Latest news from FE Week

Tees Valley cancels skills tender after legal challenge

A mayoral authority has officially scrapped a £21 million adult education procurement after a training provider launched legal action against it.

Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) began a tender for adult skills funding in January, with contracts due to begin this August and run for three years.

But the procurement was paused last month without explanation, two days after Learning Curve Group and two subsidiaries filed a legal claim against the authority at the Technology and Construction Court, which handles public procurement disputes.

FE Week has now seen a message sent to bidders today confirming the procurement has been formally withdrawn. It will now review the tender’s specification to better reflect skills shortages in the area.

In the message, a TVCA procurement officer said: “Due to a material change in circumstances, the combined authority has taken the decision to withdraw this procurement opportunity.

“Following finalisation of the grant funded provider delivery plans and development of the local skills improvement plan 2026-2029, the combined authority considers it necessary to review the specification to ensure that the adult skills fund appropriately reflects identified skills shortages and gaps.

“The procurement is therefore being withdrawn at this stage to allow for that review.”

The authority added that “a further opportunity is expected to be published in the coming weeks”.

Although Learning Curve Group is understood to have submitted a bid for the TVCA contract, it remains unclear whether the procurement withdrawal is linked to the legal claim.

Tees Valley Combined Authority and Learning Curve Group were approached for comment.

The legal action came a year after Learning Curve, based in County Durham, reached a confidential financial settlement with the Department for Education following a dispute over losing out on a national adult education budget contract in 2023.

V Levels: getting the foundations right for students, staff and the sector

At Cambridge OCR, we believe the long‑term success of V Levels will depend less on their ambition on paper and more on how effectively they are implemented. Qualifications earn trust gradually – through clarity, consistency and support in real classrooms. If V Levels are to establish themselves as a credible and valued pathway, getting the early foundations right matters enormously.

This is not simply a question of qualification design. It is about timing, communication, assessment approaches, workforce readiness and the extent to which educators are treated as partners in reform, rather than recipients of it.

More information on what exactly V Levels are, and what we know about their development so far, can be found on Cambridge OCR’s dedicated page. If you’d like help with your transition plan, check out our free, practical transition toolkit. And teachers who want to get involved in our development of V Levels can join the Cambridge OCR teacher panel.

Learning from previous reform cycles

The post‑16 sector has considerable experience of implementing qualification reform, from which we’ve learned some valuable lessons.

One of the most consistent is this: the first years of delivery disproportionately shape a qualification’s reputation. If early cohorts experience uncertainty, rushed preparation or inconsistent assessment, confidence can be undermined for years to come.

This uncertainty can mean increased workload and stress for teachers, or recruitment and retention headaches for leaders. At a national policy level, it can weaken trust in reform itself.

This is why timelines, piloting and early support matter as much as policy design.

Educators as co‑creators, not end‑users

High‑quality vocational qualifications depend on the experience and expertise of those who deliver them. Teachers and curriculum leaders understand how students engage with content and how assessment influences teaching behaviours, so it’s essential teachers are involved in the creation of the new qualifications.

Involving teachers and educators early and meaningfully in the development of V Levels brings tangible benefits:

assessment models are more likely to reflect real workplace application
specifications are clearer and more teachable
support materials are better aligned to classroom need

Treating teachers and educators as co‑creators rather than final‑stage implementers increases the likelihood that qualifications are both rigorous and deliverable at scale.

At Cambridge OCR we’ve called for this educator involvement at a policy level. But we are also putting it into practice ourselves: teachers who want to get involved in the development of Cambridge OCR V Levels can join the Cambridge OCR teacher panel.

Supporting teachers through change

Introducing new qualifications inevitably brings additional demands on teachers, particularly when reforms coincide with wider pressures on workload and recruitment. Successful reform will require meaningful support for teachers, schools and colleges.

Effective support during qualification reform includes:

classroom‑ready teaching materials
clear assessment guidance, model work at different levels, and real student exemplars
access to expertise from experienced Subject Advisors who really understand the challenges of vocational delivery.

What this means for senior leaders

For senior teams in colleges and schools, the introduction of V Levels is more than a curriculum issue. It has strategic implications for staffing, finance and risk management.

Leaders need early clarity to plan effectively:

what specialist expertise will be required
how staff will be supported through professional development
how V Levels will fit alongside existing A Level and T Level offers

Clear transition arrangements are essential to protect students and maintain institutional stability.

Managing transition responsibly

For V Levels, changes will be introduced in phases over several years. This means many existing Level 3 qualifications will continue in some subjects, while V Levels are introduced in others, resulting in mixed programmes during the transition period.

The government announced in March the first three V level subject areas for first teach September 2027: digital, finance and accounting, and education & early years. More recently, an updated timeline has been released as part of the government’s post-16 implementation plan, including subject areas to be taught from 2028.

Managing this responsibly requires unambiguous guidance.

From a leadership perspective, this includes:

certainty that students will complete funded programmes
consistency in external accountability expectations
clear messaging to parents, students and employers

The smoother the transition, the more confidence leaders can have in adopting new qualifications without exposing students or staff to unnecessary risk.

All post‑16 providers are required to produce and submit a transition plan to the Department for Education (DfE). Cambridge OCR has created a free practical Transition Toolkit to help schools and colleges plan clearly and save time in meeting DfE expectations.

Progression must be visible and credible

For students, the ultimate question is simple: where can this qualification take me?

V Levels must quickly establish clear and credible progression routes, including:

clarity about higher education pathways where appropriate
recognition by apprenticeship routes
progression to employment in relevant sectors

Successful qualifications rely on confidence: students need confidence that vocational choices keep doors open. Teachers and leaders need clear guidance to support informed advice.

Making assessment straightforward

As we work with the DfE and the regulator to develop the new qualifications, we will actively champion our commitment to making assessment straightforward. Overly complex terminology can obscure purpose and deter confidence.

If V Levels are to succeed, their role in the post‑16 system needs to be easy to explain:

what they are designed for
how they differ from other pathways
who they best serve

What policymakers should bear in mind

For policymakers, the success of V Levels will rest not only on structural coherence, but on whether providers feel confident and supported as change is implemented over time.

Key considerations include:

allowing sufficient time for development, testing and preparation before first teaching
recognising the cumulative impact of reform on provider capacity and confidence
using sector feedback early to inform guidance, support and adjustment

Experience shows that tightly phased reforms succeed best when providers are not left to navigate complexity alone. Clear communication, practical support and responsive collaboration will be critical.

Cambridge OCR is committed to working alongside the sector throughout transition, helping providers plan, adapt and maintain confidence as V Levels are introduced.

Looking ahead

At Cambridge OCR, our experience across both academic and vocational qualifications reinforces a simple truth: trust is built through consistency, transparency and partnership. Reform works best when it is done with the sector, not to it.

V Levels represent a genuine opportunity to reset how vocational education is understood and valued. They have the potential to bring clarity to a complex landscape and to give students stronger, more confident choices at level 3.

But the sector has learned, sometimes painfully, that good intentions are not enough. When qualifications are introduced too quickly, without sufficient testing, training or clarity, the cost is borne by teachers, leaders and students alike. Reputations are hard to build and even harder to recover.

If V Levels are to succeed, they must be implemented with realism as well as ambition.

Find out more at Cambridge OCR and check out our FAQs section.

About the author

Cambridge OCR is the UK awarding organisation of Cambridge University Press & Assessment. We work with schools, colleges and policymakers to develop qualifications that are rigorous, fair and support positive outcomes for students.

Pay colleges for ‘outcomes not headcounts’, Milburn suggests

Colleges should be funded based on whether students move into jobs or further training rather than simply how many enrol, Alan Milburn has suggested in a landmark review of Britain’s growing NEET crisis.

The former Labour health secretary said the post-16 system rewards “headcounts not outcomes”, incentivising colleges to prioritise recruitment and retention over sustained progression into work.

His interim review, commissioned by ministers to investigate why one million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET), argued the institutions designed to support young people into adulthood are “no longer fit for that purpose” and called for a “whole system reset”.

The report estimated the annual economic cost of around one million NEET young people at £125 billion, which is more than Britain spends on education each year. Around one in eight 16 to 24 year olds are now classed as NEET. Only Romania records a worse youth NEET rate in Europe.

Today’s publication from Milburn is an interim diagnostic report, with final recommendations expected later this year.

Qualifications no longer enough

Milburn said the evidence does not point to a single cause of the NEET crisis, but to a wider failure of the state to support young people into work.

He argued that schools, colleges, the NHS, welfare agencies and employers operate in silos with no shared accountability for whether young people successfully make the transition into work.

Four in ten NEET young people now hold qualifications at A Level standard or above, while 15 per cent have degrees. More than one in five hold a level 3 qualification.

But employers are still “not absorbing them” into the labour market.

“The first rungs on the old career ladder have weakened,” Milburn wrote, describing a jobs market in which entry-level work has become scarcer, recruitment less human and more automated, and employers increasingly reluctant to take risks on inexperienced applicants.

He said the apprenticeship system, which “ought to be one of the main routes” to bring young people into work, has drifted away from young people “who need them most” – with starts for dropping by over 40 per cent after the apprenticeship levy was “captured” by employers upskilling existing workers rather than bringing in new ones.

Six in ten NEET young people have never had a job, up from four in ten in 2005. The report also found that almost 60 per cent are now economically inactive, meaning they are not actively seeking work.

Milburn rejected suggestions that younger generations are unwilling to work. Survey work conducted for the review found that 84 per cent of NEET young people wanted a job, education or training opportunity.

‘Post-16 cliff edge’

The review paints a bleak picture of an education system that “produces qualifications but does not guarantee transitions”.

It described the post-16 skills landscape as not just “underfunded”, but “confused, fragmented and designed around institutional convenience rather than the needs of the young people navigating it”.

Milburn identified a sharp “post-16 cliff edge” after the age of 18, when local authority tracking responsibilities through the raising the participation age policy largely fall away and no institution has responsibility for young people who disappear from education and work.

“The system loses young people not because they vanish but because no one is looking,” the report said.

The review also warned that further education has been “hollowed out” by a decade of real-terms cuts, while employer investment in training has declined and repeated policy changes have fragmented the skills system.

Careers guidance is described as “a statutory duty without enforcement”, while work experience remains “haphazard”.

Make colleges accountable for outcomes

Milburn said colleges are operating within a funding system that actively discourages growth.

College funding for 16 to 19 education is largely based on the previous year’s recruitment, meaning providers must often fund growth themselves before allocations catch up in later years.

Funding is also reduced when students fail to complete courses, making learners at higher risk of dropping out “financially risky” for colleges seeking to expand provision.

The report said these rules limit colleges’ ability to offer flexible, roll-on provision for young people who become NEET during the year.

Milburn contrasted this with higher education, where student numbers are uncapped and funding follows demand.

Labour market participation must be a “core objective” in both the school and college system, he argued.

“Schools are measured by exam results, not by whether young people end up in work. Colleges are funded for enrolment, not for sustained destinations,” he wrote.

“The education system knows who will struggle. It knows at age five. It knows again at age 11 and then at age 16 too. It has the data, the evidence and the research. It has had them for decades.

“What it does not have is the architecture, the funding or the accountability to act on what it knows.”

The report concluded that the education and skills system is “designed to produce qualifications rather than working adults”.

“Until colleges are funded for outcomes not headcounts, until the post-16 cliff edge is bridged and the young people the system loses are the young people it works hardest to hold, the tail of failure will persist,” Milburn wrote.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said colleges already help “thousands of young people into jobs” despite not being measured on employment outcomes.

He added that colleges could do “even more” if funding allowed them to continue supporting students after they entered work.

However, Hughes warned that using job outcomes as a funding metric was “fraught with difficulties” because labour markets vary significantly across the country.

A spokesperson for the Sixth Form Colleges Association said the priority should instead be “getting the fundamentals right”.

“That means raising the rate, providing more certainty on funding, slashing bureaucracy and providing colleges and schools with the autonomy they need to ensure that students receive the right level of support,” they said.

Milburn: Funding outcomes is entirely possible

Milburn launched his report at a London press conference today, where he told FE Week an outcomes-based funding system for colleges is both necessary and achievable despite major regional differences in labour markets.

The former social mobility adviser acknowledged reforming education’s incentives, inspection and accountability framework would represent “quite a big change” – but argued it is overdue.

“This is one of the things we really need to think about as we move into the next phase of this review,” he said.

Milburn said members of his review team are “actively talking to mayors and local authorities” because “labour markets are local”, arguing decisions about skills provision must be shaped by those who understand local economic demand.

“We know where the shortages are, where the deficits are, and unfortunately over recent years the funding and support simply hasn’t been there,” he said.

He argued the current system places too little emphasis on destinations and long-term outcomes.

“You get your five good GCSEs, the school gets a tick-in-the-box and passes Ofsted. But if 30 per cent of those young people end up NEET, is that really a good result? I’d say it’s a bad result.

“We’ve got to change the incentive system, the inspection system and what schools and colleges are accountable for.”

Milburn added: “We’ve got to find new mechanisms to put this right, I believe that’s entirely possible.”

Colleges can do more to tackle the NEET challenge – if we let them

Alan Milburn’s diagnostic report on England’s persistent NEET problem makes a compelling case that the systems meant to support young people are no longer designed for the lives they lead or the labour market they are entering.

Colleges already support hundreds of thousands of young people as they take their first steps into work and adult life. Every day, they help students build confidence, gain skills and find direction.

But with the right investment and policies, colleges could do far more: for pupils under 16 who are already at risk of disengaging, for 16-year-olds who need a supportive place to learn, and for 18-year-olds entering adult life without the education or training they need to secure good jobs.

The labour market has changed dramatically over the past 20 or 30 years. There are fewer entry-level vacancies and apprenticeships, and a persistent mismatch between the qualifications young people gain in school and the skills employers need.

Employers are clear that too many young people leave education not ready for work. They want more emphasis on communication, problem-solving, teamwork and analytical skills.

That mismatch helps explain why NEET numbers remain stubbornly high. Too many young people are being let down by a system that has not kept pace with change.

Colleges are ready to scale up support and focus more strongly on progression into good jobs, as well as qualifications that mean something to employers. But this requires more than small adjustments. It means doing some things differently, nationally and locally, with investment that delivers both a moral and economic return.

There are four practical steps government should take: two in post-16 education and training, and two before young people reach 16.

Fund colleges properly

Colleges are constrained by funding systems that effectively cap the number of students they can enrol.

For about half of 18 or 19-year-olds with the required advanced-level qualifications, the system works well. They can access higher education, and the funding follows them.

Their peers with lower-level qualifications have far fewer options. They cannot access maintenance support while they learn, have fewer choices of full-time education and training, and with apprenticeship vacancies like hen’s teeth, that route is closed to many too.

The result is that too many young people are pushed into the labour market before they are ready, without the skills employers want.

A simple solution would be to guarantee funding for every 16 to 24-year-old a college enrols, as we already do in higher education. Opportunity should not be rationed.

International evidence points the way. The Resolution Foundation’s Lost in transition report found that in 2024, just 22 per cent of 18 to 21-year-olds in the UK were on vocational courses. In the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, all countries with significantly lower NEET levels, the figure is 35 per cent.

More time in training helps young people access better jobs, earn more and pay more tax.

Build a coherent local system

Milburn rightly describes a fragmented system, lacking coherence and clear leadership.

Responsibility for supporting young people is split between schools, colleges, local authorities, the NHS, employment services and mayoral offices. Their roles and targets are not aligned. Too often, no single organisation is responsible for bringing partners together.

Young people slip through the gaps, and public money is wasted because it is not joined up.

We need stronger local coordination, backed by a clear national strategy. Each area should have a lead organisation able to convene partners, align priorities and drive a shared approach to prevention and re-engagement.

In some places, colleges can lead that effort. In others, local or strategic authorities may be better placed. The key is flexibility locally, with clear accountability nationally.

Let GCSE pupils spend time in college

Alongside post-16 reform, we should act earlier to prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place.

The first step is to expand opportunities for Key Stage 4 pupils to spend part of their week in college studying technical subjects alongside their core GCSEs.

Evidence shows this can improve attendance, engagement and progression. It taps into what motivates many young people: a visible route to a job.

For some pupils, GCSEs alone do not provide that. Time in college studying priority subjects such as engineering, construction, hospitality or digital can inspire them and strengthen their commitment to the core qualifications they still need.

Identify risk earlier

The second step is better data sharing between key partners.

Schools already use a risk-of-NEET indicator, but that intelligence is not shared consistently enough. Earlier identification, followed by faster and more coordinated support, could reduce the number of young people who disengage.

None of these ideas are complicated. All could be implemented quickly. And there will be similar practical proposals from health, local government and the third sector that deserve attention too.

Taken together, they would make a profound difference to a system that clearly needs to change.

Nearly one million 16 to 24-year-olds are currently NEET. That should shame us all. We should do everything possible to ensure every young person can access the education and support they need to succeed.

Colleges are ready to play their part. They just need a system that lets them.

Young people are ready for work. The system isn’t

The Milburn report should not surprise anyone who has been listening to young people.

Young people are clear: they want to work, contribute and build a future.

We hear that through our youth voice census, youth ambassadors, employer network and local partnerships. What frustrates them is not a lack of ambition, but a system that is too often fragmented, underfunded and too late.

That is the challenge now. Not whether we agree with the diagnosis, but whether government, local areas, FE, employers and funders are prepared to build the participation system young people need.

Our youth voice census gives us one of the clearest annual pictures of how young people experience education, employment, wellbeing and local opportunity. In 2025, more than 8,000 young people shared their views with us. Their message is consistent: aspiration is not the problem. Access is.

Young people tell us they value work experience, careers education, supportive adults and clear pathways. They know that skills, confidence and experience matter. But too many cannot access the opportunities that help them build those things.

The first rung of the ladder has not disappeared, but it has become harder to reach.

Further education has a vital role in changing that. Colleges are anchor institutions in their communities. I see that clearly through my role as a governor of Bedford College Group. Colleges sit close to young people, employers, families and local labour markets. They are often where young people find a second chance, a vocational identity, a trusted adult, or the confidence to believe work is possible.

But FE cannot be the whole answer. Youth employment is everyone’s business.

Colleges cannot keep being asked to absorb the consequences of problems that began much earlier: poor careers education, school absence, unmet SEND needs, mental health pressures, poverty, transport barriers, digital exclusion and weak local labour markets. Nor can they build pathways into work without employers, councils, schools, health services, Jobcentres, youth organisations and funders working around shared outcomes.

Colleges are doing extraordinary work. But goodwill is not a funding model, and isolated effort is not a system.

Time to deliver

It is welcome to see youth voice census evidence reflected in the national conversation.

But evidence alone is not enough. We now need delivery.

Our work with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority is a strong example of what that can look like. We are supporting CPCA to design a ten-year youth employment strategy rooted in youth voice, local need, employer engagement and system change.

It is not another short-term project. It asks what a local youth guarantee should actually do: who is at risk, where the gaps are, how employers are mobilised, how FE and providers connect around transitions, and how funding can be aligned to prevention rather than crisis response.

That is the work we now need to see everywhere.

Every local area should be asking: do we know which young people are at risk of becoming NEET? Do we know who is missing from the data? Are colleges, schools, employers, councils, youth services, health services and Jobcentres working around shared outcomes? Are young people able to access work experience, mentoring, employability support and real opportunities close to where they live?

And crucially: how are we going to fund it?

We cannot keep announcing national ambitions while asking local areas to stitch together delivery from short-term and unstable funding pots. If youth employment is central to growth, productivity and reducing welfare dependency, it has to be funded as economic infrastructure.

That is why Youth Employment UK is exploring funding gaps in the current system, including how levers such as section 106, social value and ESG can be used more strategically.

Fund long-term

Where major developments, regeneration schemes or public procurement create economic value in a place, they should also create pathways for young people in that place.

There will always be voices who argue that organisations in the youth employment space have failed because the problem has not gone away.

That misunderstands the scale of the challenge. Charities, colleges, employers and local partnerships have often been holding together a system that is too fragmented, too short-term and too thinly funded.

Milburn gives us a national moment. We should use it well.

At Youth Employment UK, we look forward to supporting the next phase of the review and helping the Milburn team draw out recommendations grounded in evidence, youth voice and practice.

The diagnosis is clear. Young people have been clear. FE is ready to play its part. Employers have a role to play. Local areas need the tools and funding to act.

Now we need to build the system young people have been asking for, and fund it for the long term.

Youth NEET rate tips one million

More than one million young people are now not in education, employment or training (NEET).

Fresh estimates from the Office for National Statistics, released this morning, reveal 1.012 million 16 to 24 year olds were classed as NEET in January to March 2026. This is an increase of 55,000 from the previous quarter and 89,000 from the previous year.

It means 13.5 per cent of young people in the UK are now NEET, up from 12.8 per cent in October to December 2025.

This is the first time in 13 years NEET numbers have been over one million.

The latest increase was driven largely by young men, and a sharp rise in economic inactivity.

The ONS said 553,000 young men were NEET in the first three months of this year and 459,000 young women.

The NEET rate among young men was 14.4 per cent, up 1.1 percentage points on the previous quarter. Among young women, the rate was 12.5 per cent, up 0.3 percentage points on the quarter.

It comes hours ahead of the launch of a major independent review of young people and work, led by former Labour minister Alan Milburn.

Milburn is due to publish an interim diagnostic report warning that Britain face a “generational fault line” unless ministers overhaul support for young people.

His review is expected to warn that the number of young people who are NEET could rise to 1.25 million within five years if the government fails to reform education, health, welfare and employment support systems.

Work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden said: “These stark figures underline the importance of Alan Milburn’s report which I commissioned because we cannot afford to lose a generation of young people.

“This vital work lays bare the scale of the challenge and the root causes of youth unemployment we now need to confront.

“We are already taking action by bringing forward the biggest youth employment reforms in a generation to create 500,000 opportunities for young people, including a Youth Jobs Grant for businesses starting next month, more apprenticeships, and subsidised employment to help young people get a foot on the ladder.”

NEET numbers could hit 1.25m within five years, Milburn warns

The number of young people shut out of education and work could surge to 1.25 million within five years unless ministers overhaul “broken” systems meant to support them, a landmark independent review will warn.

Former Labour health minister Alan Milburn’s review will say the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) could rise from one in eight to one in six if nothing changes.

Milburn will launch his interim diagnostic report tomorrow, with final recommendations expected later this year.

He will warn that Britain faces a “generational fault line” unless it confronts “whole system failure” that has left almost one million young people NEET.

Milburn is expected to say: “Six in ten have never had a job. Twenty years ago, that figure was closer to four in ten.

“Detachment is no longer temporary. For too many young people, it is becoming permanent. We are at risk of a lost generation.”

The review will argue that schools, colleges, health, welfare and labour markets built to support young people from childhood to adult life are “no longer fit for purpose”.

Welfare state to working state

It will call for a reset from a welfare state that Milburn describes as “exacerbating inactivity” to a “working state” that “builds capacity”.

The report will also warn that new programmes layered on top of a broken system will not be enough.

Milburn will stress that young people themselves are not the problem. His review found 84 per cent of NEET young people surveyed want a job or training.

But “the first rung of the career ladder has thinned”, leaving many young people trapped between employers demanding experience and a labour market offering fewer opportunities.

The report will point to 1.6 million fewer low and medium-skilled jobs in the economy, the halving of vacancies in the hospitality industry over the past four years alone and the “freefall” of Saturday jobs.

It will also expose what it calls a “fundamental imbalance” in public spending.

In 2024-25, around £25 was spent on benefits for young people for every £1 spent on employment support.

Milburn is expected to say: “This is not a failure of young people. It is a failure of a system stuck in the past.

“Whether it is education or health or welfare, that system fails to enable their participation in the labour market.

“Instead, all too often it ends up putting young people on a path to a life not in jobs but on benefits. This should be the priority for the government. It should be the priority for all of us.”

Milburn’s interim diagnostic report will be published in full tomorrow.

Small HE providers in line for OfS fee cut

Colleges and small HE providers could be in line for a cut to their Office for Students registration fee under proposals from the Department for Education.

A consultation, launched today, proposes a range of new registration fee structures for the higher education regulator, which is mandatory for providers to access student loan funding and degree awarding powers.

Registration fees are the Office for Students’ main source of operating income. Its latest annual report showed it received £31.6 million from the fees in 2024-25 from universities, colleges and private sector providers.

DfE is seeking views from the higher education sector on the distribution of its registration fee income, with various models proposed that cut fees for providers with lower numbers of higher education students, and raise them for providers with large cohorts.

Degrees of adjustment

Under the current system, providers are placed into one of 13 fee bands based on their full-time equivalent (FTE) higher education student numbers.

This academic year, fees range from £14, 775 for providers with less than 25 FTE students to £222,850 for those with more than 20,000 FTE students.

Latest DfE financial data, covering 2023-24, shows the college with the largest HE student numbers was NCG with 3,265. Today, this would place it in a band generating a registration fee of £111,794.

DfE said the current model places a “higher burden” on smaller providers. The consultation gives the example of a provider with 25 FTE students paying £591 per FTE student, compared with £11.14 per FTE student for a provider with more than 20,000 students.

A proposed “small adjustment” model would see annual fees fall for providers with up to 5,000 FTE students. A provider with 100 to 300 FTE students would pay £34,722, down £1,168 on the current £35,890 fee. A provider with 500 to 1,000 FTE students would pay £55,070, down £1,381.

That model would increase fees for larger providers, prodominantly universities. Those with 5,000 to 10,000 FTE students would pay £141,296, up £691, while providers with more than 20,000 FTE students would pay £228,570, up £5,720.

There is also a proposed “large adjustment” model that would cut fees further for smaller providers. The 100 to 300 FTE student band would fall to £32,793, a reduction of £3,097, while to 500 to 1,000 FTE band would fall to £52, 787, down £3,664. Providers with more than 20,000 FTE students would pay £238,096, up £15,246.

DfE is also consulting on whether to introduce an additional top band for providers with more than 30,000 FTE students. Compared to the current structure, providers with more than 30,000 FTE students would pay £274,545, compared with the current top-band fee of £222,850.

Or a formula

Another option would replace the current funding band model with a fee made up of a flat charge for all providers plus a variable element based on FTE student numbers.

Under DfE’s modelling, providers with up to 500 FTE students would pay less than under the current model. Fees for the 100 to 300 FTE band would fall to £27,094, down £8,796, while the 300 to 500 FTE band would fall to £42,626, down £2,375.

But providers with more than 500 and up to 20,000 FTE students would pay more under this option. The fee for 500 to 1,000 FTE students would rise to £64,361, up £7,910. The 1,000 to 1,500 FTE band would rise to £86,577, up £15,720.

Application and degree power charges

In addition to reformed registration fees, new charges for other regulatory processes have been proposed.

These are currently partially or fully subsidised through annual registration fees.

A new initial application fee has been proposed, charged on a cost-revovery basis for providers applying to join the OfS register. This would replace the existing £28,643 flat quality assessment fee.

OfS has estimated the cost of bringing a new provider onto its register, including quality assessment costs, at between £68,000 and and £105,000 depending on the complexity of the provider.

DfE is also proposing to impose a cost-recovery fee for degree awarding power applications. It said costs related to assessing and granting degree awarding powers are currently subsidised by all registered providers as there is no additional charge for this currently. OfS estimates those additional costs, which are not covered by the quality assessment fee, range from £4,000 to £15,000.

A new fixed £11,000 fee is also proposed for applications for university title or university title name changes. This would have applied to today’s decision to allow the University of Greenwich to rename itself to London and South East University Group following its merger with the University of Kent.

The consultation closes on 21 July.

New CEO appointed to Windsor Forest Colleges Group

Windsor Forest Colleges Group has appointed Oliver Symons as its new CEO.

Symons has been principal and chief executive of Moulton College for the last two years, during which the college exited a seven-year stint in government intervention.

He will leave the land-based college ahead of its proposed merger with Northampton College, expected to take effect from January 2027.

He will take over this autumn from Gillian May, who is due to leave Windsor Forest Colleges Group (WFCG) next month to join the FE Commissioner’s team.

The group will be led in the interim by Samantha Foley, a WFCG governor and former chief financial officer at the University of Reading.

WFCG teaches around 7,000 students and employs 900 people across four colleges, with sites in Langley, Windsor, Strode’s in Egham and a specialist land-based college, Berkshire College of Agriculture (BCA). Its latest accounts show ‘good’ financial health and it maintained a ‘good’ Ofsted rating in 2024.

However, staff at the college group have gone on strike three times this year over low pay, with the latest industrial action taking place earlier this month.

Symons is a serving Ofsted inspector and sits on the board of the land-based colleges membership body Landex.

Jo Croft, WFCG chair of governors, said: “Oliver is an outstanding appointment. His track record of leadership, his depth of knowledge across the FE sector and his direct experience as an Ofsted inspector make him ideally placed to lead WFCG forward.”

Symons added: “I am incredibly proud to be joining Windsor Forest Colleges Group at such an exciting point in its development. The group has a strong reputation for educational excellence, innovation, and ambition, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues, students, governors, and partners to build on that success.

“While I am excited for the opportunity ahead, leaving Moulton College is not a decision I have taken lightly. Moulton is a very special place and I am enormously proud of what has been achieved together over recent years. The college is now in a much stronger position and entering an exciting new chapter with real confidence.”