The government’s mission to simplify post-16 qualifications through T Levels and the new V Levels is well intentioned. Clarity, parity, and coherence across technical and academic routes are ambitions most of us support.
But simplification can come at a cost, and the cost, if we’re not careful, could be paid by our most vulnerable learners.
Because here’s the reality: T Levels and V Levels will not fit everyone. Thousands of young people – bright, capable, ambitious – will fall through the cracks unless the Department for Education builds flexibility into the system.
Across the country, independent training providers (ITPs) are already showing what works. Our study programmes deliver strong outcomes from entry level to level 3.
They don’t just tick qualification boxes; they build confidence, skills and aspiration. They take young people who’ve struggled in traditional education and give them a pathway often into apprenticeships, work, or further study.
Ofsted sees it. The data shows it; ITPs consistently achieve high destination rates, especially for learners who face social, emotional or financial barriers. These are programmes built around the learner, not the other way around.
So why dismantle what’s working?
Under the current reform plans, the qualifications that power these programmes are at risk. The new framework feels designed for large institutions, not agile, employer-connected providers. The danger is a two-tier system, one that leaves ITPs fighting to keep their learners engaged, while colleges are expected to stretch to fit everyone else.
If the government genuinely wants to reduce NEET (not in education, employment or training) numbers, then one-size-fits-all cannot be the answer. It never has been.
Talk of “transition” or “foundation” pathways is encouraging, but so far details are sketchy. How will they be funded? Who can deliver them? And will they hold the same value in the eyes of employers and universities?
Without clear answers, providers are left uncertain, and young people are left exposed.
Let’s be honest: quality should be judged by impact, not institution type. The DfE’s data shows that independent training providers play a vital role in supporting strong progression into employment and further learning. So rather than dismantling what works, let’s build on it across the system.
We’re innovators, not outliers
And another thing, ITPs are not just the safety net for the so-called “hardest to reach”. They’re a launchpad for driven, capable young people who crave hands-on, industry-led learning. Many thrive in high-energy, commercial settings where they can showcase talent and connect directly with employers. These are learners who don’t want to sit in classrooms; they want to be in the shop window of the labour market.
That’s why the DfE should see ITPs as innovators, not outliers. Let’s bring awarding organisations such as Gateway Qualifications to the table and co-create V Levels that are project-based, employer-shaped and relevant to the world of work our young people are entering.
We all want a system that’s simpler and stronger. But simplicity can’t come at the expense of inclusion. If we strip out the pathways that work for thousands, we’ll drive up NEET figures, undoing years of progress made by ITPs in attempting to tackle educational disadvantage.
The future of technical education must be built on inclusion, not elimination. Let’s shape reform that celebrates diversity of provision and protects every young person’s right to succeed.
I recently bought my first pair of off-the-peg reading glasses. I have now reached peak middle age. My adult daughter, however, has suggested that won’t fully arrive until I attach the glasses to a cord around my neck. From then on, there’ll be no looking back.
I now stand at a clear two generations’ distance from my students. Firmly anchored in the glories of Generation X, I am surrounded by colleagues who are millennials, together facing students from the far shores of Gen Z.
In another few years it’ll be Generation Alpha kids in our classrooms. There will then be three generations separating me from my students. That’s a lot. I have learned the hard way that the generation gap is real and very much alive in my life.
There’s a saying that teaching keeps you young and in a way it does, no doubt. But it can also make you feel very old indeed.
I have to admit the scale of the generation gap. When life is changing as dramatically as it is today, we must ask some serious questions about what we are about.
An education revolution which most teachers haven’t even begun to spot is already racing towards them. Some of us are like the dinosaurs who were blithely grazing within the growing shadow of the meteor that was hurtling towards them.
I don’t think the coming change is necessarily all about the STEM drive which recent years have seen. Or not primarily so, at least. Rather, what is ahead may well involve a complete change to the social world and the world of work far more profound than anything which was faced by previous living generations.
So we may soon be forced to consider if our inherited categories even work anymore. The traditional subjects might have had their day and we may soon have to consider which subjects to continue with and which will best equip our students for the coming AI-led workplace.
Supply and demand will do some of that. Some traditional subjects may be facing a significant change. But for those subjects that the AI revolution leaves behind – humanities, arts, languages, et al – there may still be cause for considerable hope.
I for one recall the forlorn promises that advances in technology would free us all up, releasing time from tedium and providing leisure opportunities for everyone. If such a situation were to be realised, then perhaps the more academic, abstract or ethereal of subjects might enjoy a resurgence, embraced once again not for any apparent utilitarian gain but simply for the sheer love of learning and its edifying influence on the human soul. One can dream, at least.
Before all this change hits home, there will be some serious and unpleasant upheaval for us all.
I may think I can advise students on future progression routes simply because I have done this job for so long. That’s the point of professional experience, after all. But maybe I have to admit that I am not seeing things so clearly anymore.
The world I think I understand is not the world my students are going to live in. They are entering a workplace that is still in the tumultuous process of being born.
So I’ll be doing them a disservice if I don’t admit I’m short-sighted here. I can see that clearly now. I have to admit the lenses I used to see through may need to dramatically change. My view of the future is rooted firmly in my own past.
Forget the rose-tinted spectacles. In a time of such change as we face today, I may just as well be blind.
Around college buildings all over the country you will often find posters which proudly list all the jobs particular courses could lead people to. But I do not know if those jobs will even exist in 10 years’ time.
So we educationalists have to think it all up from scratch, and do so soon.
I’m starting to get used to my new glasses. I can pop one extended arm thoughtfully between my pursed lips as I ponder.
“The education system stands or falls on the extent to which it is led by adults who are, themselves, flourishing.”
This vision was developed by the Confederation of School Trusts, Church of England and Catholic Education Service, but will resonate strongly with college leaders too.
FE is a sector built on transformation – for learners, communities and the wider economy. But if we want our learners to truly flourish, we must first ensure that those teaching them are flourishing.
The demands on college leaders and staff have never been greater. From navigating funding pressures and policy changes, to dealing with complex safeguarding issues and increasing SEND pressures, the weight of responsibility can be immense.
Yet too often, professional development frameworks focus solely on technical skills and compliance, overlooking the human element of leadership.
Our organisations share a vision to reimagine education as a career where every educator can expect to flourish, not just survive. To achieve this, we know that wellbeing needs to be at its heart.
The National Society of Education developed its Flourishing Leaders programme to help schools with this vision, but it became clear that its principles were just as vital in FE.
Recognising this need, we worked together to bring several colleges to the table to explore how the model could translate into FE practice. This led to a pilot involving 50 leaders from 20 colleges across the country, featuring programmes for emerging leaders, system leaders and leaders of equality, diversity, inclusion and justice.
Colleges face particular challenges: large workforces, diverse learner cohorts and staff who have often joined from industry rather than through traditional teacher training routes. Such colleagues bring incredible expertise, but they also need compelling reasons to stay, given the fact they are likely to earn higher salaries in industry.
Crucially, these staff members tend to be rooted in purpose and are motivated by the sense of giving something back. We therefore need to do the same for them.
The recent skills white paper’s emphasis on workforce development is welcome, but we need to go further. Professional development at scale in a college of 1,000 staff looks very different from a small school.
That is why an initiative such as City College Plymouth’s decision to refocus all CPD around the concept of flourishing is so significant. This is not about sending individuals on a course; it is about ensuring wellbeing is our core purpose and embeddedinto the culture and systems of leadership.
So, what does this look like in practice? Here are five principles for FE leaders to consider:
Make wellbeing a strategic priority, not an afterthought. Build it into leadership frameworks and CPD plans for staff at all levels. Treat it as integral to performance, not separate from it.
Create safe spaces for honest conversations. Staff need freedom to talk about difficult issues without fear of judgment. Psychological safety is central to both trust and innovation in every organisation.
Model openness and courage. When leaders share their own challenges and learning, it gives others agency to do the same. Confidence to speak out and act starts at the top.
Focus on purpose, not just process. Remind staff why their work matters. For many in FE, the sense of mission – transforming lives and communities – is a powerful motivator.
Invest in holistic development. Leadership growth is not just about technical competence; it is about resilience and the ability to lead with hope in challenging times.
Our greatest growth often comes through our greatest challenges. By putting wellbeing at the centre of leadership development we can create colleges where staff feel valued, supported and inspired. Our institutions will then become places where learners can reap the benefits of flourishing educators.
The question for every FE leader is this: Are we building systems that enable our people to thrive? Because when leaders flourish, learners flourish. And that is the future our sector deserves.
By Petra Wilton, Director of Policy & External Affairs, CMI
In my time at CMI, I’ve noticed that there is one common lesson that all of the most successful leaders have learnt: that their most valuable asset is their people.
Regardless of what might be happening in the wider economy, a strong, stable and resilient talent pipeline is not a nice to have, but an absolute essential.
The responsibility of senior leaders to develop their organisation’s future leaders has never been more pressing as the country works to tackle the alarming growth in youth unemployment and economic inactivity. A generation that had its formative years up-ended by pandemic is now trying to find its feet, just as generative AI continues its high-speed march into our workplaces. The result? We are close to tipping beyond one million young people becoming NEETs – not in employment, education or training.
Self-management – communicate, challenge and collaborate
It’s time for employers – and training and education providers – to act. This critical leak in the pipeline of young talent comes just as employers tell us that they need to boost rates of retention to provide the continuity that will help future proof their operations. Organisations that work with employers to deliver training need to respond with workable solutions. We need to help them train their future managers and leaders.
Teaching young people core employability and team leadership competencies before they take their first steps into managing direct reports sets them up for success. That could mean equipping them to navigate team dynamics, to lead challenging conversations and disagree agreeably, to set clear objectives, and to both give and receive constructive feedback. These skills aren’t innate, they are learnt.
The skills gained through CMI accreditation are the foundations for any team leader, starting with strong self-management. That means learning how to prioritise, manage workload and meet deadlines consistently. It means sharper communication skills and powers of persuasion. It translates into improved collaboration and moves both employees and their employers a step closer to achieving strategic objectives.
Signal ambition
By unlocking the confidence of younger workers you are giving them the tools they’ll need to map their career, with progression clearly in their sights. Take Paige, who at 18 opted to swerve university – and a hefty student debt – in favour of a management apprenticeship with Transport for London (TfL). Fast forward a few years and Paige is now a depot manager and evangelical about the benefits of teaching people how to manage. She points out that young trainee managers bring fresh thinking, aren’t married to existing practices and can challenge the organisational status quo.
For employers, we know that when organisations invest in management and leadership skills, they see an average 23% boost in performance. That translates into growth through improved productivity – the golden goose that every organisation is chasing right now.
Our research tells us that 93% of learners who have achieved Foundation Chartered Manager status say it provides them with a recognised, professional benchmark, allowing them to stand out from their peers and signal their ambition.
Construction, social care – need critical management skills
The value of gaining those management skills early is amplified in sectors where younger workers are often entrusted with significant responsibilities, including those related to safety, compliance, and human welfare.
Industries like health and social care and construction are prime examples. A worker on a construction site in their early 20s is often handed a direct report within the first two to three years. Similarly, a care worker in their mid-twenties can be managing a team, budgets, 24-hour rotas and critical safety procedures. Giving those young people a solid foundation sets them and their organisations up for success.
If, as a country, we are serious about boosting our national productivity and giving young people the dignity of a meaningful career, we cannot tinker around the edges. We need to invest in the skills that will equip them to become the resilient leaders our economy demands.
Apprenticeship training giant Multiverse has let more staff go as losses widened and cash balances nearly halved last year, according to its newly published accounts.
Multiverse, which was founded in 2016 by Tony Blair’s son Euan, announced a £2.6 million widening in its pre-tax losses in the year to March 31, 2025 to £63.3 million, even though its revenue jumped by over a third to almost £80 million.
The group also reported a 39 per cent drop in its cash balances from £135.4 million to £81.8 million. Leaders have however pressed that the company is “trending towards profitability”.
Accounts published yesterday show headcount fell by 1 per cent in 2025 from 822 to 813, which the company acknowledged but said it was rewarding its workforce more with a 16 per cent increase in staff costs.
The firm paid out almost £980,000 to 55 employees in compensation for loss of office last year, a reduction from the nearly £2 million paid to 103 former staff in 2024.
Leaders said they have spent a significant amount of time scaling internal processes with AI, leading to fewer employed people.
Multiverse specialises in data and digital apprenticeships, mostly at higher education levels, and has degree awarding powers for its level 6 digital and technology solutions programme.
The company recently took the title of England’s largest revenue-generating apprenticeship provider for the first time, overtaking Kaplan.
Multiverse recorded £58.9 million in revenue from apprenticeship training between April 2023 and March 2024, up from £44.1 million and fourth place the previous year.
Recent apprenticeship figures for the 2024-25 full year show Multiverse is also close to overtaking Lifetime Training as England’s biggest apprenticeship training provider in terms of apprentice volume.
Last year, it saw a 52 per cent jump in starts from 7,910 in 2023-24 to 12,030 in 2024-25. Meanwhile, Lifetime noted a 20 per cent fall in apprenticeship starts, from 16,330 in 2023-24 to 13,100 in 2024-25.
‘Strategy towards profitability’
Multiverse is yet to record a profit since launching a decade ago.
For the 2024-25 financial year, the company reported a negative £59.7 million earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation (EBITDA) in 2025, an improvement on the negative £61.3 million EBITDA the year prior.
This was driven by cash nearly halving to £81.8 million last year but Blair stressed that its cash projections are “sufficient” to continue growing.
Revenue shot up by over a third to £79.6 million, which it attributed to its “accelerated market importance” in AI and data skills.
In a LinkedIn post last month, founder Euan Blair said he was setting “ambitious” targets for growth and had secured new partnerships with software providers such as Palantir, Microsoft and Databricks.
A Multiverse spokesperson said: “Companies are looking for ways to create genuine productivity improvements from their AI investments. We’re delivering that both for our growing customer base, and at Multiverse, where revenue per employee is up 37 per cent. Our revenue growth is accelerating, and our key earnings metric, EBITDA, has further improved as we deploy our strategy towards profitability.”
The spokesperson told FE Week it was not concerned with the drop in cash overall as it is “trending towards profitability” as noted in the accounts.
Last year, I wrote how Skills England could be transformative, but only if it had real influence across government, independence, meaningful employer engagement, and the powers to drive change. That matters more than ever with youth unemployment rising, productivity forecasts downgraded and economic growth stubbornly weak.
So how is it getting on?
Skills England is beginning to shape the language and direction of skills reform. It has an energetic chair, Phil Smith, who understands the system and its shortcomings. However, the decision to move it to the Department for Work and Pensions raises real concerns.
England’s skills system has a long history of new bodies that never quite land. Skills England is now around the thirteenth national skills body in fifty years. Structural churn slows delivery and carries a hidden cost in lost corporate memory.
There’s also a danger of expectations racing ahead of capacity. Skills England has inherited complex functions, high visibility and deep-rooted problems. Without the tools, stability and time to succeed, optimism will quickly turn to cynicism, regardless of leadership.
From employer-led to pro-employer
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) was legally required to be employer-led. Skills England was initially framed the same way, albeit without statutory footing. It is now described by DWP as pro-employer.
That distinction matters. Pro-employer risks becoming a system designed for employers, but decided by ministers.
Having served on IfATE’s board for four years, my biggest concern remains Skills England’s diminished powers and role of employers. This includes the loss of statutory underpinning, with the formal accountability to Parliament removed and no legal duty to consult employers. It raises the critical question: is Skills England a system leader, or a system supervisor? And is the apprenticeship levy there to support employer training investment, or to fund ministerial priorities?
Employer engagement is therefore the critical test, and cannot be limited to ad hoc consultation. It requires shared ownership of standards, products and outcomes, and a system that genuinely values employer insight, rather than treating engagement as a tick-box exercise.
Will DWP priorities differ from DfE?
The DWP Secretary’s priorities letter signals a shift in tone, but not a wholesale break with the past. What will matter is how DWP uses its new responsibilities and funding to deliver against its core objective: stopping rising unemployment.
That objective risks pushing the system towards volume over quality. We are already seeing signs of this; Level 7 apprenticeships removed from levy funding eligibility. Level 6 degree apprenticeships facing intense scrutiny, despite often offering the strongest career prospects. Minimum durations reduced to eight months. English and maths requirements removed. Off-the-job training rules being loosened. Proposals for ‘apprenticeship units’ also create the prospect of apprenticeship training that lasts only a few weeks.
The quality requirements introduced over the past decade existed for a reason, moving apprenticeships away from being a second-rate option that reduced unemployment figures without genuinely setting people up for careers.
The recent budget underlined how constrained the operating environment now is.
Skills saw no meaningful new investment, with the Office for Budget Responsibility concluding the budget measures won’t improve overall productivity or growth.
There were no structural reforms to the skills system. No uplift to apprenticeship funding bands. No new employer incentives. Detail on the long-trailed growth and skills levy did not materialise.
The upcoming increase in the apprentice minimum wage will be welcomed by apprentices, but raises costs particularly for smaller employers. The extension of zero SME co-investment for apprentices aged 22 to 24 should help reduce cost barriers for younger adults. But combined with frozen tax thresholds, higher national insurance contributions and wider inflationary pressures, some employers may reduce apprentice recruitment.
At least levy receipts are forecast to rise from £4.4 billion in 2025-26 to £5 billion by 2029-30.
Skills shortages do not respect departmental boundaries.
They are shaped by Treasury funding decisions, major infrastructure and housebuilding programmes, DWP employment policy, Home Office migration choices, industrial strategy and more. Without real authority across government, Skills England risks being accountable for outcomes it cannot control. Skills England should be hosted in Treasury to be truly cross government.
Parliamentary debates have already raised concerns about whether it has enough weight across Whitehall. That is not a technical issue. It goes to the heart of whether Skills England can succeed, or whether we will soon be welcoming the fourteenth national skills body in 50 years.
So, Skills England has made a credible start. It has retained effective systems inherited from IfATE, strengthened the evidence base, and established itself as a central player in skills reform. The next phase must be about delivery for employers and apprentices alike, not just presence.
Nearly a dozen college leaders and a WorldSkills UK gold medallist have been named in the King’s 2026 new year honours.
The list includes four CBEs, nine OBEs, 11MBEs, five British Empire Medals, but no knighthoods or damehoods, for individuals linked to further education, skills and apprenticeships.
Debra Gray, principal of Hull College, was made a CBE alongside Lisa O’Loughlin, principal and CEO of East Lancashire Learning Group and recently retired Luminate Education Group chief executive Colin Booth.
Lisa O’Loughlin
O’Loughlin, who was a panel member of the independent curriculum and assessment review led by Becky Francis, said: “I’m truly humbled by this award and deeply grateful to those who took the time to nominate me.
“Excellence in education is never the result of individual effort; it is built through strong collaboration between students, parents, employers, partners and the exceptional teachers and support colleagues I have the privilege to work alongside every day. I’m immensely proud of what we achieve together, and thankful that our collective commitment is being recognised at a national level.”
Another six college leaders received OBEs.
Anna Dawe, principal and chief executive of Wigan and Leigh College was recognised for services to further education. As was Julia Heap, principal and chief executive of Hopwood Hall College, Rachael Hennigan, principal and chief executive of Hugh Baird College, Sara Russell, principal of Peter Symonds College and Nikos Savvas, chief executive of Eastern Education Group.
Savvas said: “This honour belongs to the whole of Eastern Education Group and to Suffolk,” said Dr Savvas. “What we have achieved here shows that world-class education doesn’t only happen in big cities. Suffolk is leading the way, and this award is recognition of the people, partnerships and communities that make that possible. I’m incredibly proud of what we’ve accomplished together.”
Founder and CEO of training provider IN4 Group, Mo Isap, who is also a board director of The Careers and Enterprise Company and vice chair of Star Academies, was also made an OBE.
Meanwhile, Katherine Green, director general for skills at the Department for Work and Pensions, has been appointed a Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB), an honour only awarded to senior civil servants and military officers.
MBE for WorldSkills UK medallist
Gold medal winning WorldSkills UK competitor Isabelle Barron has made an MBE for services to vocational education. Barron topped the digital construction table for the UK at EuroSkills Gdañsk in 2023, bringing home the UK’s only gold medal from that competition.
Barron
Barron said being made an MBE by the King was “an incredible honour”.
She added: “Winning gold in digital construction at EuroSkills 2023 was a defining moment for me and I would like to thank Michael McGuire, my WorldSkills UK training manager for believing in me every step of the way.
“Competing in WorldSkills UK competitions changed my life, and I hope this recognition will help inspire more young people to get involved.”
Ben Blackledge, chief executive of WorldSkills UK, said: “This new year honour is a fitting recognition of Izzy’s dedication to developing her own skills, furthering her career and championing the UK’s digital construction industry.
“Her gold medal success demonstrates the strength of UK technical expertise on the international stage and highlights the vital role high-level digital skills play in driving productivity, innovation and quality across the construction sector.”
Jane Hadfield, national apprenticeships lead for the NHS and former board member of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, was awarded an MBE for services to education.
Safaraz Ali, CEO of Pathway Group and founder of the Multicultural Apprenticeships Awards, was awarded an MBE for services to diversity and inclusion in business.
New year honours 2026 – Further education and skills
Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE)
Colin Booth, lately chief executive, Luminate Education Group, for services to further education
Debra Gray, principal, Hull College, for services to further education
Lisa O’Loughlin, principal and chief executive officer, East Lancashire Learning Group, for services to further education
Oonagh Smyth, chief executive officer, Skills for Care, for services to adult social care
Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)
Tracy Aust, lately principal and chief executive, West Thames College, for services to further education
Anna Dawe, principal and chief executive, Wigan and Leigh College, for services to further education
Julia Heap, principal and chief executive, Hopwood Hall College, for services to further education
Rachael Hennigan, principal and chief executive, Hugh Baird College, for services to further education
Mohamed Isap, chief executive of IN4 Group, for services to education
Sarah Lee, deputy director for education, employment and skills, HM Prison and Probation Service, for public service
Deborah Millar, executive director of digital transformation, Hull College, for services to further education
Sara Russell, principal, Peter Symonds College, for services to further education
Nikolaos Savvas, chief executive, Eastern Education Group, for services to further education
Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE)
Safaraz Ali, chief executive, Pathway Group, for services to diversity and inclusion in business
Paula Allerton, head of apprenticeships, HM Revenue and Customs, for services to apprenticeships
Andrew Barnes, lately chair of governors, City College Norwich, for services to further education
Isabelle Barron, team member, WorldSkills UK, for services to vocational education
Alan Foster, governor, Wilberforce Sixth Form College, for services to further education
Kathryn Geraghty, head of technical qualifications, National Theatre, for services to education and skills
Jane Hadfield, lately board member, Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, for services to education
Joanna Hughes, director, Joanna Hughes Solicitor Apprenticeships, for services to education and skills
Hazrat Islam, senior manager, regions and providers directorate, Department for Education, for services to further education
Julie Kapsalis, lately chair, Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership, for services to economic development
Vivienne McCormack, managing director, Michaeljohn Training Manchester, for services to vocational education
Medallists of the Order of the British Empire
Peter Clark, head of 16-19 funding and financial support policy, Department for Education, for services to further education
Ruth Flynn, director of sixth form, La Retraite Roman Catholic Girls School, for services to further education
Andrew Salter, apprentice training manager, AWE plc, for services to defence engineering and to young people
Victoria Seymour, lately tutor, Somerset Skills and Learning, for services to skills
Angela Wooller, apprenticeship and qualifications manager, East Sussex County Council, for services to further education
If you think a name has been missed, please email news@feweek.co.uk
If 2024 was about signalling change, 2025 was the year reforms arrived en masse.
For Whitehall, it was a year of ‘simplification’, ‘streamlining’ and ‘cutting red tape’ across apprenticeships, inspections, qualifications and funding. For FE Week readers though, it was a year of added complexity; a redistribution, rather than removal, of bureaucracy and risk.
Ofsted scrapped the overall effectiveness grade but replaced it with more graded judgments. Some apprenticeship English and maths rules were relaxed, but providers are now navigating grey areas around assessment, duration and quality. And years of ‘will they, won’t they’ over scrapping BTECs was finally settled. They will, with yet another new government-driven level 3 vocational qualification.
If that gap between rhetoric and reality wasn’t clear enough already, we had Keir Starmer’s summer conference speech declaring further education a “defining mission” for his government. Typical, isn’t it, that such a commitment was to come from a prime minister at a time when his own position looks increasingly uncertain.
October’s ‘more with less’ post-16 education and skills white paper was the first opportunity to put Starmer’s words to the test. It was a framework to take us into the 2030s, built on the most pressing challenges of 2025: arresting the rise in NEETs (not in education, employment or training), diverting funding towards young people and prioritising reduced adult education spending – national and devolved – on economic growth sectors.
Demands for an adult education strategy were answered implicitly rather than explicitly. “Packages” worth £800m for construction and defence training at the same time as “regrettable” cuts to the general adult skills fund and tailored learning told us everything we needed to know. Adult education is rhetorically desirable, but fiscally expendable and will now come in “packages”.
Meanwhile, young people have V Levels to look forward to. First revealed by FE Week and later confirmed in Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review, the latest iteration of vocational qualifications ends years of rows over the future of BTECs (RIP) and hopefully fills the applied general qualification-shaped gap left by T Levels.
Sector reaction to V Levels was fairly muted, with the standout exception of Trafford and Stockport College Group’s James Scott simultaneously giving the idea the V for victory and, well, the other V sign.
We can only hope that ministers and policymakers have learned the lessons of rushing through reforms at pace, remembering millions spent getting T Levels out the door only for some of them to end up on the scrapheap.
Moving house
But who would have thought Angela Rayner’s resignation as deputy prime minister would have given the FE sector its biggest surprise of the year? In a move nobody saw coming, Starmer used the post-Rayner reshuffle to strip the Department for Education (DfE) of the skills policy brief and move it to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) under its new secretary of state, Pat McFadden.
We kept skills minister Jacqui Smith, who works on 16-19 and higher education at DfE and adult skills and apprenticeships at DWP.
But it took a few weeks to work out precisely what was moving, and confusion reigned even among MPs.
Skills England had barely established itself before being housed in its second department. The new executive agency had its first real scrap with the sector at the tail-end of this year over its handling of reforms to apprenticeship assessment and was forced to defend its plans against accusations it was “dumbing down” standards.
Funding costs
Funding was of course never far from the headlines. Throughout 2025, FE Week monitored adult skills spending in every devolved authority, and delved into the foreseeable shock that was the boom in 16-year-olds that caught the college system unprepared.
But it was level 7 apprenticeship funding that saw the biggest political fallout this year, splitting the sector between those sympathetic to the government’s aims of redistributing limited funds towards opportunities for young people and those fearing scrapping the programmes would cut off routes to the top professions. If it hadn’t been for members of the Cabinet reigning in Bridget Phillipson, as we exclusively revealed, the cuts would have been even deeper.
Our investigations also showed the long tail of DfE’s decision to give employers and training providers a long lead-in time before turning off the level 7 tap. Right now, providers and employers are scrambling for starts. There were 228 per cent more level 7 starts in July 2025 than July 2024 – and we don’t even have the data yet for the final months of this calendar year when the rush will intensify further.
The cost is not just financial. The already stretched apprenticeship budget, with its fixed funding bands, demands from new programmes like foundation apprenticeships, growth and skills courses and a level 2 business admin standard reportedly somewhere in the pipeline, can only go so far before ministers are forced to make more tough decisions about higher level (and the most expensive) provision.
The cost will also be reputational. There is a sad inevitability about the hit recently improved achievement rates will likely take when newly minted level 7 apprentices (mostly senior leaders and accountants) drop out, don’t pass, or are found to be receiving poor quality training from providers that have grown too quickly.
Some problems though are even closer to home. At the same time as being asked to solve the country’s workforce deficits, the FE sector is battling with its own. Our investigations into staffing shortages this year show a clear tonal shift from years of warnings to real-life consequences in the form of cancelled courses, record waiting lists and ongoing industrial disputes.
Spotlight returns to governance
While reform (and Reform) dominated headlines, college governance was one of 2025’s more uncomfortable subplots.
We saw Weston College emerge from scandal, but not before its former chair revealed he had felt powerless to stop millions in undeclared payments going to his still-knighted former principal.
By summer, a new scandal had emerged. After months of mystery surrounding the disappearance of Burnley College’s principal, Karen Buchanan, Ofsted revealed the college had been inflating its 16-19 achievement rates, misleading students and the public by proudly but falsely declaring itself to be the “number one” college in the country.
Governors were rightly slammed in both cases, triggering much-needed fresh debate about college governance models.
It probably wasn’t the final year as FE Commissioner that Shelagh Legrave was hoping for, but it did lead to her issuing some powerful parting advice to governors about challenging powerful leaders – beware of “hero principals.”
Lots to look forward to
We enter 2026 with FE defined by the (current) prime minister as central to the government’s economic mission, repositioned closer to the welfare system and with a white paper promising more change to come in every corner of the sector.
Major SEND reforms, V Levels, new level 2 pathways, beefed up local accountability rules, an adult essential skills review, higher technical “partnerships” with embattled universities, finally sight of the growth and skills levy, all alongside a new inspection regime, rising young student numbers, tougher public sanctions on misbehaving FE teachers and a major review into stubbornly high youth unemployment.
That is all to say nothing of the rising threat to educational integrity from the unregulated use of AI in FE classrooms and the front-line battles being fought right now by providers to keep communities together in the face of divisions stoked by the far right.
You have your work cut out for you, and so does FE Week.
A former college principal and awarding body chair who was recently appointed to the House of Lords has admitted incorrectly claiming that she had a PhD.
Dame Ann Limb, who has chaired City & Guilds since 2021, published a CV on her website stating that she had a “PhD University of Liverpool” and an MA in “applied linguistics” from the Institute of Linguists.
But the former Milton Keynes and Cambridge Regional College principal has now admitted this was incorrect after an investigation by the Sunday Times, telling the paper that she started but “never” completed a PhD at the university.
The information about Limb’s 1970s PhD was published on her personal website in a CV that appears to have been uploaded in August 2020 and refers to her as “Dr”.
Her “Dr” title has repeatedly appeared in high-profile biographies, including the Cabinet Office’s Queen’s birthday honours 2022 list that awarded her a damehood, a 2021 City and Guilds’ announcement that she had been appointed the charity’s chair, and a recent University of Liverpool post celebrating her peerage.
Responding to the Sunday Times, Limb said: “Just to be completely upfront and honest about it, I never completed my PhD at Liverpool University.”
She added that she used the word “doctor” because she has several honorary doctorates, but admitted that her website is “perhaps not very helpful”.
She will sit on the Labour benches and will take the title Baroness Limb of Moss Side in the city of Manchester and County of Lancashire.
Limb’s CV says she has been awarded seven honorary doctorates from universities since 2003.
Universities often offer honorary doctorates for recognition of personal, academic or professional achievement, but recipients tend not to use the title.
A new CV appears to have been uploaded to Limb’s website in July 2024 that removed the ‘Dr’ title and claim that she had achieved a PhD in 1978, three years after completing her bachelor’s degree.
However, it continues to claim that she was awarded an MA in “Applied Linguistics Final Diploma Institute of Linguists (Distinction)” in 1976.
The Institute of Linguists, now known as the Chartered Institute of Linguists, told the Sunday Times: “We have never awarded MAs.”
Limb’s website also refers to her career in further education beginning in 1976 “whilst she was undertaking her PhD at the University of Liverpool”.
She said: “I undertook a PhD at Liverpool University which I did not complete. I have been awarded several honorary PhDs and therefore used the title Dr prior to being awarded a Damehood.
“The postgraduate Maitrise des Lettres (MA) completed in France in the mid 1970’s was unrelated to membership of the Institute of Linguists for which I took and passed a separate exam.”
Limb has held a range of chair roles, including the Scouts, Lloyds Bank’s charitable arm, and King Charles’ King’s Foundation.
As chair of City & Guilds she co-wrote a piece for FE Week justifying the sale of the 150-year-old technical education awarding body to a Greek certification business to avoid it sliding “imperceptibly into irrelevance”.
Limb remains chair of the City & Guilds Foundation charity.
