Latest news from FE Week

Learning doesn’t fit neatly into hours, so why do we force it to?

If you’ve ever delivered the level 3 award in education and training (AET), you’ll know one thing straight away: no two learners are the same.

Some walk in with years of experience. They’ve already been training colleagues, running sessions, or mentoring staff. Others are completely new and need time to build confidence just to stand up and speak.

Both can become great teachers. But they don’t get there in the same way, or in the same time.

That’s where guided learning hours (GLH) start to feel out of touch.

GLH is meant to give structure. It tells awarding organisations and providers roughly how big a qualification is and how long it should take. In theory, that sounds reasonable. In practice, it assumes that learning is predictable.

It isn’t.

Anyone who’s spent time in a classroom will recognise that learning is far messier than that. The American educational theorist David Allen Kolb talked about learning as a cycle – doing something, reflecting on it, improving, then trying again. Some learners move through that quickly, others need time to process and build confidence. There isn’t a fixed pace.

The same applies when you look at Russian theorist Lev Vygotsky’s idea of needing the right level of support to move forward. Some learners just need a light touch, others need more guidance. That support changes the time it takes to learn.

And when you’re working with adults, American theorist Malcolm Knowles’s view is even more relevant. Adults bring experience, want learning to feel useful, and often take ownership of how they develop. That doesn’t sit comfortably with a system that assumes everyone needs the same number of hours.

You see all of this play out when delivering the AET.

Some learners grasp planning and delivery quickly. Their micro-teach is strong from the start. Others need a few attempts, not because they’re not capable, but because teaching is a skill that develops through doing it, getting feedback, and trying again.

That’s the whole point of the course.

But GLH doesn’t really allow for that difference. It quietly assumes everyone is moving at the same pace, which just isn’t the reality.

The bigger issue is how it’s used.

In some cases, there’s a heavy focus from awarding organisations on making sure learners complete a set number of hours. It becomes about ticking off time rather than asking a much more important question: can this person actually teach?

That shift matters. Because once you start prioritising hours, the learning experience changes. You end up shaping delivery around the clock rather than around the learner. People who could move faster are held back. People who need more time can feel like they’re falling behind.

Neither situation reflects what good training should look like.

It becomes even more obvious when you look at how people learn now.

A lot of development doesn’t happen in a classroom or a live session. Learners read articles, watch videos, join webinars, and talk to other professionals. The most valuable learning comes from those moments where something clicks after a conversation or a bit of reflection.

The problem is, none of that fits neatly into GLH.

How do you track the time someone spends reading a journal? Or having a discussion with another trainer online? You can’t, at least not in any meaningful way. So it often gets ignored, even though it’s a big part of how people actually develop.

That’s where the system starts to feel disconnected from reality.

The AET in particular is meant to be about the individual. It’s about helping someone find their own way of teaching, building confidence, and developing real skills they can use in front of a group.

It’s not about completing a set number of hours.

GLH still has a place. It helps give a rough structure and stops qualifications from becoming too loose. But it should be treated as a guide, not a rulebook.

What matters more is whether the learner can do the job at the end of it.

In FE, we talk a lot about learner-centred approaches. The AET is one of the clearest examples of where that should apply. If the focus shifts too far towards hours and away from outcomes, we risk losing what the qualification is actually there to do.

And that’s develop confident, capable teachers.

Because in the end, no learner remembers how many hours they spent on a course. They remember whether they felt ready to stand up and teach.

Engineering’s entry point is disappearing

Between 2017 and 2024 there was a 25 per cent reduction in the number of engineering apprenticeship starts in England. Underneath this headline statistic is the potentially more worrying one that in the same period, level 2 engineering apprenticeships starts fell by over 50 per cent. The High Value Manufacturing Catapult has been exploring this further by speaking to employers, providers, and young people who are considering their next steps. Against the backdrop of policy that is seeking to drive up apprenticeship opportunities for young people, we need to ask whether level 2 apprenticeships remain viable in engineering.

Apprenticeships are a hugely attractive progression route for young people, with employers often receiving many times more applications than they have positions for. However, there are limited numbers of entry level opportunities and employers tell us that these need to be balanced against their experienced workforce, to ensure they can continue with their core business as well as training apprentices. Just because policy is driving more funding towards lower-level apprenticeships, it doesn’t mean that employers will have the capacity to take on more entry level apprentices.

Our research further showed that employers are concerned about the risks posed by entry level apprentices. Government data shows that level 2 apprentices currently have a completion rate of 64 per cent, whereas those on higher level apprenticeships are much more likely to complete successfully. Taking on higher level apprentices is much less risky for employers, and this is shown by the net increase in all levels of engineering apprenticeships other than level 2.

The standards themselves are increasingly becoming an issue for both employers and providers. Our research suggested that the content of level 2 apprenticeships is often not technically complex enough to give apprentices the skills they need for roles in modern engineering workplaces. However, some of the hand skills delivered are still valued. Providers discussed that it can often be expensive to deliver level 2 apprenticeships due to increased technical expectations and funding restrictions. One provider we spoke to explained how they roll level 2 and 3 apprenticeships together to provide a balance of hand and higher-level technical skills.

The question remained as to whether the reduction of entry level apprenticeships in engineering is an issue or whether it is symptomatic of changing technical competencies in the workforce. For example, the original battery skills framework, published in 2021, made use of the lean manufacturing operator standard at level 2 for production line staff in gigafactories. But Workforce Foresighting data published in 2025 suggested that these roles were no longer relevant and that the base level of qualification should be level 3.

Having level 3 as an industry entry point would undoubtedly freeze many young people out of engineering opportunities and would be detrimental to the provision of good career entry and progression routes. There needs to be a compromise to address these issues.

One option would be to re-balance engineering apprenticeships in light of changing industry expectations. The use of academic levels has long been unhelpful when describing apprenticeships and addressing this through newly focused entry, intermediate, advanced and higher engineering apprenticeships would allow for greater relevance to employers and enable progression pathways to be clearer. Apprenticeships are not good at providing progression. And as they are focused in skilling someone for a role, you could argue they don’t need to be. However, showing clear progression routes from entry to higher level opportunities, with newly aligned capability outcomes, would better enable career development to happen.

Entry level apprenticeship roles in engineering are disappearing for a wide range of reasons and simply forcing funding for the training component back towards them is not enough. Employers need to see the value of entry level opportunities and a rapid route to competence in the workplace, and learners need to see that they have opportunities to gain a foothold in an engineering career.

The use of the statistics alone is too blunt an instrument to use to make decisions. There needs to be a fundamental and systemic change to secure the future engineering workforce.

‘Experts at hand’ cash must not plug ‘existing gaps’, councils told

Funding for a new scheme aimed at bolstering external support for young people with SEND must not be used to “fill existing gaps or replace current provision”, councils have been warned.

Town halls will also be forbidden from spending the cash on support named in children and young people’s existing education health care plans (EHCPs) or wider family support.

Leaders will also be expected to devise an approach that ensures support is not “disproportionately accessed” by the “most proactive schools and settings and includes out of area mainstream further education settings attended by local young people with SEND”.

As part of its white paper reforms, the government announced the creation of a new “experts at hand” service, backed with £1.8 billion in funding over three years.

The service aims to boost availability of external support. Schools and FE colleges can then draw from a pool of education and health professionals to fix the current “inconsistent and limited access” to their services.

The Department for Education has now published guidance on how the funding and an additional £200 million “transformation” pot will be allocated and how it must be spent.

Funding can’t cover support named in existing EHCPs

Councils will split £429 million this financial year and could impact nearly 390,000 16 to 19-year-olds with low prior attainment across the country.

This grant will “first and predominantly” provide cash for councils to work with integrated care boards (ICBs) to “develop and deliver a new EAH offer for mainstream education settings”.

However, the grant will also fund the administrative costs for local authorities associated with “evaluating their existing SEND support services to mainstream settings” and “developing and submitting local SEND reform plans”.

According to the document, at least 80 per cent of the cash “must be spent on EAH direct delivery for all settings, staff and their children and young people”.

No more than 10 per cent can be spent on administration costs for councils’ EAH offers, and no more than 10 per cent can be spent on “local authority transformation costs, including staff or other associated costs”.

But no funding can be used to support named in young people’s existing education health care plans (EHCPs), to make provision “schools can or should make themselves” or for the assessment for EHCPs.

“This funding is not intended to fill existing gaps or replace current provision, including traded services. The EAH offer should build on and enhance existing local capacity and good practice.”

‘Tilt provision to mainstream’

The guidance further sets out the government’s vision for the service, telling councils to “ensure that the EAH investment benefits all children and young people aged 0 to 25”.

Local areas should “also consider how they will develop this offer over time to ensure there is support and appropriate provision available across early years, primary, secondary, and FE settings”.

And councils have also been told to “start tilting local provision to focus on early support for mainstream education settings, so that staff are able to meet the needs of children more quickly and effectively within the setting”.

This approach “means mainstream education settings having access to expert professionals (both health and specialist education professionals) who can provide whole setting support, tailored guidance and strategic advice, as well as some group level interventions”.

The offer “should be additional to existing statutory and 1:1 support”.

No disproportionate support for out of area mainstream FE

The DfE has also said today that councils’ SEND reform plans must include a “proposed approach to settings accessing support which ensures support is not disproportionately accessed by the most proactive schools and settings and includes out of area mainstream further education settings attended by local young people with SEND”.

The grant also includes funding to establish new speech and language therapist advanced practitioners in every ICB geographical area, the DfE said.

It will also support “local reform and work with universities, education settings and local speech and language services to get more speech and language therapists working directly with children and young people”.

Councils will have to assure the DfE that funding is spent in line with the guidance.

It comes after the government pledged to write off 90 per cent of town hall SEND deficits. It will also take on the cost pressures in the system from 2028.

In its guidance today, the DfE said future support for deficits that arise between 2026 and 2028 “will take into account local authorities successful delivery of their approved local SEND reform plan, including appropriate use of investment to establish an EAH offer”.

‘Stepping-stone’ GCSEs risk halting social mobility progress, SMC report warns

Plans to introduce new “stepping-stone” qualifications for young people who fail GCSE English and maths risk creating a “stumbling block” for disadvantaged students, a Social Mobility Commission think-piece has warned.

The paper, authored by former Department for Education resits lead Andrew Otty, claimed the proposed level 1 “preparation” courses for resitters will trap low-attaining students at the same level they already reached at school.

The current condition of funding policy, introduced in 2014, forces 16 to 19 year olds without a grade 4 in English and maths to continue studying the subjects. It is often criticised by colleges for driving endless resits, but Otty’s report argued the policy is producing social mobility gains.

“The 16 to 19 resit sector is currently the only educational stage where disadvantaged learners are actively catching up to their non-disadvantaged peers,” the report claimed.

Since the policy’s introduction, more than 500,000 students have successfully retaken English and 350,000 maths.

Over 245,000 of those passes came from disadvantaged students.

Data shows that disadvantaged learners have improved at a faster rate than their better-off peers.

The percentage point change between 2016-17 and 2023-24 in students achieving a GCSE in English at age 19, after not doing so at 16, was 0.54 for disadvantaged students, compared with -1.2 for their non-disadvantaged peers. Meanwhile, the change in maths achievement was 1.04 percentage points for disadvantaged students, compared with 0.08 for non-disadvantaged students.

Otty’s report said this success is in stark contrast to primary and secondary education, where recent years have seen disadvantaged gaps grow.

Low overall success rates do, however, persist. The proportion of learners passing their English and maths resit was on a consistent upward trajectory until the teacher-assessed grades of 2021-22. Pass rates peaked at 35 per cent for English and 31.1 per cent for maths that year due to “more borderline attainers having been awarded grade 4 in the more generous grading” during the Covid period, the report said.

Since then, the percentage of pupils who achieved a grade 4 at age 19, having failed to do so at age 16, has fallen and hit 20.6 per cent for English and 13.5 per cent for maths in 2023-24.

Despite this, the proportion of those achieving grade 4 in English and maths in 2023-24 remains 12.7 and 5.6 percentage points higher, respectively, than in 2013-14 – the year before the policy was introduced.

The government’s plan, outlined in last year’s skills white paper and out for consultation until June 2, to increase pass rates and reduce repeated exam failure is new level 1 English and maths “preparation” qualifications for those who scored grade 2 or below. But officials have been warned the policy risks doing the opposite.

Under current regulations, students entering post-16 education with a grade 3 must retake the GCSE. Those with a grade 2 and below may work towards either a GCSE or a functional skills qualification.

Because a grade 2 already represents level 1 attainment, lower attaining students would effectively be asked to repeat the same level before being allowed to attempt a GCSE again if the “stepping-stone” courses are introduced.

The report said: “Rather than acting as a helpful ‘stepping stone’, this creates a stumbling block, impeding the progress of the students most in need of support.”

There are also fears of a two-tier system, with higher-attaining students pursuing GCSEs while their peers are channelled into lower-status alternatives.

“While the post-16 sector has successfully narrowed the disadvantage gap, these reforms threaten to institutionalise low expectations and dismantle a decade of hard-won progress for the most vulnerable learners,” the report said.

The report pointed to evidence that students themselves prefer GCSEs, seeing them as more valuable in the labour market and for further study. Diverting them onto alternative qualifications risks damaging motivation as well as outcomes.

Otty, who is also a former further education English resit teacher, told FE Week: “The condition of funding is the only education policy that actually works in closing the disadvantage gap. The proposed new stumbling block qualifications are an act of sabotage from the enemies of social mobility.”

His report said that rather than going through a process of structural overhaul, the government should “instead build on what is already working.

“This includes mandating a minimum number of resit hours, providing more structural investment for 16 to 19 English and maths resits, and capturing and disseminating the teaching practices of the top performing colleges.”

Alun Francis, chair of the Social Mobility Commission and chief executive of Blackpool and the Fylde College, said: “We are publishing this think piece to provoke debate. Many practitioners will welcome the view that a new qualification is not going to answer the problem of English and maths achievement. The FE sector is weary of persistent curriculum reform.

“There is a clear case for breaking the cycle of short-term cramming combined with endless resits. But it is a moot point whether a new qualification will really make a substantial difference.”

The DfE was approached for comment.

For the first time in forever – fund SEND properly in colleges

At Bradford College, 93 per cent of our students come from areas ranked in the two most deprived bands in England according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation, the poorest 40 per cent of communities in the country.

One in five tells us they have a disability. Many more have needs that haven’t been formally diagnosed. We also teach unaccompanied asylum-seeking young people who are learning English while trying to build a life in a new country.

When SEND is discussed nationally, those realities rarely make it into the room. In colleges serving communities like ours, they shape everything.

I’ve worked in further education for over 20 years and my current role as assistant principal for students means overseeing safeguarding, wellbeing, careers and disability services alongside teaching and assessment. Across all of that, one thing has become clear: students are arriving less ready for adulthood than they used to be.

I don’t say that to criticise young people. The world they’re growing up in has changed dramatically. Economic pressure on families plays a role. Many parents are working flat out simply to keep things going. Students entering FE now also experienced the disruption of Covid during critical years of their education. Social media has also changed the pressures young people face before they even walk through our doors.

When I was younger, if you were in your bedroom, you were safe from the outside world. That isn’t the case anymore. A young person can be bullied or see violence in their bedroom. They can experience the weight of the wider world through their phone before they’ve even started the day.

Then they arrive at college and we expect them to be ready to learn.

Quite a lot of our work is about helping students reach that point first. Staff spend time supporting learners to regulate emotions, build confidence and feel that they belong in education. Without that foundation, qualifications won’t change very much.

One thing I say often is that learning support should be built in, not bolt on. The first person supporting a student should always be their teacher. Inclusive teaching makes a huge difference to whether learners feel able to take part. The sooner staff get to know their students; the sooner they can build the relationships that help young people attend and stay engaged.

Independence matters just as much. In the past the sector often relied heavily on placing learning assistants beside students throughout lessons, almost ‘Velcroed’ to their side. That can help in the short term, but it also creates dependence. Students need to develop the skills and confidence to manage their own learning.

At Bradford we have specialists who assess students and train them to use assistive technology such as dictation software, reading tools and applications that help with organisation. Students learn how to use those tools properly so they can rely on something they control themselves, in college and beyond.

Even with strong support in place, the wider system still creates serious obstacles.

High needs place funding hasn’t been updated since 2014. That was the year after Disney’s Frozen came out. Six years later the film got a sequel – high needs funding is still waiting for one.

Meanwhile colleges are welcoming students with increasingly complex needs. Staff across the sector are doing extraordinary work, but the pressure on resources is becoming unsustainable. Something has to give, and too often it’s the students who pay the price.

Then there’s the cliff edge at 19. Our funding is tied to qualifications, not to young people. Just as a student begins to build real confidence and resilience, the money runs out. What we actually need is the flexibility to meet students where they are and support them for as long as they need, rather than rushing them through a qualification and out into a world they aren’t yet ready for.

The current SEND reform consultation contains some genuinely encouraging ideas. Having built-in support within mainstream settings so young people can attend their local college is the right direction.

But warm words aren’t enough. Reform will only succeed if the resources match the ambition.

So, ministers… for the first time in forever, fund SEND properly.

We don’t need new apprenticeship metrics, we need to use the ones we have

The release of the latest apprenticeship performance data should underline a straightforward point for both the sector and employers: training outcomes still vary widely between providers.

Yet much of the conversation in the sector focuses on how we should define and measure apprenticeship success, especially as we expand into areas like AI. Those conversations should continue. But before we redesign how we measure success, we should probably start by making consistent use of the performance data we already publish.

Completion data is one of the clearest indicators of whether apprenticeship training has actually delivered in practice. When learners reach the end of a programme, employers are far more likely to see the skills, retention and long-term workforce value they invested in. In that sense, completion is not just an education outcome; it is a return-on-investment indicator for employers.

In the education and training sector, qualification achievement rates (QAR) remain an industry standard measure of apprenticeship quality because they answer a basic but important question: how many learners actually complete the programme they started?

But when you step outside the echo chamber of our industry, awareness of QAR remains limited. Many employers don’t know where to find QAR data, how to compare it across providers, or how much weight to give it when choosing a training partner. As such, it remains far less visible and usable in the world where apprenticeship decisions are actually being made.

This becomes even more critical against the backdrop of a slower hiring market where businesses often become more selective. In response, apprenticeships are increasingly treated as long-term workforce investments; employers want reliable delivery and to know that the training they back will result in completed programmes, skills and real return.

Completion sits at the heart of that. Enrolments and course starts matter, but if a learner does not reach the end of the programme, the value of the investment looks very different.

This is where the sector needs to be more direct. We already have a baseline measure of quality, and we should be making far better use of it before we rush to dilute the conversation with any new metrics.

DfE already publishes detailed figures each year and has taken welcome steps to improve accessibility through its dashboard. But to date, there has been no simple route for an employer trying to answer an entirely practical and totally understandable question: ‘Which providers consistently get learners through to completion in the area I want to invest in?’

Instead, employers are often left navigating large data tables, interpreting dense terminology and trying to build their own comparisons from raw information. For an SME owner with limited resource trying to make a critical hiring decision, or for an already stretched HR team managing multiple recruitment and retention programmes, that is more friction than there should be around such a basic question, and it has consequences.

This is probably why the conversation in the sector keeps returning to new ways of measuring apprenticeship success. When the most established performance data is difficult for employers to access, interpret and compare, it’s easy to assume the problem is the metric itself rather than how visible and usable it is. But new measures will not help employers make better decisions if the existing ones remain hard to use.

Poor usability makes weak outcomes easier to miss. Employers can choose providers without a clear view of delivery performance. Learners can enter programmes with lower chances of completion. Levy-funded investment can flow without enough practical visibility of likely results.

In response to this problem, we’ve built additional public resources to make this data much easier to compare. The intention is not to create new league tables or to reduce apprenticeship quality to a single number, but to make the information that already exists on QAR more visible and more usable for the employers who are expected to rely on it.

QAR remains one of the few measures that shows, at scale and objectively, whether learners complete the programmes they begin. Before the sector gets too eager to embrace newer or broader measures, it should first make sure that the most established one is visible and usable to the employers who rely on it. Apprenticeship quality data is not the problem; leaving already stretched employers to do too much of the work is.

Team UK for WorldSkills Shanghai revealed

A team of 26 talented young professionals have been selected to represent the UK at WorldSkills Shanghai this year.

The group of apprentices and students will travel to China this September to compete in the “skills Olympics”, in 24 disciplines including bricklaying, car painting and beauty therapy.

Team UK will go head-to-head against thousands of the best and brightest counterparts from over 80 countries to win gold, silver, and bronze medals.

This will be the 48th WorldSkills competition, with 1,500 young people expected to travel to Shanghai to compete in technical skill disciplines from engineering, manufacturing and technology through to creative, digital and hospitality in front of an estimated quarter of a million visitors.

Shanghai was supposed to host the competition in 2022 but was cancelled due to Covid restrictions in the country.

Ben Blackledge, chief executive of WorldSkills UK, said WorldSkills Shanghai will bring together the world’s best young talent to compete against the highest international standards, giving the UK a “powerful global platform to showcase its skills excellence”.

He added: “At a time when employers are sceptical about employing young people, Team UK show just how important it is to have young professionals in the workforce. These young technicians have an incredibly valuable mix of world-class technical skills, impressive employability skills and a mindset to succeed.

“If we are serious about tackling the NEET challenge, we need to get more young people ready for work, and skills competitions are a proven way to improve engagement in training and work readiness.”

WorldSkills UK has selected 26 champions from a cohort of 86 young people aged 16 to 22 across the UK, who won regional and national skills competitions and have been undergoing an intensive training programme over the last two years.

Several competitors participated in their first international event last year at EuroSkills Herning in Denmark, taking home six medals including one bronze.

The team will enter 24 skills competitions currently. WorldSkills UK is in the “final stages” of entering in the digital construction and robot systems integration competitions.

EuroSkills bronze medallist Patrick Sheerin, who won in Industry 4.0, said making Team UK with his teammate Caolan McCartan is an “incredible relief”.

“Fourteen months ago, Caolan and I found out we’d made Squad UK with the chance to compete in China. It’s been a long journey with the highs of EuroSkills and some lows, and now it’s time to give it our everything,” Sheerin added.

“My family have backed me every step of the way, and they’ll be over the moon. My mum is hoping to come to Shanghai to watch, which will mean a lot at the competition.”

CNC Milling competitor Tomas Ankers told FE Week the news “hasn’t fully sunk in yet”.

Ankers, who attended Coleg Cambria and works at Electroimpact, said: “WorldSkills UK competitions have been such an important part of my journey; it helped me secure my apprenticeship with them by giving me the experience and confidence to stand out in my interview and it’s an amazing feeling to now be continuing that journey all the way to China.”

Tyne Coast College student Neve Dunn, who will compete in beauty therapy, said: “When I found out I’d been selected to train with WorldSkills UK, I made a big decision to change jobs so I could give it my all. A year on, my employer Crown Hair & Beauty, has been amazing, they’ve supported me every step of the way, giving me time to train and develop in the salon. I honestly can’t thank them enough, along with my lecturers at Tyne Coast College, for all their support.”

Revealed: The next 19 ‘technical excellence colleges’

The government has confirmed the locations of 19 new ‘technical excellence colleges’ as part of a £175 million skills investment in training for priority industries.

The second wave of technical excellence colleges (TECs), which will begin delivery from this month, are spread across England and will focus on four sectors: defence, clean energy, digital and technologies, and advanced manufacturing.

Ten TECs had already been announced in August 2025 under an earlier £100 million phase of the programme which specialised in construction.

Ministers said the new TECs will support around 65,000 learners to access training for “high-demand jobs” in key growth sectors, where estimates suggest nearly 600,000 additional workers will be needed by 2030.

TECs will act as “hubs of excellence” with funding for selected colleges going towards facilities, teaching and employer partnerships.

As hubs, TECs are also expected to share their expertise with other providers across the country including other FE colleges, independent training providers and university technical colleges.

The sector specialisms are spread across English regions and “strategically located” to align with local industrial demand, the government said.

This includes a defence focus for Blackpool and the Fylde College and City College Plymouth, while Birmingham Metropolitan College and Capital City College will specialise in digital and technologies.

Every region has at least two TECs, while no colleges have more than one specialism.

Prime minister Keir Starmer said: “I want every young person to know there is a clear route into well‑paid work, whatever their background.

“These colleges put technical skills front and centre, opening up high‑quality jobs in the industries driving Britain’s future.

“We are backing talent across the country, strengthening our workforce and making sure opportunity is built into the system – not left to chance.”

Six TECs are also lead partners in the DfE’s Institute of Technology (IoT) network, launched by the Conservative government with £300 million in capital funding seven years ago.

Last year, FE Week revealed that some colleges have ditched the IoT brand in the face of waning ministerial enthusiasm.

The 19 new TECs will receive £175 million in funding for high-quality teaching, better courses and “state-of-the-art specialist equipment”.

For this wave, the funding is divided into £137 million in capital and £38 million in revenue.

The funding package includes £97 million from the Department for Education, £50 million from the Ministry of Defence and £28 million from the Department for Business and Trade.

‘Hubs of excellence’

The government has set out five key aims for TECs: boosting skills provision that leads to in-demand and well-paid work, increasing quality, stronger partnerships with employers, collaborative delivery, and promoting “clear pathways” to higher level learning or growth-driving industries.

In guidance issued for wave two bids, the government said TECs will act as a “hub of excellence” in their sector, sharing their innovative teaching and curricula excellence.

The DfE also expects them to establish networks with other providers who have similar sector needs, such as the automotive industry for advanced manufacturing.

Bid winners will now be expected to submit “high quality” costed delivery plans this summer, setting out how they will spend about £2 million in revenue funding over three years.

Capital funding will vary depending on the TEC’s activity, geographical spread and concentration of industry being supported.

Chief executive of the Association of Colleges, David Hughes, said: “This investment in 19 colleges will help colleges support even more people into good jobs and encourage employers to take on more apprentices and skilled workers.”

Unions start the clock on binding college pay reform

Further education unions have urged general FE college leaders to commit to “time-limited” negotiations on creating binding teacher pay scales in FE.

The demand has been laid out by the National Joint Forum (NJF) of five teaching and support staff trade unions, which is also pushing a 10 per cent teacher pay rise for the third year running.

The unions have pressed the Association of Colleges (AoC) to begin discussing the introduction of national pay bargaining in FE later this Autumn with a set deadline to come to an agreement.

The 2026-27 pay claim comes ahead of negotiations with the AoC later this June, which issues non-binding pay recommendations on behalf of English FE colleges.

In a letter to Gerry McDonald, New City College chief executive and AoC employment policy group chair, the unions reiterated previous calls for a national binding pay framework in FE but this year said representatives must come to the table with an agreed end date.

The NJF also told the AoC agree to “time-limited talks” this autumn to come to an interim agreement that all colleges can meet the minimum pay recommendations ahead of any government funding commitments.

The letter acknowledged the path to a fully funded binding pay framework, as is the case with sixth form colleges, will “take time” to implement in FE but stressed “time-limited talks” must start no later than January 2027.

“The lack of a binding system is one of the biggest threats to industrial harmony,” the claim stated.

College leaders are currently free to offer pay rises to staff that stray away from the AoC’s pay recommendation.

Last year, the AoC recommended colleges offer a 4 per cent pay rise but admitted that many would struggle to afford it.

The move triggered threats of industrial action across dozens of colleges. Unionised FE teachers at 16 colleges ended up walking out in January over lack of pay parity with schoolteachers, national workload agreements and a binding national bargaining framework.

Average FE teacher pay now sits around £10,500 below schoolteachers, the widest gap in at least 15 years.

This year’s pay claim also demanded an FE teachers’ starting salary be “immediately” mirrored with schoolteachers, currently at £31,650.

Other asks from the NJF included a standard 35-hour working week for all full time staff, new proposed caps on teaching hours, new digital boundaries for staff wellbeing.

They also said all colleges should become Foundation Living Wage employers, with specific rates set at no less than £13.45 per hour outside London and £14.80 per hour in London.

AoC chief executive David Hughes urged the government to sit down with its representatives and trade unions to agree a plan on how to close the pay gaps.

“It’s no surprise that the unions are asking for a big increase in pay in this year’s pay claim, because we agree that pay for staff in colleges is below what it should be,” Hughes told FE Week.

“Without extra funding from the government for next academic year, colleges are in a really difficult position and will struggle to make a meaningful pay award. That scenario will result in college pay gaps with schools and the wider labour market widening even further.”

He added: “We will engage with our members in the coming weeks to reach a position everyone supports, and this will inform our discussions at the National Joint Forum in June.”