting and the only paths out of it seem to be further debt or starvation.”

Both Labour and the Conservatives have made clear in recent weeks that they want colleges to skill up the nation, but that can only be done if teachers’ pay and conditions are good enough to sustain their lives and stay in the sector.

It is also crucial that, in building a sustainable future, the sector is linked more explicitly with the green skills agenda. That’s why the formation of a transition commission for FE is a core bargaining demand in this year’s claim. This ballot result shows the strength of feeling amongst staff that urgent change is needed.

College bosses now need to meet with us, do the right thing and raise pay. Any that refuse to do so will be signing up to unprecedented industrial unrest. We hope they choose to work with us.

IFS calls for uniform subsidy rate for apprenticeship levy

Large and small businesses should receive the same level of government subsidy for apprenticeship training, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Experts at the economic research organisation have also warned that Labour’s plan to reform the apprenticeship levy so that it funds other types of training risks creating “significant deadweight costs”, in a new report published today. 

The apprenticeship levy, introduced in 2017, subsidises apprenticeship training costs. Firms that pay the levy – those with an annual pay bill of more than £3 million – get a larger subsidy rate of 110 per cent. Non-levy payers meanwhile get 95 per cent of apprenticeship costs covered.

Handing larger firms a large subsidy could risk companies using apprenticeships because they are funded, even if their needs are better suited to other training schemes.

Imran Tahir, author of the report and research economist at the IFS, said that introducing a lower but uniform subsidy rate would “create a simpler and more coherent system, and one that better ensures employers invest in the right form of training”.

His report said: “While there is a case for subsidy rates being set according to the degree to which training is likely to be underprovided, this would be complicated and difficult to measure and implement in practice, so a uniform rate is desirable.

“The uniform subsidy rate should also be set at a lower level than the current rates which effectively subsidise the full cost of apprenticeship training.”

Speaking at a launch event for the report, Tahir suggested the subsidy rate could then be increased “to target young people or certain industries where there are particular needs, to increase the level of apprenticeship training”. But he reiterated that all subsidy rates should initially be universal. 

‘Significant deadweight costs’

The IFS also criticised the Labour Party’s pledge to reform the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy if it wins the next election. That proposal, made last September and reiterated in this week’s Labour party conference, will mean employers could use levy funding for non-apprenticeship training.

But the IFS warned this risks “significant deadweight costs” because it could end up subsidising training that would have taken place without anyway like past schemes such as Train to Gain in late 2000s.

Train to Gain was dropped in 2010 after the National Audit Office found half of employers who got training subsidised via the scheme would have paid for it themselves.

Tahir also warned an expanded growth and skills levy could subsidise “unproductive training at the cost of potentially more valuable apprenticeship training”. 

The Labour party was approached for comment.

Tahir’s report pointed out that over £500 million raised through the apprenticeship levy has gone unallocated by the Treasury for spending on skills and training since its launch in 2017, as FE Week reported last month in the absence of transparency data from the Treasury. The IFS was able to use the Barnett formula for its calculations, so shows slightly higher amounts of unallocated funding.

Other key findings from Tahir’s report included that the number of publicly funded qualifications started by adults has declined by 70 per cent since the early 2000s, dropping from nearly 5.5 million qualifications to 1.5 million by 2020. 

Public funding for adult skills is set to increase by 11 per cent from £4.3 billion today to around £4.7 billion by 2024–25. The IFS said that given the “low returns to many adult skills courses”, rather than expand the range of courses available, the government should increase existing funding rates. 

Tahir said: “Adult skills policy is not a simple area, nor one that is easy to ‘solve’. History shows us that spending and setting qualification targets are not enough. What matters is ensuring that individuals and employers have the capacity and incentives to invest in additional education that builds valuable skills.”

A spokesperson for the Department for Education said the department is investing “an additional £3.8 billion in skills” this parliament, and is replacing low quality qualifications “with those that better meet the needs of employers”, including apprenticeships and skills bootcamps.

“The apprenticeship levy has helped us to create sustainable funding that incentivises employers to invest in high-quality apprenticeship training,” they added. “It has also enabled us to increase investment in apprenticeships to £2.7bn, helping businesses of all sizes to benefit from apprenticeships.”

Post-16 options are at the heart of tackling youth unemployment

More than 790,000 young people in England are currently not in employment, education, or training (NEET). This represents a 23 per cent rise over the past two years.

These figures matter. Time spent neither learning nor earning can permanently dent a young person’s life chances. And there are also implications for the economy. New analysis shows that significantly reducing the number of unemployed young people could generate £69 billion in GDP. At a time when the UK’s prosperity is on shaky ground, this is a problem we can no longer afford to ignore.

Despite the best efforts of many people and organisations, the proportion of young people who are NEET has remained stubbornly high for the past two decades. This is despite evidence that shows us factors that indicate whether someone is likely to become NEET are often apparent from an early stage. As these young people finish key stage 4 at the age of 16, they enter a time of acute risk.

On the face of it, there’s a plethora of post-16 options for these young people to choose from: A Levels, apprenticeships, BTECs, T Levels, and T Level transition years. But reforms from the removal of many BTECs to incoming changes that will be wrought by the shift to the recently announced Advanced British Standard also mean young people face a shifting and confusing qualification landscape. And even this range of options can be insufficient for young people with the highest chance of falling through the cracks.

Worryingly, the range of options available to young people also seems to be narrowing. While apprenticeships are an option for post-16 training, many employers and providers instead create opportunities more appropriate for older applicants and existing workers rather than young people looking to get their start in the labour market. Since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, level 2 and 3 apprenticeships – those typically taken by young people leaving school with lower levels of qualifications – have declined. This represents a loss of opportunity for many.

Young people face a shifting and confusing qualification landscape

But there are things government can do to reverse this damaging trend. The new Young Person’s Guarantee (YPG) launched by the Youth Employment Group calls on policymakers to strengthen the range of level 2 and level 3 pathways by maintaining a broad range of qualification options, incentivising their employment and re-orientating the apprenticeship system to prioritise them.

Specifically, the YPG makes four specific recommendations to improve the post-16 offer:

  • To place a moratorium on cuts to vocational technical qualifications until the T level roll-out is complete
  • To adopt targets for level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship starts for under-25s to meet pre-levy levels
  • To incentivise employers to employ young people with disabilities and long-term health conditions
  • To increase flexibility of levy spending

These reforms would improve young people’s routes into employment and qualifications, and would widen skills development, reducing the number of young people who find themselves neither learning nor earning.

Measures such as these cannot succeed in isolation but must form part of a concerted attempt to help young people across their education and beyond. We know this is possible; the Young Person’s Guarantee is based on an evidence-based review of international best practice. Adopting it would commit government to supporting our young people to access employment, training or education within four months of leaving work or formal education.

Preventing a young person from becoming NEET, or helping a young person who is to find work can transform their life chances. This is particularly true of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are twice as likely as their better-off peers to fall into this category. And there are profound economic and societal benefits too.

The Young Person’s Guarantee provides a road map to economic growth that is built on consensus and overwhelmingly supported by the public. Creating and resourcing the right post-16 options is a critical component of getting this right and delivering for all our young people.

Oliver formally confirmed as next Ofsted chief inspector

Sir Martyn Oliver’s appointment as the next chief inspector of Ofsted has been approved by the Privy Council.

The chief executive of the Outwood Grange Academies Trust said he would be “empathetic, compassionate and understanding of the challenges that those of us working in education”.

Oliver was announced earlier this year as the government’s preferred candidate, and endorsed by the education committee last month. Approval by the Privy Council – which advises the King – means he will take over from Amanda Spielman in January.

Spielman will step down in December following seven years in the job. The normal tenure is five years, but her term was extended because of the Covid pandemic.

Education secretary Gillian Keegan said Oliver was an “accomplished school and trust leader with a tremendous record of driving up standards and I’m delighted to announce that he has been confirmed as Ofsted’s next chief inspector”.

“I want to thank Amanda Spielman for her work over the past seven years. She successfully led Ofsted through a series of significant reforms in education and children’s services, alongside championing a broad and balanced curriculum.”

‘Deeply honoured’

Oliver said he was “deeply honoured and hugely privileged” to take on the role, and said he was “looking forward to engaging with all parts of the sector that Ofsted regulates and inspects through a big listen”.

“I promise to be empathetic, compassionate and understanding of the challenges that those of us working in education, children’s services and skills face, especially in terms of the recovery post-covid, and will ensure that we always take a holistic view for the good of all children, especially the most vulnerable and those who are disadvantaged.”

During his committee hearing, Oliver said he wanted more serving leaders conducting Ofsted inspections, and for in-house inspectors to be able to serve part-time in other organisations.

But he was also accused of misleading MPs over claims exclusion rates in his turnaround trust’s schools were “lower than most” in the areas they work.

Apprenticeship levy reform must be handled with care

I’m sure FE Week readers will have seen the main headlines from the prime minister and secretary of state for education’s conference speeches in Manchester and their opposition counterparts in Liverpool. What those at home don’t see is some of the interesting debates and meetings that take place outside the main hall across the rest of the conference.

These fringe meetings often give a glimpse into political parties’ deeper thinking about future direction. At this year’s conferences, a recurring theme for discussions was the potential to refine the apprenticeship levy. We already knew that Labour are committed to moving to a wider “skills and growth levy”. But with the Liberal Democrats agreeing to reform the levy at their conference, it was interesting to hear so many Tory MPs also suggesting their party should go down this route.

In sum, growing pressure means we’re looking at when, not if, the levy will be reformed.

One of our sector’s major challenges is to offer an apprenticeship system which is properly funded and flexible enough for employers to take full advantage of. With a general election looming, political parties are beginning to put together their manifestos, and we all know that any party serious about governing must put skills at the heart of its plans.

Talk alone won’t cut it, though. We need to see real investment in skills giving learners a real choice of high-quality skills provision. Improving the apprenticeship system must be a major priority for whoever wins the next election.

However, AELP has previously been cautious about advocating for introducing flexibility within the apprenticeship levy. In the 2021/22 financial year, 99.6 per cent of the apprenticeship budget was spent. Last year, with the ending of incentives and an increase in the budget, spend was 96 per cent of the programme budget. This shows that employers are hungry for apprenticeships but that any additional flexibility for levy payers needs to be tempered. Allowing them to access the levy funding for non-apprenticeship training is on the face of it desirable, but should be off-set by dedicated support for SMEs. 

It should be done in a gradual way with a ringfenced budget

Putting learner and employer choice first is one of AELP’s core values. Recognising that for some organisations an apprenticeship may not always be the right method for upskilling staff is important. Allowing levy-paying employers a degree of wider flexibility to fund the procurement of high-quality accredited qualifications could be beneficial. However, we should recognise that doing so will put pressure on the apprenticeship programme budget. We cannot afford for the future apprenticeship levy to become a free-for-all; the scope of flexibility needs to be tight, targeted and ideally link back to apprenticeships.

If levy reform is to take place, it should be done in a gradual way with a ringfenced budget that non-levy paying employers can access. This means government must acknowledge the growing divide between the level of money paid through the levy by employers and the actual apprenticeship programme budget. Employers are being short-changed and that extra funding would be transformational. 

We also need to recognise the massive role non-levy paying employers play, traditionally taking on a disproportionate number of young people. If we squeeze out SMEs, we squeeze out our young people from apprenticeships. This would have disastrous consequences for social mobility.

In fact, SMEs need more support and a straightforward way for that to happen would be by removing the requirement for these businesses to co-invest 5 per cent. These types of employers often do not have the capacity to navigate the existing system, and the co-investment model discourages them from investing in skills.

Following the removal of the non-levy cap, the scrapping of co-investment would also mean no need for levy transfer functionality. This has been a well-meaning part of the system but adds complexity and bureaucracy. With additional flexibility in the levy, it would likely be utilised less as levy payers would have less to transfer.

At the heart of a sustainable skills system will be ensuring the apprenticeship model is fit for purpose and fit for the future. Levy reform can play a part in that – but it must be done in a well thought-out and sensible way. 

If only political attention stretched as far as the classroom

If you had a five-minute slot on the political party conference circuit, what would you change in further education? And would you need a glitter bomb or just some sparkle to get the message across? For while the parties of all stripes sell new wheezes, funding pots and ‘Advanced BS’, back at the digital chalk-face the issues looming large tend not to be quite as catchy: cash investment in student opportunity.

Of course, the three political parties no doubt recognise this. But the means of driving this investment, whether it’s the Lib Dems extending the current English and maths tuition funding stream or Labour announcing a new Technical Excellence College standard (remarkably similar to the current Institutes of Technology), feel like technocratic tweaks. They create either a new audit demand or a regional bidding war for the latest kitemark.

In reality, whenever there’s a new pot of cash to draw down, there’s funding returned and opportunity lost when it could be merged with current rules instead. And in the meantime, a huge amount of energy is spent proving, auditing and recording its use.

Back in the classroom, our reality is students choosing between immediate cash for whatever work is around or the possible investment that education represents. Given that we know economic security correlates with educational outcomes, attendance and enrolment, a return of the mid-2000s education maintenance allowance would more directly tilt those choices towards the aims of all parties: more students doing better at 16-18.

Labour haven’t promised that yet, but a recognition of the economic constraints students face remains a thread in their thinking as they “work to ensure the cost-of-living crisis does not hold back students’ learning”. The Lib Dem mythical government, but realistic coalition or voting partner, would also boost funding for FE. The Conservatives target increased funding on teacher bonuses and a lift to English and maths funding. It seems we have their attention.

Our reality is students choosing between work and education

For adult students, negotiating their enrolment with the benefits and loans system is an achievement in itself. If you are on Access to HE, then you qualify for an advanced learner loan for your fees (which is written off when you finish uni) but not a maintenance loan, and your study hours will be similar to some universities.

However, you probably won’t qualify for a council tax discount, and your universal credit will be affected. In the meantime, you have the likely hurdles of childcare, funding rules and a reduced income as well as the small matter of learning and following your ambitions. Most Access students study healthcare-related courses and are the NHS of the future. I hear there’s a recruitment crisis.

But perhaps the most curious announcement is the Conservatives promising to end a reform they have barely birthed. PM Sunak proclaimed a new Advanced British Standard, merging A Levels and the nascent T Levels with a side of English and maths for a post-16 qualification of the future.

While they may wrap this reform with the Union flag, its origins feel particularly European, following elements of the French system, only with fewer hours dedicated to it. But with the plan announced alongside a ten-year timescale, just as this government looks like it will exit stage right by January 2025 at the very latest, the timing is more positioning than policy.

Much like HS2, this is a reform destined to have its ambition stopped short. There’s also the small matter that it’s the minority of students at post-16 that study either A or T Levels, despite their focus in the national conscience.

That Sunak and Starmer have gone head-to-head on education policy is no surprise; that FE and skills has been the battleground is more so. Those of us in the FE classroom are probably tired of ‘Cinderella sector’ references and all it implies.

Rather than wait for glass slippers, it’s time to lobby and invite MPs into our colleges while we have their attention – not for ribbon cutting, but reality checking.

Ofqual extends term-time checkpoints to hundreds of thousands more VTQ students

Ofqual’s new term-time checkpoints that aim to ensure vocational and technical qualification (VTQ) students get their results on time have been extended to level 1/2 and level 2 courses.

The expansion beyond level 3 VTQs forms part of the regulator’s efforts to avoid a repeat of the 2022 BTECs fiasco that led to tens of thousands of delayed results.

In March, Ofqual introduced strict deadlines for awarding bodies to agree with schools and colleges which students should expect to receive their level 3 VTQ grades on results day.

The regulator also introduced a term-time checkpoint for schools and colleges to check any missing information is addressed as quickly as possible before results day.

In a letter from Ofqual’s outgoing chief regulator Jo Saxton, schools and colleges were today told that the term-time checkpoint, which should be completed before the May exam season, will now apply to level 1/2 and level 2 VTQs for 2024 onwards.

“The checkpoint process is designed to ensure that students who need a result on results days get one,” Saxton said.

“Schools and colleges recognised that it would be helpful to extend this arrangement to level 1/2 and level 2 qualifications, where they are taken alongside GCSEs at key stage 4, for progression,” the letter added. “Ofqual is expanding the scope of these arrangements accordingly.”

Around 370,000 level 3 VTQ results were awarded in 2022/23.

An additional 400,000 level 1/2 and level 2 VTQs are taken by students each year. Level 1/2 courses are an alternative qualification to GCSEs for learners aged 14 to 16 that includes a vocational and project-based aspect. They span both levels 1 and 2 qualifications.

Saxton said the “ability” of staff to review results and engage with awarding organisations prior to results days proved a “critical aspect of the success of the summer of 2023”, and recognised this was a “demanding time for schools and colleges”.

She added: “If your school or college handles high volumes of results, I encourage you to consider which staff will need to be available.”

The letter said that individual awarding organisations will confirm when results for their qualifications will be issued to schools and colleges.

Colleges should expect Ofqual’s Information Hub to publish awarding organisations’ key dates and deadlines in the new year.

Ofqual has been told that awarding organisations’ communication with colleges “sometimes felt overwhelming and heavy-handed” last year and is therefore working to consider “the content, volume and timing” of their communication with schools and colleges.

An Ofqual spokesperson said: “Following feedback from exams officers and teaching staff, individual awarding organisations will set their own dates for term time processes that make sure those processes are completed prior to when the main exam season begins in May.  

“Awarding organisations will tell schools and colleges what their dates are. Ofqual will publish awarding organisations’ key dates and deadlines on its Information Hub in January.”

For the 2023 level 3 results arrangements, awarding bodies had to agree with schools and colleges by May 26 which students expect to receive grades on level 3 results day in the summer. They also had to check up mid-term-time on missing information needed for students’ results by June 23. The deadline for issuing VTQ results to schools and colleges was August 14 – three days before the level 3 results day.

The change came after 21,000 BTEC and Cambridge Technical (CTEC) results were issued late in 2022, leaving students stuck and in the dark.

The party conferences mark a historic moment for our sector

I’ve been a champion for skills and FE for over 50 years and coming to party political conferences for almost as long. This year has been like no other. In their conference speeches, the prime minister, Rishi Sunak and the man who aspires to the role, Keir Starmer name-checked FE Colleges and pointed to clear policy actions they would take on skills and technical qualifications. 

2024 might well go down in history as the year in which there was agreement, at last, that skills change people’s lives, help create safer, connected and thriving communities, and increase the productivity that drives economic growth. What in the past was a political football, not seriously embraced by either party, has well and truly ‘come home’.  

How timely then that the post-Augar partners who came together as the Future Skills Coalition (FSC), namely City and Guilds, AoC and AELP, with the support of a wide range of key partners and employers, made this year the occasion to create the Skills Hub, a zone in the main exhibitor area of each conference. Timely alignment and hard-won, clever synchronicity. 

The prominent presence of the Skills Hub stand, showcasing a dazzling array of employers and skills providers and partners, together with a series of round tables and fringe events at this year’s party conferences is testimony to the collective endeavour of all involved. It represents a significant move forward that all those concerned with skills delivery, standards, and improvement were able to unite around three central policy areas which any government that takes skills seriously, of whatever political hue or makeup, would be wise to heed: 

  • a national policy strategy supporting local, inclusive growth 
  • a right to lifelong learning free from restrictive constraints 
  • fair, accessible and effective funding 

Having reached such a milestone for the sector, it was heartening that the new shadow skills minister, Seema Malhotra responded with an equally welcoming collaborative approach, making it clear that she will work with sector partners to design deliverable implementation plans.  

It represents a significant move forward

What then are the next steps and priorities for the FSC? How will FSC ensure that the insights of the practitioners assembled in Manchester and Liverpool will be fed into emerging post-election actions? The diversity of sector partners ensures a range of different ideas, which can be picked up by politicians aiming to translate political decision and policy determination into effective action and successful outcomes. It is worth highlighting, however, that there was broad agreement on addressing the following four policy areas.

Workforce planning

All stakeholders want to see immediate action on workforce development, recruitment, and retention, by putting in place a plan to enable FE colleges and independent training providers to build capacity in their employees and to attract new staff with the expertise required to teach the skills needed in today’s and tomorrow’s labour market.

Building on the sector’s strengths 

Even if politics requires a ‘cosmetic’ re-branding in some areas, the aim should be to improve on some of the innovative foundations already laid over the past 13 years (e.g. LSIPs and LLE).

Connecting and devolving

Reform should focus on better connecting the different parts of the post-16 skills system, by reforming operational aspects such as the apprenticeship levy and the engagement of SMEs, and by supporting evolving models of devolution in areas of England that have a clear vision and accountable structure for skills delivery.

Measured progress on qualifications 

The sector is almost unanimous in its desire for pausing the defunding of level 3 qualifications and reviewing with employers and providers a reasonable timescale for the rollout of T Levels. 

Over the coming months, I am clear that the sector stands ready to respond to the important intentions signalled by political leaders. We look forward to meeting with the current and shadow secretaries of state for education and their skills ministers to work through practical and fundable ways in which political ambition and sector capacity can be united to ensure skills are at the heart of the next decade of our nation’s renewal.