I have a secret. I like Monday mornings. There, I’ve said it. It’s out. I’m a Monday lover.
I have, like everyone I suppose, had times when Mondays hung heavy, casting their frosty shadows over my Sunday evening freedom. Usually around the time Antiques Roadshowbegan.
I had that Monday morning feeling again when I was teaching in a busy and bustling London comprehensive, where I never knew what a lesson would bring, let alone an entire day or an impossibly long and slow-passing week. All I knew was that whatever lay ahead was going to be enervating.
My full respect goes to those who spend their whole teaching careers in that challenging sector because I managed only a year. And then I was gone, jumping ship to the safety of the FE sector forever.
Once I had found my place, I realised one day that the Sunday evening dread had simply drained away. I could relax and enjoy what was left of a restful day.
Imagine yourself back in work after a holiday, on the first day of a new college term.
If your college is anything like mine, there’s something joyful about the buzz on the first morning back. People are reconnecting and discussing their holidays, asking about emails, making coffee over at the sink, sharing pictures on their phones, discussing student situations, coughing in the corner, or just quietly tapping away on laptops trying to bring themselves quickly back up to speed.
It really is one of those moments to relish, and let it all soak in.
Every Monday can be a miniature echo of this start-of-term buzz. Look around yourself the next time you find yourself in the middle of a pre-work Monday morning. Yes, there’ll be the curmudgeon present, complaining about something anodyne and ordinary. But there’ll also be friends saying hello. Professionals preparing to care. Students chattering animatedly.
Walking the corridors as lessons are about to begin is enlightening. Listen to the tone of the hubbub. It will, I suspect, have a vibrant, excited edge to its energy.
Hear the teachers greeting their charges. It is all unremarkable, and yet totally extraordinary, the personal care and relationship such comments convey.
We’ve all seen those viral videos of some enthusiastic and imaginative teacher – no doubt still at the start of their career, when creativity is still high – who greets each student as they enter the classroom with a separate, individual, and tailor-made handshake for every one of them.
I’ve never met such a teacher in my life. But I’ve met hundreds who welcome their students to class, joke with them and tease them and call them by name, creating a warm and creative atmosphere in the classrooms and corridors of their schools or colleges. That can be as valuable as any secret handshake, even if it is a lot less likely to go viral.
Monday mornings are where these joyous things live. Monday mornings are blank slates, open books, white pages ready to be written on. They are pure potential.
The week still contains every possibility hidden in the folds of its cloak. What will be plucked out and presented to us, nobody knows.
It might turn out to be a bad week. Again. But it might just have its joyous moments too. And on Monday morning, you still have the power to influence and shape what it’s going to be like.
The reason people seem to hate Monday mornings so much is because they represent a loss of opportunity, the end of freedom, the death of possibility. Maybe that is sometimes true.
But the very essence of education is that things – and people – can change. What is plastic can still be shaped. What is unknown is there to be discovered. What is a mystery is about to be revealed.
All of this is the very heart of education. It is also the deepest nature of a Monday morning.
So love your Monday mornings. Because, trust me, they won’t be going away any time soon. Having said which, please leave me alone until I’ve had my first workday cup of coffee. And then I’ll be ready to take on the world.
England is at a crossroads. We face major national missions – from accelerating housebuilding and delivering critical infrastructure to meeting clean‑energy targets and enforcing the Building Safety Act. Each depends on a skilled, competent construction workforce. Yet the reforms currently proposed for apprenticeships and qualifications risk weakening, not strengthening, the skills pipeline we need.
Earlier this month, the British Association of Construction Heads (BACH) wrote to the Prime Minister and key ministers warning that the direction of travel in construction skills policy is too narrow and insufficiently rooted in how our industry works. We are in danger of repeating past mistakes: reorganising qualifications without rethinking the structure of the system itself.
Designed for an old economy
A most concerning feature of the government’s current approach is the refusal to consider educational models beyond the traditional 16–19 academic pathway. The curriculum and assessment review’s proposals focus entirely on current educational model of GCSEs and A Levels, or similar, missing the chance to explore alternative structures.
This is out of step with most of Europe. Successful technical education systems in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and Finland typically operate a 14–19 model, allowing young people to specialise earlier in applied and technical subjects with equal prestige to academic routes. These pathways produce young people with competent craft trades such as electricians, civil engineering technicians and manufacturing operatives, feeding productive, internationally competitive economies.
England by contrast continues to treat GCSEs as the central organising point of the entire system for 16 year olds. Young people who would thrive in practical and technical learning are kept in a narrow academic track until 16, then expected to choose between complicated new qualification labels at 16–19. This is not preparing them – or the country – for the labour market we have today.
Successful UK examples already exist. University Technical Colleges (UTCs) such as those in Sheffield prove that earlier technical focus works, delivering strong outcomes in engineering and technical industries. But instead of learning from these models, the current reforms try to retrofit new qualifications into a structure that is fundamentally out of date.
Limited review
The curriculum review should have been a chance to step back and ask how we build competency across industry. Instead, its terms of reference are narrow. It looks at adapting existing provision, not at whether the whole 16–19 framework is the wrong foundation to begin with.
CAR does not sufficiently explore earlier pathways, competency‑based approaches, or practical assessment models aligned to the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) and the requirements of the Building Safety Act. Nor does it reflect the green and clean‑energy roles now embedded across every construction vertical.
In short: it reviews qualifications, but not the system. That is not enough.
Practical competence, not more classroom pathways
Construction is a competency‑driven industry. Employers need people who can demonstrate the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours required for safe practice. Yet the proposed levels 2 and 3 pathways in the skills white paper are heavily classroom‑based and rely on assessment sampling that risks lowering standards.
At a time when building safety has never been more important, reducing rigour is the wrong direction. A classroom‑heavy approach will not produce the competent workforce demanded by employers, regulators or the public.
A better way
If we are serious about rebuilding our skills base, we need a system that reflects how young people learn and how construction operates. That means:
exploring a 14–19 technical route
embedding practical, on‑site learning
using competency‑based assessment, not sampling
designing content with employers, not around qualifications
integrating green skills across all pathways
supporting FE colleges with sustainable funding and staffing
The creation of a taskforce for construction apprenticeship reform is welcome. But to make it meaningful, government must pause the wider construction proposals in the white paper. Otherwise, we risk cementing flawed assumptions into policy for years to come.
England cannot deliver its national missions with a skills system built for another era. It is time to learn from successful international models – and from our own best practice – and build a structure that gives young people the pathways they need and the country the workforce it requires.
A recent HR training session featured a discussion about creating regular opportunities for staff to meet with you – and not just when they have a problem.
This made me reflect on my own leadership and how I can model a more inclusive culture.
As a head of department, I need to create time and space for meaningful and impactful connections with my team.
Inclusive leadership is about more than just good intentions. It’s about actively creating environments where people feel safe, respected, and truly part of the team.
A strong sense of team identity can drive collaboration and shared purpose. But inclusive leaders must also be mindful of individual needs and perspectives within the group.
Belonging to a team can be powerful. It builds unity, motivation and a shared sense of achievement.
However, inclusion also means recognising that each team member brings unique experiences and ways of thinking. Leaders need to create space where both team identity and individual authenticity are valued.
Team meetings should be more than just spaces for updates. They should be environments for safe and creative discussions.
But do all team members feel they can truly speak their mind? Or are some agreeing by default, staying quiet, or holding back out of fear of judgement?
To lead inclusively, we must consider whether:
Everyone has a platform to share their authentic voice
People feel comfortable to gently challenge ideas and be critical friends
There is time for reflection before decisions are made
Psychological safety doesn’t happen by accident; it is developed through intentional leadership practices.
Offering thinking time before team discussions can boost inclusion. It allows individuals to reflect and form their ideas independently before group dynamics take over. This can prevent dominant voices from steering the conversation too early and ensures all perspectives are heard.
Leaders might ask:
Have all ideas been considered from different lenses?
Have we created multiple communication points for contributions, verbal, written, or one-on-one?
Are we valuing quiet thought as much as loud contribution?
Creating a balance between individual thinking and team collaboration leads to better outcomes. When people feel safe to contribute their authentic perspectives, teams benefit from deeper insight, creativity and mutual respect.
It’s about actively creating environments where people feel safe, respected, and truly part of the team.
A strong sense of team identity can drive collaboration and shared purpose, but inclusive leaders must also be mindful of individual needs and perspectives within the group.
Ultimately, inclusive leadership is an ongoing practice. It requires curiosity, humility, and a willingness to slow down and truly listen.
As I continue to shape the culture within my department, I want to create not just meetings, but moments for meaningful connection, reflection and growth. My hope is that every team member feels valued not only for what they do, but for who they are.
My intent is to create opportunities for open conversations, invite perspectives that challenge my own, and hold space for honest, authentic dialogue around questions such as: How can we ensure quieter voices or different communication styles are better represented in our conversations, and Is there anything in our current ways of working that makes it harder for people to share ideas?
Inclusive leadership is about ensuring everyone has the confidence and space to speak, be heard, and make an impact.
A government investigation has found that a well-known Birmingham-based training provider enrolled two learners onto courses without their knowledge and claimed public funding without evidence the learners existed.
Pathway First Limited, which trades as Pathway Group, also issued qualifications to the learners even though they had not studied the course.
The provider, which pressed that this was an “isolated” incident, did not hold sufficient evidence to support the funding claimed for 30 learners in total.
Clawback of £54,000 has since been repaid to the Department for Education.
Pathway First has operated in the skills sector for 22 years and holds adult skills fund contracts with multiple public authorities. It was rated ‘requires improvement’ by Ofsted inspection last summer when it had over 800 adult learners on programmes, nearly 300 of which were funded through advanced learner loans.
The DfE’s investigation examined the provider’s compliance with the government’s AEB funding rules in 2023-24 – a year in which Pathway First held a national adult education budget contract of over £2.4 million.
An investigation outcome report, published today, said: “There were two instances of non-compliance with the AEB funding rules 2023-24 where two learners were enrolled onto a funded learning aim without their knowledge.
“The same two learners were also issued with a maths entry level 3 certificate without undertaking any learning.”
The report added that evidence in evidence packs “did not assure” the DfE’s funding agency the learners “existed”, nor was there evidence that learning was “taking or had taken place”.
This was related to two learners, but inaccurate information was reported for 30 students in total which resulted in an overpayment of the funding claimed.
‘Pathway First cooperated fully’
Investigators said Pathway First has informed the DfE that it has implemented several “activities to improve compliance”, including to “internal processes and procedures in areas such as compliant enrolment, learner attendance and absence management review”.
Staff training has also “been identified as a measure to support improvement”.
Pathway First Limited is led by chief executive Safaraz Ali, a well-known figure in the skills sector who founded the Multicultural Apprenticeships Awards and was awarded an MBE for services to diversity and inclusion in business in the King’s New Year Honours 2026.
A Pathway First spokesperson said: “Pathway First Limited acknowledged the publication of the DfE’s investigation outcome report.
“The investigation related to an isolated element of historic learner activity within our adult education budget provision.
“Pathway First Limited cooperated fully throughout the process. The DfE have acknowledged our remediation and have thanked us for our co-operation and transparency during the whole process.
“Pathway First Limited has operated as an education and skills provider for over 22 years and remains focused on widening participation in skills and employability, particularly within diverse communities.”
Pathway First currently holds adult skills fund (ASF) contracts with devolved authorities such as West Midlands Combined Authority, which awarded it £471,000 this year, a significant drop from £1.8 million awarded in 2024-25.
In 2025-26, it was awarded a grant from the Greater London Authority for £162,040 and it also holds a three-year contract until 2028 worth £1.9 million with East Midlands Combined County Authority.
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority awarded Pathway First £100,000 in 2024-25 but it has not been named in this year’s allocations.
FE Week understands Pathway First has not faced any contract terminations as a result of the DfE’s investigation.
Businesses should be free to spend their apprenticeship levy funds across the UK’s four nations and on capital investments, MPs have argued.
Parliament’s transport committee has also called for the government to address low diversity levels in transport manufacturing by restricting businesses’ ability to spend levy funding if they fail to meet their own recruitment targets.
The recommendations were laid out in the committee’s report, ‘engine for growth: securing skills for transport manufacturing’, which examined what the government could do to support the £156 billion pound output-per-year sector with a pipeline of skilled workers.
Restrictions on levy funding such as only allowing it to be spent in England are “throttling opportunities” for manufacturers who operate across the UK, the committee concluded.
MPs also echoed concerns from industry bodies such as ADS Group and Make UK, who criticised “inflexible” rules that block spending on capital investments such as industry-standard equipment and machinery.
On the advice of campaign group Women in Transport, the committee also said the government must address the 70 per cent male employee average in the sector and embed gender equality in the system by making employers’ access to levy funding “contingent” on whether they hit their own diversity targets.
Chair Ruth Cadbury said her committee’s recommendations would ensure the UK can “seize the new opportunities out there”, including in new growth areas such as electric vehicles.
Other recommendations, which focus on government policy, include a Department for Transport “deep dive” into whether the UK’s vocational training system is “cutting the mustard”, introducing a skills “competency passport”, and reversing the restriction of level 7 apprenticeships to people under 22 years old.
Good work, but high vacancies
The government’s employer skills survey suggests that transport manufacturing had the third highest vacancy level for the last three years, with an estimated 50,000 vacancies across the sector that currently employs about 350,000 people.
This is despite manufacturers of motor vehicles, buses, aeroplanes, trains and ships providing “high quality, well paid” work.
The shortages are for a combination of reasons, including “poor perceptions” of manufacturing as a career option, difficulty moving between roles.
In addition, manufacturing is seeing “rising demand” for advanced knowledge and facing a looming “retirement cliff-edge” of older workers over the next decade.
‘Costly and overcomplicated’
Trade association ADS Group showed the committee research suggesting companies have spent an average of 55 per cent of their levy funds over the last five years.
Senior vice president at Airbus UK, Oriel Petry, slammed the levy system as “bureaucratic, costly and complicated” for large manufacturers.
Petry said the aerospace giant has a “hugely frustrating” situation it is paying for 12,500 people but that levy funds can only be spent in England, despite employing many at its main wing factory in Wales.
Industry body Make UK also criticised difficulties in sustaining engineering and manufacturing training due to “inflexible rules” on capital expenditure for training equipment.
As a result, the committee said the government said “more should be done” including consulting on permitting levy funding spending across the UK for manufacturers with operations across the country.
It also recommended allowing capital expenditure for training equipment if it is not to the detriment of small and medium sized businesses in the levy supply chain.
The Department for Work and Pensions, which is now responsible for apprenticeship levy policy, said: “We are investing £725 million to reform the apprenticeship system, helping 50,000 more young people into work and driving economic growth.
“From April 2026, the new Growth and Skills Levy will give employers greater flexibility, including access to short courses ensuring the programme remains sustainable and delivers for young people.”
They added that the apprenticeship budget has spent by an average of 98 per cent over the last three financial years.
The Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB) has announced Tim Bennett-Hart as its new chair.
Bennett-Hart (pictured), chief executive of RSL Awards, will take over from current chair and CEO of Lifetime Training Charlotte Bosworth on February 10 when the federation’s next annual general meeting is held.
NCFE CEO David Gallagher was due to replace Bosworth as FAB chair following an election in November but he has informed the federation of his intention to step down due to health reasons.
A re-election process was subsequently held with the federation’s board this month, with Bennett-Hart confirmed as chair and Kelle McQuade, chief operating officer of Training Qualifications UK (TQUK), elected as vice chair.
Bennett-Hart said he was “honoured” to take on the role at a critical moment for awarding bodies.
“This is a hugely important time for the industry and the federation has a key role to play in representing the views of members and fashioning outcomes that will deliver betterment for learners,” he said.
“I am looking forward to the challenge and continuing the great work Charlotte Bosworth has done for our membership.”
Bennett-Hart joined RSL Awards, a specialist education body for the creative arts, in 2018 as academic director and was promoted to CEO in 2022. RSL works across 50 countries offering graded and vocational qualifications, and has subsidiary businesses in Spain, India and China.
FAB’s website said Bennett-Hart has had a diverse career as a commercial songwriter and an academic at the University of Sussex, before focusing on vocational creative education in FE and HE.
McQuade, who joined TQUK in 2017 after spending 13 years at Milton Keynes College where she oversaw curriculum planning and quality assurance, said: “Awarding organisations are in the midst of unprecedented change. It could not be more important for the federation to play its part and represent the views of members in a balanced and impactful manner.
Kelle McQuade
“I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to play a part as the vice chair of the federation’s board and am looking forward to the challenge.”
Significant items of reform facing the awarding sector currently include a shake up to apprenticeship assessment and major changes to the level 3 and below landscape amid the creation of V Levels and defunding of competing qualifications.
Rob Nitsch, FAB’s CEO, said: “I am delighted that Tim and Kelle have been elected as the chair and vice chair of the federation respectively. They represent the breadth of our membership and are absolutely committed to the collective and individual success of awarding organisations and contributing to this.
“This is a pivotal time for our industry; we are all looking forward to working even more closely with them in the coming months and years.”
FAB currently has a record number of members – 161, which is just over 85 per cent of the government technical qualifications in the UK.
Disadvantaged apprentices are significantly more likely to drop out from their training, research has found, sparking calls for greater support for learners from poorer and ethnic minority backgrounds.
New findings from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) today also revealed apprentices who withdraw face lasting consequences and “wage penalties” compared to their peers who complete.
Researchers found that apprentice dropouts went on to earn significantly lower salaries and are more likely to be unemployed over the three subsequent years of withdrawal, suggesting they are not quitting to take up better paid work elsewhere.
The apprenticeship drop out rate, which hit a worrying 53.4 per cent in 2019-20 but improved to 38.1 per cent in 2023-24, has concerned ministers in recent years, prompting investigations.
NFER’s report, funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation, analysed the Department for Education’s longitudinal educational outcomes dataset from 2013-14 to 2020-21 and took learning aims and prior educational attainment data from the national pupil database to determine which characteristics are linked to withdrawals.
The study examined apprenticeship dropouts between 2014-15 and 2019-20.
Here are the key takeaways from the report:
Disadvantaged apprentices ‘most likely’ to struggle
Learners who were registered as eligible for free school meals (FSM) at some point at school were 10 percentage points more likely to withdraw from their apprenticeship than their peers, the report found.
Researchers also examined apprentices living in the areas of highest deprivation as measured by the index of income deprivation affecting children and found they were nine percentage points more likely to drop out than those in the least deprived areas.
Jude Hillary, NFER’s co-head of policy and practice, said the findings show that government and the sector need to ensure disadvantaged apprentices receive “earlier, more targeted support – not just during training, but right from the point they start considering an apprenticeship pathway”.
Ethnic minority apprentices face additional barriers
The report found learners from black and mixed ethnic backgrounds, and learners with English as a second language (EAL) face higher withdrawal rates.
Black apprentices had a withdrawal rate of 66 per cent between 2014-15 and 2019-20, mixed ethnicity learners had a 64 per cent drop out rate and white apprentices withdrew at a 58 per cent rate.
Once they accounted for variables such as GCSE attainment, qualification levels and socioeconomic deprivation, the NFER said the findings indicates that “ethnicity has a relationship with learners’ probability of withdrawal over and above the effect it has via other factors”.
Meanwhile, EAL apprentices had a 62 per cent drop out rate compared to 58 per cent for non-EAL speakers.
In terms of age, apprentices aged 16 to 17 and over the age of 25 were more likely to leave early (over 60 per cent) than those aged 18 to 20 (52 per cent).
Low prior attainment contributes to dropouts
NFER also found that apprentices who already hold a level 3 qualification are eight percentage points less likely to withdraw from their programme compared to learners with no prior qualifications.
Similarly, the report said apprentices who have a grade C or 5+ in GCSE English and maths have been around four and six percentage points respectively less likely to withdraw than their peers without, after controlling for differences in other observed characteristics including overall GCSE scores.
“This suggests that learners’ maths and English prior attainment affect withdrawal over and above the effects of learners’ overall GCSE attainment,” NFER added.
No ‘great’ impact of functional skills requirements
From 2016, functional skills rules have required apprentices without ‘standard passes’ (grade 4 or C) in GCSE maths and English to continue studying these subjects.
Prior research, including a recent 2024 report based on interviews with 71 employers, has claimed that functional skills requirements have been a key barrier to apprentice completion.
NFER said its analysis suggested that the effects of learners’ GCSE maths and English results on their probability of withdrawal “did not change greatly between those that started in 2014-15 and 2018-19”.
These results “appear to suggest that the relationship between learners’ maths and English GCSE results and withdrawal may not have changed greatly after the introduction of functional skills requirements”.
However, researchers acknowledged it could be that the effects of functional requirements on withdrawal were “lagged, and/or functional skills requirements may have influenced employers’ choices about who to accept onto apprenticeships in the first place”.
Last year, DfE scrapped the functional skills rule for adult apprentices, but kept the requirement for 16 to 18-year-old apprentices.
EPA introduction did not impact withdrawal timings
The introduction of the end point assessment (EPA) in 2017 through standards, which replaced frameworks, did not appear to affect the timing of apprenticeship withdrawals, NFER said.
Researchers had expected to see an increase in dropouts towards the end of the apprenticeship standard from learners concerned about taking the EPA.
However, apprentices got a similar proportion of the way through their apprenticeship (47 per cent for standards compared to 43 per cent for frameworks on average) before quitting, the analysis found.
This finding does not, however, “preclude EPA contributing to the higher average withdrawal rate observed for apprenticeship standards compared to frameworks”.
NFER noted that qualitative research insights have suggested that EPA “may be leading some apprentices to withdraw”.
Size and quality matters
The report found apprentices employed by smaller organisations or employers new to apprenticeships are more likely to withdraw than those working for larger, more experienced employers.
Learners working for organisations with 250+ employees are four percentage points less likely to withdraw than learners at organisations that employ less than 50 people.
The report also revealed more experienced training providers (with three or more years in the sector) are associated with lower withdrawal rates, according to regression analysis which factored in differences in apprenticeship, individual, provider and employer characteristics.
“This highlights the benefits of supporting existing providers to scale and avoiding experienced providers exiting the apprenticeship market, particularly in occupational sectors associated with higher withdrawal rates,” researchers said.
Meanwhile, apprentices trained by Ofsted-rated ‘outstanding’ providers are 16 percentage points less likely to withdraw compared to learners trained by providers with an ‘inadequate’ rating (54 percent compared to 70 percent), the research found.
However, the difference in withdrawal rates between ‘outstanding’ and ‘requires improvement’ providers was a more modest five percentage points.
Apprentices not quitting for better paid work
The study examined apprentices’ earnings before, during and after their apprenticeship, drawing upon data from HMRC, their employers from the inter-departmental business register (IDBR), and their apprenticeship providers.
The report found apprentices that are paid more in the first year of their apprenticeship are less likely to withdraw, but effect sizes are small.
NFER calculated that for every 10 per cent increase in earnings in the first year of learners’ apprenticeship, their probability of dropping out decreased by around half a percentage point.
However, the study showed learners who did not complete appear to suffer significantly lower wages and are more likely to be unemployed in the three years after dropping out compared with their peers who finished.
“This suggests that apprentices who withdraw are not quitting to take up better paid work outside of the apprenticeship system in the medium-term (as we are comparing outcomes once both groups finish their apprenticeship),” it said.
Additionally, the wage gap was much wider when apprentices dropped out under standards than it was for apprenticeship frameworks.
Researchers did add that wage differentials may “partially” reflect dropouts having less experience than completers.
Apprenticeships ‘clearly harder’ to get onto and complete
NFER called for targeted additional support towards apprentices, employers and providers that have a higher chance of dropping out.
It also recommended assurance that there are adequate pre-apprenticeship programmes that prepare learners to fully complete the qualification, particularly targeted towards those with low prior attainment.
NFER suggested that further support could be towards apprentices on level 2 programmes and ethnic minority learners, but did not specify how officials should improve support.
Ministers in the past have sought to better understand why apprentices drop out such as introducing an exit feedback tool and more recently, foundation apprenticeships.
“Apprenticeships are clearly now harder for young people to get onto and complete, particularly for learners with lower prior attainment and low or no prior qualifications. New foundation apprenticeships may be one way of effectively responding to this challenge,” the report said.
A Department for Work and Pensions spokesperson said: “This government is committed to ensuring people of all backgrounds can access, and benefit from apprenticeships.
“Our recent £725 million investment will simplify and modernise the apprenticeship system, making it more efficient and responsive to the needs of employers and learners.
“We are creating an apprenticeships system that addresses the nation’s skills challenges head on and are simplifying it to give businesses the flexibility to develop the skills they need.”
Welcome to FE Week live blog of work and pensions questions on January 26, 2026. The session will begin at around 2.30pm.
This is a new function we are testing following our decision to stop posting on the social media website X.
Instead of live reporting key events via our social channels, we will host these blogs on our website, making it easier for our readers to see all updates in one place.
The announcement of £283 million to boost post-16 capacity is both timely and necessary. With 67,000 more 16 to 17-year-olds expected to be in education by 2028, alongside persistent skills shortages across multiple sectors, expanding high-quality provision is no longer optional.
FE colleges are central to this effort and continue to deliver at scale under increasing demographic, financial and workforce pressures.
Recent evidence illustrates the challenge. The Association of Colleges’ post-enrolment survey shows 60 per cent of colleges reported limited or closed enrolments in construction, with similar pressures in electrical, engineering and education.
Overall, 77 per cent of providers reported a significant increase in learner demand, while staffing and space constraints limited their ability to respond.
These pressures are not a reflection of college performance, but of a system stretched by rapid change.
What is less frequently acknowledged is that not everybody wants to become a construction worker. The population bulge means that demand is rising not just in construction and engineering, but across a much broader range of sectors.
Sport, business administration, education, retail, hospitality, creative industries and health-related roles all face workforce shortages, high turnover or changing skills requirements.
These sectors require different types of facilities, delivery models and learner experiences, many of which sit outside traditional classroom-based provision.
This is where independent training providers play a critical role. ITPs already deliver high-quality curriculum across these sectors, often from entry level through to levels 4 and 5 for young people, apprentices and adults, creating clear and coherent progression routes into employment.
They are particularly effective in industries where demand for jobs is strong but learners require a more applied, vocationally immersive pathway to succeed.
ITPs also bring pace and adaptability. Many have a strong track record of establishing, refurbishing or repurposing vacant facilities to create industry-relevant learning environments, whether that is fitness and performance spaces for sport, simulated early years and education settings, commercial kitchens for hospitality, studios for creative industries, or health and care training hubs aligned to local workforce needs.
These facilities are intentionally different to traditional FE estates and are often closer to how learners will experience the workplace itself.
This distinction matters because a significant volume of young people and adults are actively seeking something different from mainstream provision.
For some, large college campuses and traditional timetables are exactly right. For others, particularly those who have disengaged previously or who want a clearer line of sight to employment, smaller, sector-focused environments with strong employer involvement are more effective.
ITPs are frequently the vehicle through which these learners re-engage and progress.
The implications for the NEET challenge are clear. When capacity decisions are too narrow, learners who are ready to train are left without suitable options.
Over time, this contributes to disengagement and economic inactivity, particularly in communities where alternative provision is limited.
By contrast, enabling ITPs to expand provision at pace can unlock immediate capacity in priority sectors and keep learners connected to education and work.
None of this detracts from the vital role of FE colleges. Rather, it strengthens the case for a genuinely system-wide approach to capital investment.
The government’s decision to place greater control in the hands of mayors and local leaders is welcome, but that devolution must come with flexibility.
Capital funding should be able to support colleges and ITPs alike, where they can demonstrate strong outcomes, employer alignment and the ability to deliver quickly.
Post-16 sufficiency will not be achieved through a single type of institution. It will be delivered by backing a diverse ecosystem that reflects the diversity of learners, sectors and local economies.
If the aim is to meet demand, reduce NEET figures and support growth across construction, sport, health, creative and service industries, then ITPs must be part of the solution and not an afterthought.
Building capacity means building the whole system.
