National college capacity funding opens alongside new DfE estates strategy

Applications have opened for the government’s post-16 and construction capacity funding grants, as the Department for Education (DfE) has promised a “decade of national renewal” through a new education estates strategy.

The government has budgeted £570 million for post-16 capital investment, between 2026-27 and 2029-30, including both capacity and construction skills-focused funds.

A total of £287 million from this pot will be contracted nationally by the Department for Education and opened for bids yesterday from colleges, designated institutions and 16 to 19 academies in non-devolved areas.

Meanwhile, the government has also published its national education estates strategy, which includes a new renewal and retrofit programme worth an extra £710 million between 2026 and 2030.

The new strategy pledges to give colleges greater long-term certainty on capital investment and to reduce competitive bidding through more regular data sharing with the DfE.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said the plan will bring an end to colleges and schools being forced to “patch and mend” buildings that have already deteriorated.

She added: “This is about more than buildings – it’s about breaking down barriers to opportunity. Every child deserves to learn in a safe, accessible environment, with the right facilities to meet their needs and help them thrive.”

The FE sector is facing a population bulge in 16 to 18 students, with numbers estimated to have swollen by 230,000, or 13 per cent, between 2017 and 2024 and to rise by another five per cent, or 110,000, by 2028.

Details of the capacity funding were welcomed by Julian Gravatt, deputy chief executive at the Association of Colleges, who said: “Colleges across the country have the expertise and ambition to deliver large numbers of quality courses in high-demand areas like construction, but over the past few years have struggled with the funding and resource to do so, with some having to turn potential students away.

“The £570 million budget for capital projects will go a long way to address the issue, ensuring colleges can expand their facilities.”

Capacity funds

DfE guidance published yesterday, which applies to non-devolved areas, sets out its expectations for bidding for both £191 million in post-16 capacity funding and £96 million in construction skills capacity funding.

The amounts available from individual bidders both funds are at least £250,000 and at most £5 million, although this could be higher “where there is sufficient evidence of need”.

A total of 18 mayoral combined authorities and councils with devolution deals will separately receive £184 million in post-16 capacity funding and £99 million for construction skills capacity funding. However, the Greater London Authority has not been awarded any funding for post-16 capacity.

To help with applications to the national pot, the DfE also published Office for National Statistics projections for non-devolved areas showing that in peak years, usually 2028 or 2029, some local authorities are expecting 16 to 17-year-old population growth of up to 19 per cent, or 900 people, per year.

Overall, the funding plans have been welcomed by the college sector, with Sixth Form College Association (SFCA) deputy chief executive James Kewin saying many of his members are “bursting at the seams”.

He added: “These new funds are very welcome and we expect them to be heavily oversubscribed.

“It remains to be seen how the funds operate in devolved areas – we hope that strategic authorities ensure that all providers types have the opportunity to create additional places as soon as possible.”

It follows the DfE’s release of £10 million in emergency post-16 capacity funding to both the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and Leeds City Council last year, which is forecast to create around 9,000 extra college places once projects such as leasing buildings and classroom refurbishments are complete.

How to win

Bidders to the DfE’s post-16 capacity fund must show their projects are needed “as a direct result” of demographic increases in learners and be designed to accommodate at least 31 additional 16 to 19 year-old learners.

The three “likely” types of project that will win funding are those that reconfigure the estate, increase size temporarily through leasing or purchases, or building or buying new space.

Permanent new build projects or land purchase projects are “unlikely” to meet spend deadlines or value for money requirements due to the “short term nature” of the population budge and risk of creating “surplus” post-16 places.

Construction capacity funding comes with several conditions including securing employer support and winning bids being for a designated construction technical excellence college or one of their “spoke” collaborators.

They must also demonstrate that projects will address construction waiting lists, accommodate learners from 2026 onwards, and that there are “no alternative solutions”.

Applications opened on February 10 and close on April 17, with outcome notifications in July.

New national strategy

The DfE’s 10-year national estates strategy promises to “turn the page on years of neglect” through a new retrofit and renewal programme, a national standard for FE colleges and improved data collection.

Between 2026 and 2030, the £710 million retrofit and renewal programme will aim to help colleges and schools with “significant condition projects”, resilience to climate change, access to nature and decarbonising the estate.

A new digital service ‘manage your education estate’ will be launched this month that will bring together estates guidance, data, and communication with the department.

The department will develop an estate management standard for FE colleges by summer this year and pilot increased data collection and sharing that will help target future funding “without the need for full bids”.

Other plans include “pathfinder” pilots of more flexible use of surplus spaces on the education estate and private finance investment in solar and energy efficiency.

A year of change for apprenticeships – the good, the bad and the worrying

One of the most positive updates this year has been the increase in government funding for SMEs. Smaller, non‑levy paying businesses can now receive 100 per cent funding for apprentices aged 16–24. For small firms, which make up so much of the UK’s business sector, this is a major boost. Without considering other factors, it makes the investment in new talent more affordable.  

Shorter minimum durations for learners with prior experience, and the removal of mandatory English and maths requirements for adult learners, have also been positive, making apprenticeships more flexible, more inclusive and better aligned with real workplace needs.

But not all changes have been positive. I’ve made no secret about my concerns over the future of apprenticeships, given the various policy and funding reforms announced last year. With a potential reduction and general confusion around the quality and rigour of assessments, we risk stepping back to the days before the Richard Review in 2012, when apprenticeships, and (unfairly) apprentices, were poorly perceived.  And with the volume and speed of changes being demanded, we risk a loss of confidence to invest, from both employers and education institutions. This is compounded by other mis-aligned fiscal policies hitting employers. It is worrying to see this play out recently. Apprenticeship starts for entry level programmes are slowing more and more, and these once brought the biggest numbers into the system.

What AAT members think

The 2025 Autumn Budget delivered some welcome changes. But without a stronger long-term plan for apprenticeships, the UK risks missing the chance to develop the next wave of talent. Year after year, employers tell us that apprenticeships work. But what’s missing is a system that makes it easier and more affordable for employers to show commitment to their significant role.

That’s why in the year ahead, collaboration between government, professional bodies and employers will be essential. Our Filling the Gap report clearly showed that businesses want an apprenticeship system that is simpler to navigate, more flexible and better aligned with the way of all ages, start and grow their careers. Strengthening that system and ensuring it works for learners must remain a priority. And something that should be created together with those designing, implementing and assuring those programmes.

Skills England will be crucial in making all this work. Streamlined assessment plans, proportionate end‑point assessments, and clear, steady guidance would make the system far easier for employers and learners to navigate – but these changes must all be communicated clearly and with sufficient notice.  

Apprenticeships create leaders, and SMEs are where it starts

If you want proof that apprenticeships work, just look at the people they produce. Our president, Lucy Cohen, began her journey as an AAT apprentice before co‑founding Mazuma, a multi‑million‑pound accountancy firm. Today, she represents members and SMEs across one of the UK’s largest professional bodies. Her story shows that apprenticeships aren’t a second choice, they’re a launchpad for impactful leaders, entrepreneurs, and well-rounded professionals.

AAT need to walk the walk too. This year we welcomed three new apprentices into our teams, and that’s in addition to the five who were already working through their apprenticeships with us. With apprentices now covering a variety of roles across our business, we not only feel the challenges of an employer, but we see exactly how they deliver value day to day. I’m looking forward to sitting down with them during National Apprenticeship Week, to highlight their role in our own business.

Policy needs to keep up with the future

National Apprenticeship Week is a chance to celebrate progress, but also to recognise what still needs to be done. For apprenticeships to reach their full potential, government, employers, and providers must work together to keep learner and employer outcomes front and centre. When that happens, apprenticeships become more than training programmes. They become a way to grow talent, strengthen businesses, and build the skilled workforce the UK needs now and for the future.

One-size-fits-all foundation apprenticeships just won’t work

The first few months of rolling out foundation apprenticeships were always going to expose the pressure points in a system still finding its feet. Early numbers don’t indicate a programme is failing. They reveal where policy must now evolve to meet the realities employers and young people face.

Foundation apprenticeships are level 2 programmes for people aged 16 to 21, or up to 24 if the person has an education, health and care plan, is a care leaver or has been in prison.

They have been launched at a time when the numbers of those not in education or employment (NEET) has reached the highest level in over a decade.

Our feedback from employer partners is that young people consistently lack work-ready skills. With a report by The King’s Trust finding that almost half (48 per cent) of young NEETs feeling unconfident they will be able to find a stable job in the future, foundation apprenticeships are vital in that they provide real-world experience, structured support and employability skills development.  However, our early engagement with employers across retail, hospitality and care found the current model lacks the clarity, flexibility and alignment required, which may go some way to explaining the sluggish start. 

Early data shouldn’t push government or industry backwards, though. Instead, it’s a signal: refine the model, sharpen the offer.

Employers still face many barriers

Frontline sectors like care face a myriad of challenges. Businesses are juggling inflation, mentoring, compliance and operational demands.

Meanwhile, in sectors such as data and digital the pressures are different, but just as significant. For example, technology is evolving at a rapid pace. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) means firms are increasingly hesitant to hire young talent until they have certainty on how their competencies can map to future skills needs. 

In addition, employers believe that the assessment system is still not clearly defined, especially given ongoing reform across the broader apprenticeship assessment framework. Clear, consistent national guidance is imperative on expectations, evidence requirements and how employability competencies should be judged. 

Funding is also a barrier.  Employers receive incentive payments of up to £2,000 for hosting foundation apprentices, on top of the existing £1,000 payment businesses receive for 16 to 18-year-old apprentices.

Yet this level can fall short of the real cost of onboarding people who need intensive early support. In the care sector, for example, employers must invest significant time before a learner can meaningfully contribute. Arguably, without additional onboarding support such as supervision stipends or wage co-investment, employer hesitation will remain. 

And while the chancellor announced £820 million to fund a “youth guarantee”, this doesn’t cover 16–17-year-olds – for whom this support could be critical and act as a preventative measure to alleviate the NEET crisis.

The levy system has historically been plagued by large amounts of unspent funds. Following the autumn Budget, employers will have half the time to spend this money. 

Unless the reformed growth and skills levy explicitly ring-fences or prioritises entry-level routes, and clarifies how funds can support onboarding, employers will continue to view them as high-risk, high-cost propositions.

Clear, practical levy rules are essential to convert unspent resources into real opportunities for young people, especially 16–17-year-olds outside the youth guarantee who rely entirely on employer willingness to take them on.

Eight-month courses are too long

Our research with employer partners found different sectors need different approaches and models. One size doesn’t fit all. For example, care needs emotionally ready learners and a faster gateway to level 2 once competencies are safe. 

An eight-month course is too long for many businesses. I have heard the same question asked by many: Why would we recruit a young person for eight months and then put them onto a level 2, without reducing the duration of a level 2? 

For fast-paced sectors like digital, where operational pressures move faster, eight months can feel misaligned, becoming a bottleneck rather than a bridge. To make foundation apprenticeships viable, the reformed levy must enable genuine flexibility: shorter on-boarding, modular units and competency-based progression that lets employers advance learners as soon as they are ready, not according to an arbitrary time requirement.

If the government is serious about tackling youth unemployment, it must work with employers to assess what is and isn’t working – and look beyond the statistics to ensure foundation apprenticeships truly deliver on their promise.

Builders need older apprentices, not school leavers alone

At the end of last year, the government announced a major investment aimed at increasing apprenticeship starts for young people and better aligning skills training with local job opportunities.

While this may sound positive on paper, for construction employers it is unlikely, on its own, to shift the dial.

The reality is that construction’s skills shortage cannot be solved by school leavers alone. Upskilling the next generation is vital.

But an approach that only prioritises younger entrants risks overlooking a large pool of motivated, capable people who want to retrain, reskill or change careers later in life.

Policy focuses too much on under-25s

Construction relies on a skilled workforce that can respond to changing project demands. Yet the apprenticeship system often struggles to reflect this reality. The core barrier is not training quality, but the risk placed on employers operating on low margins and with poor pipeline visibility.

Recent policy initiatives have been focused on under-25s, with routes such as T Levels largely pitched at school leavers. While these pathways still have a role to play, they do little to support experienced adults who want to transition into construction, or employers seeking lower-risk, job-ready entrants.

For many employers, the absence of targeted support for older apprentices makes it even harder to justify investment, even when there is a clear skills need. As a result, the system unintentionally excludes a group that could improve productivity and workforce stability.

Mature apprentices bring more ‘soft skills’

Research by recruitment company Michael Page shows that the most common age for a career change is 31. Those in their late 20s, 30s and beyond bring transferable skills, workplace maturity and a strong understanding of what they want from their next role.

In a high-risk sector like construction, mature apprentices often pose less risk. They typically have a stronger awareness of safety and site discipline, reducing the likelihood of accidents and early attrition.

Mature apprentices bring valuable transferable skills, communication, reliability, problem-solving and teamwork. These are commonly labelled “soft skills”, but some of the hardest to master and among the most critical skills on site.

Apprenticeships give these individuals a structured route into construction, and the chance to explore new roles and learn practical skills on the job without starting from scratch. It allows employers to access capability, not just potential.

How to fix the system

To transform apprenticeships into a genuine workforce solution, the system must move beyond one-size-fits-all policies. Supporting young people into construction should remain a priority, but incentivising employment, rather than penalising employers, is essential.

That means reducing administrative burdens, introducing clearer and more flexible funding incentives, and recognising the true cost and risk employers carry. Without reform to construction procurement, where contracts often prioritise the lowest price over quality and good employment practices, apprenticeship policy will continue to fall short.

Crucially, apprenticeships must be positioned as a lifelong pathway, not a scheme tied to age brackets. Only then can the notion that apprenticeships work for every generation be realised.

Change can ensure homes and key infrastructure get built

Construction faces ambitious targets, from housing delivery to public sector infrastructure, at a time when skilled labour is increasingly hard to secure. Meeting those challenges requires a broader, more inclusive approach to training.

Apprenticeships cannot be viewed solely as a route for the young. They must support people at every stage of life – and employers at every stage of the economic cycle.

By embracing a multi-generational model, policymakers and employers alike can help create a more resilient, experienced and diverse workforce – one capable of supporting the long-term health of the construction sector.

Mission statements are the holy writ no one reads

Motherhood and apple pie. The NHS and nurses. Babies and kittens. Lifelong love and long lie-ins. I’ve yet to meet anyone who would raise a word against any of these things or organise a concerted campaign objecting to their ongoing existence. Teaching the whole person, encouraging life-long learning, inspiring success, building resilience and preparing for later life. Such educational statements of aim are so anodyne as to be bland, yet so universal that any school or college who decided against them, proclaiming that from now on they would not encourage learning, care or create a safe environment, would immediately have Ofsted smashing in SAS-style through classroom windows.  

To question their utility is nothing short of heresy. Yet most teachers are probably puzzled by the exalted status mission statements are given, divorced from classroom realities. Those who mutter darkly about such statements being symptoms of a deep managerialism infecting education ensure there are no written records traceable back to them. Instead they deny everything, smile and nod, stand upright hand-on-heart as all pledge eternal allegiance to our guiding star mission statement.  

Every organisation seems to have needed one since they came to the fore in the 1980s business world. Gone are the days when a shop’s mission was simply to sell things and a school’s or college’s was to teach. Now we must be educating the whole person, helping create informed future citizens in a safe and supportive community environment. Otherwise how would they ever know what they’re supposed to be doing with their day?

Research into the real usefulness of mission statements in education is remarkably scant, despite their shibboleth status. In a 2021 review by David Coker of mission statements in what we would call the state secondary sector in America, he concluded that mission statements were “largely unknown” by employees, yet organizations were “unwavering in their beliefs on unrequited value”. There was no evidence they had any meaningful impact on results.

Coker conceded that successful schools often had unity of purpose amongst both staff and students. But a mission statement only reflected this; it did not bring it into being.  

Consultants and theorists analysing successful colleges notice that where unity of purpose seems to be present there are attempts to replicate this in other situations, articulated in collaboratively created mission statements. Such statements then quickly become emblematic, apparent levers to be pulled in achieving success. But this is a confusion of causality and correlation, a fundamental academic fallacy.

What is it we think we are doing in writing a mission statement? Those who know often say the debate is key, helping foster a unity of purpose. But then the end-result is largely irrelevant; it is the creation of a shared vision that counts. So after the composition process, one could really dispense with the statement.

But in reality statements tend to be articulated at the top then passed down from above, products of discussions in the boardroom, ready-written when presented to classroom staff (who may be symbolically consulted). They are thus decreed from on high as if by prophetic pronouncement.  

Providing a vision statement to people who haven’t shared the process of producing it will not bring discernible profit. People will not generally be suddenly struck blind at the brightness of the vision simply because it has been written.

So important is The Statement that sometimes every department is required to write a related mission sub-statement of its own. Time is set aside for it, with meetings or training days allocated and even consultants employed. Maybe the department might display their new statement proudly on their classroom walls, printed out on paper in brightly coloured font (stone tablets are harder to find these days). Their fate is then subject to the phenomenon of familiarity blindness. After a while they stop being noticed. 

Still the process continues with all the logic of trickle-down economics. From departmental mission statements there even come hydra-like individual mission statements of a sort in the ubiquitous performance management processes which still hold sway in most of our schools and colleges, who are invariably years behind the latest thinking on such matters in business.

But once all these mission statements have been written to satisfy managerial demands and fired back up to line-managers, who tick the spreadsheet off as done, then what? If a mission statement were rewritten every year, tilted slightly each time like a hand tapping on a tiller to adjust direction, there might be a usefulness to them.

In the real world people act on their own sweet reasons, pure and tainted. Some teachers are driven by very clear personal or social missions. Some simply love their subjects. Some care deeply about their students. Some less so. That is as it ever was and as it ever will be, mission statement or not. Where those personal purposes overlap is our common vision. Articulating that is a slippery fish and probably largely a waste of time.  

We fail to score ESOL students’ real progress in real life

Measures of success in English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) often sit at a distance from how language is actually used and experienced.

For one of my learners, a key moment of progress was being able to buy a cup of coffee in English before class and arrive ready to learn alongside her peers. This kind of development is familiar to ESOL practitioners, yet it remains difficult to locate within official data. 

What we count, and what we miss

Attendance figures, qualification outcomes and narrowly defined language benchmarks continue to dominate how ESOL provision is evaluated. These measures may satisfy accountability systems, but they struggle to capture how learners actually develop, participate and use language beyond the classroom.

This is not a minor technical issue as it fundamentally shapes what is funded and valued, and whose progress is ultimately recognised as worth the investment.

Anyone who has taught ESOL understands that language learning is complex, slow and deeply social. Learners often make meaningful progress long before it appears in assessment results. This progress shows up in increased confidence, a willingness to speak, participation in group discussion or the ability to manage everyday interactions previously inaccessible.

Such developments are visible to practitioners and significant to learners, yet they remain largely invisible within formal success metrics.

Progress as capability, not performance

Recent commentary in FE has rightly highlighted the emotional and cognitive demands of language learning, alongside the wider social consequences of underfunding ESOL. However, what is missing from much of this discussion is sustained attention on how current assessment frameworks actively misrecognise success, particularly in community and adult ESOL settings.

In my doctoral research with community-based ESOL learners, participants consistently framed progress in terms of agency rather than accuracy. In interviews, learners consistently framed progress in terms of what they were newly able to do with language in everyday situations.

They spoke about being able to raise concerns with a manager about discrepancies in wages, check food labels to ensure ingredients met their dietary requirements and respond to strangers in the street when asked for directions rather than declining out of embarrassment or fear of getting it wrong.

These moments may appear ordinary, but they mark significant shifts in participation, agency and social confidence. These are not “soft” outcomes. They reflect an expansion of what learners can do with language in contexts that matter to them.

Seen in this way, language learning is not simply about accumulating linguistic knowledge. It is about developing the capacity to act, participate and make choices. Yet these forms of progress sit awkwardly – if at all – within existing assessment structures.

The contradiction at the heart of ESOL

This creates a persistent contradiction. ESOL is frequently framed as a tool for integration, employability and participation. Yet the ways we measure success prioritise short-term performance over long-term communicative capacity. Learners are expected to demonstrate progress through metrics shaped by reporting and audit requirements, prioritising administrative clarity over what learners are actually able to do with language in their lives.

Attempts to modernise ESOL by embedding wider agendas, whether civic, economic or environmental, risk reproducing the same problem if they do not begin with learners’ language needs. Expanding curricula without rethinking how success is measured simply changes the surface content while leaving the underlying recognition gap intact.

Rethinking success without losing rigour

The issue, then, is not whether ESOL should be humane or relevant. Most practitioners already teach in responsive, contextual and learner-centred ways. The problem is that these forms of practice are not adequately rewarded, captured or legitimised within dominant accountability systems.

As a result, ESOL teachers are often required to translate rich, relational learning into blunt data points, while learners are judged against criteria that do not reflect how language functions in real life. This disadvantages learners and devalues professional expertise by reducing complex pedagogical work to compliance.

If FE is serious about supporting integration, participation and social cohesion, it must rethink what counts as success in ESOL. That does not mean abandoning rigour or accountability. It means developing assessment approaches that recognise communicative growth, learner agency and social participation alongside formal language outcomes.

Until then, ESOL will continue to be judged by measures that underestimate both learners and the work done to support them – and FE will continue to misread one of its most socially vital areas of provision.

We can do so much more to help students break invisible ceilings

Qualifications are rarely the whole story in how young people progress into industry or higher levels of learning. Increasingly, educators and employers point to gaps in confidence, communication, relationships, allyship and understanding of professional environments.

Without these skills that sit beneath employability, progression can feel out of reach, particularly for students already facing systemic barriers.

True equity is not simply about access to courses or qualifications. It is about ensuring that young people understand how to navigate spaces that were not designed with everyone in mind.

Do they understand how to build healthy professional relationships? Do they know what allyship looks like in practice? Are they confident communicating across difference, culture, and power? And crucially, do they see people like themselves reflected in positions of influence and leadership?

These questions sit at the heart of a growing shift in FE partnerships.

Preparing students to not only work but belong

Traditional industry partnerships often focus on exposure: a talk, a visit, a short placement. While valuable, these tick-box models can unintentionally assume that students already possess the confidence, cultural capital and emotional resilience needed to benefit fully from such opportunities.

A more holistic approach is emerging that recognises skills development as inseparable from wellbeing, identity and lived experience. Spaces designed with this understanding aim not just to prepare students for work, but to belong within it.

The Holistic Wellness Training Centre in Ipswich was created with this ethos in mind. Rather than functioning as a conventional placement site, it operates as a collaborative learning environment where education, sports, wellbeing, creativity and culture intersect. The focus is not only on what young people do, but how they feel, relate to others and understand their own potential.

Closing invisible gaps

Across FE, learners frequently arrive without the self-belief or opportunities to gain access to industry-led experiences in a meaningful way.  For those from under-represented backgrounds, this gap can be compounded by limited access to networks, role models or environments where they feel safe to make mistakes and grow.

This is where holistic partnership models can make a tangible difference. By embedding wellbeing, reflective practice and cultural awareness into skills development, students are supported to build the foundations that enable learning to stick.

Through partnerships with local colleges that are part of Eastern Education Group, students have engaged in immersive experiences that combine creativity, communication and cultural learning.

In one example, around 20 young people on a progression construction course created a  Windrush-inspired podcast project – exploring heritage, storytelling and representation while developing presentation, teamwork and confidence. Importantly, this work did not happen in isolation.

On the same day students also worked alongside national media professionals, including the BBC, gaining insight into industry expectations and communication standards. The combination of creative expression, professional exposure and supportive facilitation allowed students to stretch themselves without feeling overwhelmed.

Role models make aspiration tangible

A defining feature of these experiences is the emphasis on relationships and representation. Students engage with diverse role models across sectors – individuals whose journeys challenge narrow ideas of success and leadership. These interactions matter.

When students see people who look like them or share similar lived experiences operating at high levels, aspiration becomes tangible. Young people not in employment, education or training (NEET) do not often get these opportunities for growth. Neither do those taking English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) courses, who we are working closely with.

Alongside this, conversations around allyship, anti-racism, healthy relationships, and inclusive leadership are embedded naturally into learning. Rather than being abstract concepts, they are explored through discussion, collaboration and real-world context – skills increasingly essential for both education and employment.

Young people were able to interview the boxer Fabio Wardley and other celebrities as media presenters. When interviewing a world boxing champion is their first professional experience, there is no ceiling on what they can achieve.

Health and wellbeing are also part of the learning environment. Physical wellbeing activities have included working with national athletes and sports experts to create reflective spaces, and open dialogue around mental health to help students understand the link between confidence, communication and resilience.

Opportunity alone is not enough

The impact is already visible. Two students have secured an apprenticeship directly.

Holistic partnerships challenge us to rethink what education spaces can be. They ask whether we are truly creating equity, or simply offering opportunity without the support needed to access it.

When education, wellbeing, and culture come together, young people are not just prepared for their next step – they are equipped to thrive within it.

Finance T Level faces write-off after no AOs bid to run it

The Department for Education is considering the future of the T Level in finance, which launched in 2022, after no awarding organisations bid to run it in the latest procurement round. 

Pearson won exclusive licenses to develop and award five of the six wave 3 T Level qualifications under new ‘generation 2’ contracts, cementing its position as the dominant T Level awarding organisation.

The awarding giant won all three engineering T Levels, and the management and administration T Level from the current contract-holder, City & Guilds. It also retained the accounting T Level.

The course under the current awarding contract remains available. The government said it will now consider whether to proceed with the finance T Level, which is due to start teaching under the gen 2 wave 3 contracts from September 2027.

Pearson has delivered the finance T Level since it was introduced in 2022. It declined to disclose why it did not bid for the gen 2 contract.

“No bids were submitted for the finance T Level following the tender notice”, the contract notice said.

Contracts to run wave 3 T Levels were first awarded in 2020 and totalled £16.5 million.

The now-closed Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) put out a notice in 2024 estimating the six contracts to take over that formed wave 3 of the T Level roll-out were worth over £40 million,150 per cent more than gen 1.

Pearson rides the wave

Up for grabs in wave 3 were the T Levels in maintenance, installation and repair for engineering and manufacturing; engineering, manufacturing and process control; design and development for engineering and manufacturing; management and administration; accounting and finance.

Pearson retained accounting and won the three engineering subjects and management and administration from City & Guilds. The licences, worth £28.6 million, run until 2034.

It means that by September 2027, Pearson will award 16 out of the 20 available T Levels.

Freya Thomas Monk, managing director of Pearson qualifications, said:  “Developing talent in key business, engineering and manufacturing sectors is vital for the UK’s future workforce and to ensure employers have access to highly skilled individuals. 

“We are delighted to bring our expertise in delivering rigorous, high-quality qualifications to these important T Levels. 

“As the largest T Level provider, we are committed to offering qualifications that enable students to progress, thrive and contribute meaningfully to these critical sectors.”

Pearson, which also delivers a large swathe of BTECs, reported a 13 per cent quarterly revenue increase in the vocational skills part of its business in the fourth quarter of 2025.

Last year, it reported £226 million in revenue and an adjusted operating profit of £8 million from vocational qualifications.

Jo Grady hits back at claims of UCU election breaches

University and College Union leader Jo Grady has accused her election opponents of taking private messages out of context and “seeking to frame” her social media usage as a breach of campaign rules.

Ewan McGaughey and Vicky Blake, who lost the vote to become general secretary two years ago, presented their complaints to the certification officer – a trade union watchdog – today alleging seven election violations.

The two opponents alleged that the UCU general secretary Jo Grady swayed the election in her favour by using union resources, such as social media accounts, contractors, email lists and staff, during the 2024 campaign.

WhatsApp message evidence also revealed Grady vented to senior colleagues that “every single” decision had to be seen with the lens of re-electing herself as general secretary and ridding the union of socialist worker party members (SWP).

Grady refuted all the allegations, adding that the messages were taken out of context, and her social media usage was part of her day job as the incumbent general secretary.

Jo Grady won the 2024 election for a second term with just a 15 per cent turnout and by 182 votes in the third round over McGaughey, a law professor at King’s College London.

Blake, a contextual outreach lead officer at the University of Leeds, came third, and Liverpool John Moores University senior education lecturer Saira Weiner came last.

The ballot was conducted by single transferable vote, where members select candidates in order of preference.

McGaughey and Blake alleged that these acts violated the unions’ 2023-24 elections guidance and applied to the Certification Officer to order a re-election.

Stephen Hardy, a relatively new Certification Officer (CO), has the power to make enforcement orders, which can include financial penalties and ballot reruns.

Social media views equalling votes

The case centred around a number of Grady’s online actions, which the applicants said breached rules that prohibited use of UCU resources for the purposes of campaigning.

They claimed Grady’s first campaign video was filmed in the UCU’s London head offices in November 2023 and garnered over 29,000 views on social media site, X.

Sarah Fraser Butlin KC, who represented UCU and Grady at the hearing, hit back that the applicants were comparing “apples with pears”.

“The comparison should be between a video taken in the office and a video not taken in the office,” she put to McGaughey.

He responded: “No, I don’t accept that, and I just come back to the point that it’s still using union resources, and there was a clear prohibition against that.”

UCU head of democratic services Catherine Wilkinson added in a witness statement she could not see how any advantage was “gained” to Grady from using this location.

Another alleged breach was Grady’s use of Mélinée Dufour, a union contractor and professional videographer, to make another campaign video the following month, which was viewed over 13,000 times.

In her cross-examination, Grady said the video was made out of hours during a lunchtime but admitted she wished she had declined Dufour’s offer.

“I don’t think it suggests that I either abused my position on that day, or that this suggests a pattern of doing so,” she said.

She was also alleged to have used union software, Streamyard, to broadcast her election videos, which was viewed over 2,041 times on the first day, and over 7,000 times afterwards.

The opponents also said that UCU was regularly reposting posts from Grady’s personal X account, directing traffic to her election campaign.

Former head of equality and policy Jenny Sherrard gave evidence that when Grady first came to power in 2019, there was an “embedded practice” of so-called cross-tweeting between different accounts to “amplify” the work of the union, which included retweeting UCU branch accounts as well as Grady’s.

McGaughey accused Grady of utilising her understanding of social media to direct people to her campaign.

“You understood that when UCU reposted your tweets, that would channel traffic to your personal account, and people would see your campaign materials. You understood that that was the effect of the social media policy, didn’t you?”

She said: “No, I don’t and I think that you are seeking to frame it that way.”

McGaughey stressed to the Certification Officer this all made it “capable” of swaying 182 votes or more.

“When you have so many views, then that’s got to be a significant factor that might sway people to vote,” he said.

In her cross-examination, Grady added that one-to-one conversations were likely to sway a vote to members not “random” social media posts.

“Views don’t equal votes,” she said.

“I think that there has been a real overstatement during this entire hearing so far of the […] the determining factor of social media in elections.”

Context matters

The applicants presented screenshots from a WhatsApp group chat with senior managers at the union, which showed Grady saying the following: “I know we are just chatting here, but from now on, every single decision we make/thing we do has to be seen through the lens: 1. Win dispute, 2. Re-elect GS, 3. Rid union of SWP.”

Grady accused the applicants of “partially quoting” from the group chat and said the exchange related to a “high-pressured” moment during its 2023 UCU Rising campaign, which sought cuts and casualisation in higher education.

“It’s about winning the dispute, and it’s about a broader conversation of the disruptive nature of the SWP in the union and I think you’ve really misrepresented the discussion,” she said.

‘Hijacked’ hustings

McGaughey and Blake also argued that Grady’s extra 13 emails to UCU members totalling over one million impressions and her solo visits to branches in Aberdeen and Northumbria were considered hustings for her campaign and therefore also breached the rules.

Grady said she visited the branches to discuss redundancies in her capacity as the incumbent general secretary and it would have been “really weird” for the event to be “hijacked” by election candidates.

“It would have been useful to have views from all of the candidates on how they would approach the really serious problems […] but all candidates weren’t given a level playing field, were they?” McGaughey said.

“The fact that you can’t understand that is just demonstrative of the fact that you’ve never done my job,” she retorted.

A further hearing to cross-examine remaining witnesses will be scheduled for a later date.

Hardy will make a decision within four weeks of the final hearing before publication.