Skip to content
29 September 2026

Latest news from FE Week

WorldSkills 2026: Day 1 round-up – Smells like Team spirit

Team UK have been riding the emotional highs of waving the flag in front of thousands of people at last night’s WorldSkills opening ceremony.

The team of 28 UK champions were up early on Wednesday morning to compete in their first day of competition in Shanghai.

But they were running on sub-optimal sleep after celebrating the stunning opening of the competition into the early hours of the morning.

Chemical laboratory technician Ruth Douglas, from Northern Ireland, said the parade through the arena was a “surreal experience” for her.

“I’m quite a reserved person, I’m not really into big events, but honestly I loved every second of it. The team spirit and being in that atmosphere and that environment was so amazing,” she said.

“It really boosted my confidence for the week ahead,” she added.

Wigan-based Sam Jones, the UK’s refrigeration & air conditioning competitor, said that the build-up to the event was a highlight for him.

“Getting ready, everyone was a bit jittery and nervous but when we walked up onto the stage it was like something you see on TV,” he beamed.

Both Jones and Douglas had short tasks today, meaning they had a relaxed afternoon to prepare for busier days ahead.

Jones’ first task on day one was installing and commissioning an air-to-water heat pump at his workstation, which is used to heat water in a house, a steer away from his usual air-to-air heat pump training.

“I suppose that is the way the trade is going, so it has been nice to train and practice on that and work on something new,” he said.

Going into the subsequent days, Jones added that he was in a “good and positive” mindset for tomorrow and “smash it again hopefully”.

Douglas was also a little out of her comfort zone today with her four-hour task using an auto-titrator, a piece of equipment that determines the concentration of a substance in a solution.

“I’m used to doing manual titration,” she said. “It was a challenge using that equipment and getting it to do what I wanted it to do.”

Luckily, Douglas had previously had a day-long one-to-one training with the manufacturer of the auto-titrator, so was familiar with the technology.

Robot systems spotlight

Jason Scott, a former competitor in robot systems integration at WorldSkills Lyon, was also in Shanghai supporting the team.

Robot systems integration is a fairly new skill, having just been launched at WorldSkills in 2022. Scott, along with his teammate Charlie Carson, won a medal for excellence in 2024 and has been training the duo on the side of his day job.

The competition involves setting up an industrial robot to be automated for use in factories.

 

(left to right) Claire Riddle from Pearson, Pratham Lohia, Peter Jenkins, Marion Plant chair of WorldSkills UK

Peter Jenkins and Pratham Lohia have been training together for the competition for just six months, but Scott, who has been their assistant trainer and even let them sofa surf, has all the confidence in the duo to do well.

Lohia is the software czar of this skill, setting up the programme, while Jenkins works in “the cell”, making sure the machinery is up to scratch to perform the programme once launched.

“After this morning, it was absolute panic, but now they’ll hit the flow state; they’ll hit the rhythm of this competition. That will be really required especially for tomorrow when the tasks get harder and harder,” Scott explained.

These systems have hundreds of applications, from an Amazon warehouse to a Tesla factory, and are used by countless corporate customers.

Tomorrow, Jenkins and Lohia will run their programme but will be thrown “curveballs” as the hypothetical customers become more demanding.

At the end of the competition, the team will have to document their programme and present to their peers and experts.

Scott said his words of wisdom to this year’s team were to make sure their presentation was concise and eloquent and to enjoy every second of the experience.

“This will be a lifelong memory that they will never forget.”

We’re losing the Saturday job and gaining a bigger problem

Britain’s NEET rate looks better than it did twenty years ago. That should be reassuring. It isn’t.

In late 2005, around a million 16-24-year-olds were not in education, employment or training, a rate of 14.4 per cent. By late 2025 the count was slightly smaller and the rate had fallen to 12.8 per cent. But roughly six in ten of that group had never held a paid job, against four in ten twenty years earlier: some 155,000 more young people with no work history at all. The problem has not widened. It has deepened.

Something specific has disappeared. Young people employed outside full-time education fell from about 48 per cent of the age group in 2001 to 38 per cent in 2025. The Saturday job, the holiday shift, the weekend work alongside college: this was how a work history was built before one was needed. A young person who becomes NEET today arrives with nothing to show an employer.

That changes the diagnosis. Policy has focused on skills, work experience and making young people “job ready”. But does Britain lack employable young people, or employers willing and able to employ them?

The youth labour market is a market, and employability programmes add candidates to one side without adding vacancies to the other. A town with 100 openings and 130 credible applicants does not improve when a programme produces 50 more job-ready candidates. Some find work; others take jobs that would have gone to other young people, and the programme records the same outcomes either way.

Demand has weakened. Vacancies have been falling while employers have absorbed sharp increases in the cost of hiring: higher employer National Insurance, substantially higher minimum wages, stronger employment rights, each with strong arguments behind it.

But young workers are concentrated in labour-intensive sectors, where hiring is decided at the margin. The question is not whether an experienced worker is worth the minimum wage, but whether an inexperienced applicant, whose productivity is uncertain, is worth the risk.

Employer-side measures are different in kind: the government’s youth jobs grant and the jobs guarantee both make saying yes to an inexperienced applicant cheaper. But subsidies leak, through deadweight, paying for a hire that would have happened anyway, and displacement, a subsidised recruit filling a post another young person would have taken.

Kickstart delivered more than 160,000 placements, and its evaluation suggests roughly eleven additional young people in unsubsidised work two years later for every hundred who took part. Jobs supported and jobs created are not the same number.

Design decides how much leaks, and the largest example is hiding in plain sight. Employer National Insurance relief for under-21s is deadweight by construction: it is given for age, not for a hire that would not otherwise have been made, and it expires at 21, before many young people and most graduates make their first substantive entry. An employer weighing up someone who has never worked receives nothing. The disadvantage that matters is inexperience, not age.

That is the argument we put to HM Treasury this month in our Budget representation: redesign the under-21 relief as relief on the first 12 to 24 qualifying months of substantive employment for anyone under 25, so the incentive lands at the transition into work rather than on a birthday.

We also propose an interest-free apprentice employment advance of £5,000 to £7,500 for SMEs creating an additional apprenticeship, repaid where the recruitment succeeds, and a short, funded unit for that apprentice’s supervisor – because what often stands between an inexperienced applicant and a job offer is not cost but the capacity to bring someone on. None of it needs new delivery machinery.

One caveat applies throughout. Most young people who are NEET today are inactive rather than unemployed, and a growing share report health conditions. Neither more vacancies nor a wage subsidy will reach them: what they need first is a supported experience of work.

The strongest interventions combine both sides: a real employer, a real job and structured learning that raises productivity while the young person earns. That is a good apprenticeship, which is why the fall of more than 40 per cent in apprenticeship starts for 16–18-year-olds over the past decade is such a costly own goal.

Three things follow for government: stop subsidising youth as a category and start incentivising the transition into work; judge programmes against counterfactual outcomes rather than placement counts, publishing evaluations before schemes are closed and reporting how many previously NEET young people are still in work at 24 months; and protect entry-level apprenticeship starts.

Employers, including our own members, control those roles in short supply: the Saturday job, the holiday shift, the T Level placement, the entry-level apprenticeship.

The question is no longer only how Britain makes young people ready for work. It is how employers are made ready to offer it. The Budget is where that work can start.

New ‘class unit’ must decide what problem it’s trying to solve

Despite its slightly sinister name, the government’s decision to establish a “class unit” within the Office for Equal Opportunities to “drive forward government work to improve life chances” and to abolish the Social Mobility Commission will undoubtedly have supporters. But it is not clear who the class unit is going to help, largely because it has an unresolved problem of purpose.

So far, it has been described in terms of class; the white working class, low-income groups and the disadvantaged. This is muddled.  Those categories can only be treated as interchangeable if we assume class background is a fixed identity that is easily defined and closely aligned with income and disadvantage. It is not.

Class is very messy. It still matters in shaping identities. The Social Mobility Commission’s research found that 54 per cent of people say they are working class and 65 per cent say their family was. Yet what they mean by this varies enormously. Some define their class in terms of parents, others include grandparents. Many keep the identity even when their occupation and income suggest otherwise.

Consumption, culture and lifestyle are all influential in shaping perceptions of class. But so is social mobility. There have been huge changes in Britain’s occupational structure, particularly upwards. In 1971, 25 per cent of the male workforce were in professional jobs and 45 per cent in technical or routine occupations (working class).  Today, these figures are almost completely reversed.

Fewer people are working class and fewer come from working class backgrounds – despite what they say. Alongside this is a smaller but significant group who have experienced downward mobility.  Once they are added in, most people (two thirds) are in a different social class from their parents. And this pattern has remained remarkably stable for decades.

This raises an obvious policy question. Should interventions focus on class origins, even though many people from working-class backgrounds are progressing successfully without special assistance? Or should policy focus on those most likely to experience poor outcomes, regardless of where they started?

Low income is in some ways a simpler focus than class, and it is misleading to conflate the two. Every FE college knows there are occupations commonly perceived as working class that earn significantly more than many graduate professions. Train drivers, electricians and plumbers often earn more than primary school teachers, social workers and journalists. It would be contradictory for government to champion technical education while simultaneously implying that working-class status, low income and disadvantage are synonymous.

If ministers wish to focus on low-income households, they should just say that. There is a case for concentrating on persistent low income, which is different to being poor temporarily. The Commission is aiming to publish research which shows how “sticky” the welfare system really is. But even this is not the full story. Income alone cannot explain outcomes.

Many children from low-income families do extremely well. Chinese pupils on free school meals are an outstanding example. Outcomes between low income families differ.  Those in London generally perform better than those living elsewhere.  And it is difficult to correlate improved income with better outcomes, as the evidence from projects such as Baby’s First Years shows.

All of this points to the need for a much clearer definition of what we mean by disadvantage.  If it is not synonymous with class or income, what does it mean? And how do we remedy it?  The class unit will need to grapple with these complexities if it is to develop policies that genuinely expand opportunity.

The recent Independent Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes illustrates the challenge. Despite its title, the report does not actually analyse “white working-class” outcomes because it struggled with definitions and data limitations.  So it used free school meal eligibility as a proxy for low income and analysed achievement gaps on this basis.

The report’s claim to be examining class rests largely on qualitative research into attitudes and experiences. From this, it concludes that the education system is not designed to serve white working-class children and families effectively.  This conclusion sheds more heat than light on the problem, and the methodology highlights the dangers of clumsy class analysis.

Participants are divided into broad A/B and CDE groups, categories commonly used in market research. This produces average differences between the groups but obscures variation within them.  It assumes that skilled, high earning “Cs” hold the same views and values as “Ds” and “Es”.  There are likely to be differences and they may be important. Not all children in CDE households perform poorly. Why do some succeed while others struggle?

The report itself offers clues. It shows that too many children across all backgrounds spend too little time reading, but the problem is most pronounced among white children in the CDE categories. Reading is crucial to cognitive development, emotional, educational and later lifetime outcomes.

Understanding why some families foster strong reading habits while others do not would give policymakers a far more practical route to improving opportunities than broad claims about the class character of the education system.

English resits are treating the symptom, not the cause

Decades of data show GCSE English resit pass rates languishing at historic lows – hovering under 20 per cent overall, and barely 10 per cent for 18- and 19-year-olds. If Ofsted inspected the Department for Education on this dismal record, it would be a severe finger-wagging moment. Yet successive policy interventions have done nothing to alter the downward trajectory.

Why? Because sector leaders and policymakers have consistently tried to address the symptoms of under-performance rather than root causes. As with any quality-improvement journey, the golden rule remains: you can never fix under-performance by treating the symptom. You can only fix the root-cause issue. But what is it?

During an inspection, I once observed a level 2 beauty therapy class. Resplendent in their uniforms, the students arrived early, took great pride in managing their learning challenges with minimal instruction. They loved what they were doing.

An hour later, my next observation was a GCSE English resits class. Sitting in that room were those exact same beauty therapy students. Their behaviour was appalling, exhibiting complete disrespect for a hard-working teacher. They hated English. They endured it, and coped only by humiliating the teacher to avoid studying.

They simply did not see the need or relevance of what they were being taught.

This is not the fault of the students, nor is it the fault of dedicated English teachers. It lies squarely with the individual vocational curriculum designers. We cannot expect resit teachers to magically reverse years of ingrained failure in a couple of hours a week. With pass rates sitting at 19.8 per cent, the data proves they cannot.

To understand the real issue, look closely at Ofqual’s nine assessment objectives for GCSE English language. They are fabulous. They set out the expert, independent learning skills needed to succeed in any subject: reading critically, writing for a specific audience, structuring thoughts, evaluating evidence, listening, and presenting ideas. In fact, if you stripped away the subject title, those nine outcomes form a perfect blueprint for a level 3 course in expert learning skills. They are precisely what every employer and vocational teacher wants.

‘To make this really explicit, I’ve created a mapping from ‘the GCSE nine’ (and the Functional Skills 28) to the 18 essential expert learning skills we all want our students to develop.

Now run a quick thought experiment: imagine asking your vocational teaching staff if they know what these nine objectives actually are. In my workshops across further education, the answer is almost universally no.

After nearly 40 years in FE and skills, I have become convinced that students’ poor attitude towards English is the most significant root-cause issue to address. An issue that, sadly, begins much, much earlier in school life.

Before Covid, I spent Friday mornings sitting on tiny chairs in my local first school’s reception class, researching an early reading scheme I was writing.

One day the teacher said she would include Lucy for extra support. Lucy had been on book nine for three weeks and was struggling.

Think about that four-year-old. She can’t do it, but for three weeks she has been forced to reopen the same book again and again. She squirms, looks around and searches for distraction. Eventually, through repetition, she memorises the story and appears to read it. Then she moves to the even harder book 10…

Now wind back to the first book in the Oxford Reading Tree scheme. In the first weeks of reception, children often begin by learning to read the sounds s, a, t and p. So what do you think are the first words in book 1?

“Oh, Floppy!”

Incredible. We teach a skill, then give children material that bears no relation to that skill. Is it any wonder that Lucy, and perhaps a quarter of her class, begin to hate reading?

So what should FE do?

Every vocational teacher should proactively include at least one learning outcome from ‘the nine’ in every lesson. Make the development of these skills explicit. Show students that these are not “English skills”; they are the expert learning skills they need for work, life and whatever technology comes next.

And finally, here’s thought experiment number two: what do you think would happen to GCSE English resit rates if every vocational teacher proactively develops every learners’ ability to understand, use and master the nine expert learning skills (GCSE English outcomes) in all of their lessons?

This isn’t about GCSE English. Every quality improvement initiative requires the staff involved to make an investment: in this instance, it’s the time needed to redesign their scheme of work.

But for an improvement initiative to actually work, there has to be a pay-off for the ones making the investment. And the pay-off for vocational teachers is students who will find it much easier to learn in class and and learn through the production of their course work, leading to more commitment in lessons and easier marking workloads. It will allow teachers to enjoy their vocation again.

And by the way, the primary aim of my reading scheme is not to teach children to read, but to teach them to love reading. It’s my attempt to resolve this ultimate root-cause issue.

 

 

WorldSkills 2026: Final competition day – follow live


Team UK flies the flag as WorldSkills Shanghai officially opens

Li Qiang, premier of China’s State Council, has declared the 48th WorldSkills competition officially open at a high-energy opening ceremony in Shanghai.

Twenty-eight young people representing the UK paraded through the arena, led by flagbearer and aircraft maintenance competitor Elyot Harmston.

Four days of competition begin tomorrow morning.

Earlier today, Harmston told FE Week that Team UK was “feeling positive about the coming days”.

This year’s competition features more than 1,400 competitors representing 68 countries and regions.

Each team entered to roars of applause from thousands of supporters gathered at the Shanghai World Expo Cultural Centre.

From tomorrow, each competitor will be tested and judged in one of 64 skills, ranging from bricklaying to hairdressing, cyber security to restaurant service.

Medals on Sunday

Their performance over the next four days will be watched closely by judges, with the highest-scoring competitors in each skill earning gold, silver or bronze medals. The results will be revealed at the competition’s closing ceremony on Sunday, 27 September.

Competitors who score enough points to demonstrate an international standard of excellence will be awarded a medal of excellence.

At the last WorldSkills competition, in Lyon, France, in 2024, Team UK won three silver medals, one bronze and 12 medals of excellence.

Team UK in the parade of nations
Team UK in the parade of nations

Minister on her feet

All 68 teams completed the parade of nations, with Jacqui Smith, the skills minister, and Susan Acland-Hood, permanent secretary at the Department for Education (DfE), spotted on their feet when Team UK passed.

Guests at the ceremony included Anwar Ibrahim, prime minister of Malaysia, and Francis Hourant, president of WorldSkills International.

The parade was followed by dance and acrobatic performances representing the emergence of key skills in Chinese history, including woodwork, textiles, the age of steel and the age of information.

The competition’s slogan is “Master Skills, Change Your Future”.

Performances culminated in what organisers said was the world’s first dance performance between humans and humanoid robots.

A competitor and an expert then gave the WorldSkills oaths, promising to compete and officiate fairly and respect the codes of ethics and conduct.

Dance performance between humans and robots
Dance performance between humans and robots

‘The age of AI’

In a congratulatory message read at the ceremony by Shen Yiqin, a state councillor, president Xi Jinping said:

“Today, the new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is advancing at a faster pace and bringing profound influence to global skills development.

“The WorldSkills competition closely aligns with industrial development and serves as a good platform for skills excellence and mutual learning.

“China will take this session as an opportunity to encourage and guide more workers, especially young people, to pursue a path to success through skills.

“China will deepen exchanges and cooperation with other countries to promote the WorldSkills movement and better serve global economic growth and livelihood improvement.

“I wish this session a full success.”

Hourant acknowledged the competitors’ families, teachers and industry partners who “stand with them”.

He added: “Together we are building more than a movement. We are shaping systems that build better futures. Education that turns a young person’s talent into direction and a nation’s ambition into reality.

“We stand at the edge of a new industrial revolution. The age of AI. The smarter machines become, the more human we must be. Creative. Resilient. Brave. The world’s most pressing challenges will be solved by skilled hands.”

Procurement could be government’s secret weapon on NEETs

Much has been said about young people’s need for earlier access to technical education, skills and training. As attention turns to 14–16 education reform and the growing NEET crisis, the government’s new social value approach offers transformative potential, using public procurement to achieve the line of sight the Prime Minister envisions for all young people to develop skills into good jobs.

The opportunity is significant. The new model will directly influence a central government contracts market worth around £90 billion each year, with potential to extend reach to the wider £385 billion annual public procurement spend. Suppliers will be assessed on skills development and job creation including supporting young people into apprenticeships and work placements. Social value will account for at least 10 per cent of the score for contracts worth £1 million to £5 million, rising to 20 per cent for those worth more than £5 million.

Businesses have called for this change. Educators, too, are seeking stronger connections with employers, particularly to provide the high-quality work experience which remains one of the most commonly cited barriers to employment for young people. We know that employers providing high-quality work experience are 77 per cent more likely to report business benefits, including stronger talent pipelines.

What needs to happen to maximise the impact of this change?

The Cabinet Office’s forthcoming guidance, alongside the government’s wider implementation of this policy, presents an opportunity to act on three fronts.

First, develop clear, codified models for social value clauses focused on early skills and careers education. The impact of these changes will depend on the quality of the engagement they generate, particularly for young people facing barriers to employment, and on whether clear yet not prescriptive detail creates an incentive for suppliers.

Reform of work experience, as set out in updated statutory guidance, offers a tangible and measurable mechanism to be embedded in upcoming guidance. Every meaningful interaction with employers can broaden horizons, build confidence and help a young person see their future in industries and occupations they may never have considered. Done well, it could support business needs, social mobility and regional economic growth simultaneously.

Second, support public bodies to adopt these models consistently.  Atkins Realis recently hosted a roundtable in which Cabinet Minister Mark Ferguson MP and other government representatives came together with those active in industry and the supply chain to explore how these changes can be embedded routinely in procurement practice and deliver meaningful outcomes for organisations of all sizes.

Nationally, the careers system is uniquely placed to turn this opportunity into action. A network of 44 careers hubs, working with schools, colleges and employers, can help buyers and suppliers to design, deliver and measure meaningful careers outreach aligned with local priorities.

Third, equip suppliers to deliver against them. The changes herald an opportunity to bring more employers into careers outreach, including the many suppliers and subcontractors operating throughout supply chains. For many SMEs, the barrier is capacity rather than commitment.

AtkinsRéalis research with 220 SME suppliers found that 65 per cent would benefit from support from larger organisations to achieve better social value outcomes. 82 per cent believe that clear, agreed principles for supply chain engagement would strengthen relationships.

Prime contractors, public bodies and large employers therefore have a key role to play in creating practical routes for participation, enabling suppliers to contribute through shared programmes, and coordinated careers activities.

Skills pathways and local growth

Through our work with The Careers & Enterprise Company, 11 Careers Hubs and regional partners, AtkinsRéalis has seen how modern work experience can widen access to job pathways, particularly for underserved young people. The West Midlands Combined Authority’s equalex pilot demonstrates how place-based coordination and clear quality frameworks make meaningful participation accessible for organisations of all sizes.

The challenge is to make social value more than a procurement requirement. It can be a powerful lever for expanding technical and vocational pathways for 14-16-year-olds, strengthening employer talent pipelines, and helping deliver the government’s commitment to guarantee work experience for every young person. And it can be usefully deployed as a key answer to the NEET challenge, succinctly articulated by Alan Milburn in his review.

The opportunity now is to make sure the new model delivers on that promise.

 

Low-attendance college students aren’t ‘hidden NEETs’

The recent Children’s Commissioner report on ‘hidden NEETs’ highlighted the very real need for a national definition and record of post-16 attendance. However, it also made the claim that attendance recording in colleges is poor and needs to improve, that more than half of college students are ‘persistently absent’ and characterised young people with low college attendance as ‘hidden NEETs’.

This perspective has not gone down well with the FE sector. While the report’s recommendations are welcome, notably the call for free bus travel for all 16 to 18-year-olds, what was off-target was the implication that colleges are not consistently capturing or using attendance data.

In over 20 years of senior leadership in three different colleges, I must have interviewed and enrolled thousands of students and delivered hundreds of induction talks and assemblies of various kinds. In every single one of those talks, briefings and conversations I emphasised the importance of attendance and punctuality as part of our expectation of all students, set out clearly in the learning agreement that students sign. None of this was unusual. I was simply emphasising what all my colleagues were also saying across the college and across the sector.

In a blog I wrote in 2015, while I was a college principal in East London, I summarised our 10 key expectations of all students, backed up by a justification for each one. Entitled ‘sharing the secrets of success’ it was based on my welcome talk to all students.

It told them their attendance target should be 100 per cent, and that “being punctual is about respect; respect for your teacher, who has planned a full lesson, respect for fellow students, who are inconvenienced when you arrive late and of course, respect for yourself as a committed student”.

When students progress at the age of 16, it’s important to acknowledge that they have made a choice of where to study and could have enrolled elsewhere.

Once that decision is made, they need to sign up to the basic rules of the educational community they’re joining, not out of a fear of ‘punishment’ but because these are the rules that will make that community work for them and for everyone else. Conversely, if a student feels that the classes they’re attending are not working for them, or not worth attending, we need to listen and take their concerns seriously.

In every college I have worked in and in every college I know, high expectations of attendance are built into students’ learning agreements. And while we may not use the disciplinary methods of schools, such as detentions, we have a range of support systems to help students get back on track if their attendance slips, and there is the ultimate sanction of withdrawal, used as little as possible.

Colleges collect, record and use attendance data as part of their day-to-day work. They know that good attendance patterns need to be established early and they are ‘on the case’ quickly with students experiencing difficulties.

Some students will need more support and encouragement to establish good routines often with family and ‘wraparound’ support, and colleges often employ dedicated tutors or mentors to do this.

Clearly, 100 per cent sustained attendance is not achievable for everyone. Life gets in the way, people get sick, dependants need to be cared for, transport services break down. So realistically, aggregate attendance rates in the high 80s and low 90s can be consistent with students’ individual commitment to 100 per cent.

We also need to acknowledge the additional challenges faced by a sector which disproportionately serves communities facing barriers to participation and which is expected to spearhead the re-engagement of the disengaged. This will sometimes mean accepting low but improving levels of engagement rather than exclusion.

To describe young people with low college attendance as ‘hidden NEETs’ is misleading. Many of these students will be on a path to re-engagement in education after a period of disengagement. They are often ‘on their way in’ to education rather than ‘on their way out’.

If colleges have lower attendance levels than school sixth forms, this may be because they recruit the very students schools don’t retain after Year 11.

The fact that colleges offer an environment where these students feel welcome and supported is surely to be celebrated. Would we want colleges to stop the work they do to re-engage these young people and write them off in order to hit an arbitrary attendance target?

Colleges have no problem with being held to account for student attendance. They can see the need for a consistent national definition to make this possible and they are keen to help co-produce a system that properly recognises the work they do to engage and support the full range of young people they serve.

These important objectives can be achieved without misrepresenting colleges’ work.