Statutory Prevent duty led to ‘over-reporting’ of referrals in colleges, review finds

“Inconsistent” training of Prevent practitioners who refer students “when in doubt” has encouraged over-reporting to the government’s counter-terrorism programme, sparking calls for a rethink from an independent review.

The Independent Commission on UK Counter-Terrorism Law, Policy and Practice, published yesterday, identified “problematic” issues with the “high rate of unnecessary” Prevent referrals that pick up young people with issues that are not terrorism-related.

It warned that young people with complex needs were being referred to Prevent because there is “no other system in place to help”.

The three-year-long review into the UK’s counterterrorism strategy, by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and chaired by Sir Declan Morgan KC, called for the statutory duty of Prevent in public sector organisations to be reconsidered, as well as better training for educational staff.

The Prevent duty was first placed on schools and FE providers in 2015, and orders designated safeguarding leads (DSL) to report concerns of radicalisation to the police-led programme.

Previous FE Week analysis of Home Office statistical data on Prevent referrals in FE found sharp climbs in the number of young people being referred to the programme but few being taken to a further stage that offers personalised deradicalisation support.

Yesterday’s commission report collected evidence from 2022 over the following three years from over 200 experts to assess the efficacy of the UK’s counter-terrorism framework.

It found “acute” concerns that there was a risk that counter-terrorism powers are being applied too broadly i.e. capturing behaviour that is “harmful but not terrorist”.

The report added that fewer than 10 per cent of all referrals result in adoption as Channel cases.

“Even among these, some are not considered a real risk of radicalisation,” it said.

Most radicalisation concerns are categorised by the police as “conflicted” or “no ideology”.

The report found the lack of funding for community safeguarding and mental health services is causing Prevent referrals to be made as there is “no other system in place” to help young people with complex needs.

But the commission said there was an increased risk that channel panels, which discuss referral cases, could be overwhelmed by cases where there are significant risks of violence and miss instances of individuals being drawn to extremist violence.

It also warned against the Home Office’s recent internal review after the 2024 Southport attack, where attacker Axel Rudakubana was referred to Prevent three times but not considered a risk, that recommended referrals to be “routinely” escalated.

“The Prevent referral process is picking up many people who may be a risk to themselves or others and need support, but few are terrorism-related; providing support through a counter-terrorism programme is problematic given the serious concerns about Prevent, its effectiveness and its impact on those targeted,” the report said.

Gut instinct of practitioners could ‘reinforce stereotypes’

The commission also heard the 2015 implementation of the Prevent duty in colleges led to a “significant step change” in training and has become embedded into processes and practices for safeguarding.

But while training of practitioners has improved confidence in reporting, the report said it has led to an “increase in the over-reporting of less concerning cases”.

“The benefits of a statutory duty must be carefully balanced against the negative impacts of inappropriate or misplaced referrals,” the report added.

The commission also heard evidence that demonstrated inconsistencies in training and resources, leaving staff to rely on their ‘gut instinct’, which it warned could “reinforce stereotypes and discrimination”.

“The resultant reliance on ‘gut instinct’ combined with ’refer-when-in-doubt’ advice encourages overreporting and risks escalating manageable issues unnecessarily,” the commission warned.

Polly Harrow, assistant principal at Kirklees College and DfE’s further education student support champion, said the findings were “seriously worrying” and suggested a more robust strategic approach is “urgently required” to staff training.

“Whilst it is not my personal experience that cases have been ‘over-reported’, I can see how this could easily be the case, given the serious concerns educators have about ‘getting it wrong’ and the potential consequences of that,” she added.

Harrow said that safeguarding practitioners “typically” think it better to over-report than under-report.

“I take the point in the review that some referrals to Channel are deemed to be manageable at source. I don’t doubt that this is the case, however it does suggest that further clarity is needed not only in terms of definitions and terminology, but that the overall scope of the duty needs to be further refined to ensure maximum effectiveness.”

The report also decried the ‘Educate Against Hate’ website resources, revealing there was an “absence of a human rights-based approach”.

“Many resources neglected young people’s developing opinions and agency, frequently adopting a patronising tone,” it said.

In other cases, the commission found that some education institutions avoided discussing difficult issues from poor resources or rely on third parties to facilitate discussions.

Its research also revealed that students are reluctant to debate difficult views, which could suppress legitimate discussion and is a key aim of counterterrorism work.

Last year, fears emerged that learners were self-censoring themselves to avoid being flagged as Home Office data showed a drop in college referrals.

The review therefore recommended the Department for Education explore how to improve training for school and college staff to create “safe spaces” for discussion.

Other recommendations included a focus on people who pose significant risk to public safety rather that those with extremist ideas, more research into terrorism and extremism definitions before expanding Prevent categories, and a reconsideration of the need for a specific Prevent duty.

The Department for Education was contacted for comment.

For one week we’ll put FE’s SEND specialists centre stage

Across FE, thousands of staff work tirelessly supporting young people with SEND to build confidence, gain skills and live more independent lives. Yet the essential role of specialist FE too often goes unrecognised.

The Power of Specialist FE awareness week – taking place in the first week of December – aims to change this.

Coordinated by Natspec, which represents and supports specialist FE providers in England and Wales, the campaign celebrates the vital role all FE providers play in enabling learners with SEND to succeed. We want to remind policymakers, employers and the public that an equitable education system must serve every learner, not just those who fit into mainstream pathways.

Why this campaign matters now

The number of children and young people identified as having SEND in England has surpassed 1.7 million – the highest figure ever recorded.

Over 26 per cent of education, health and care plan (EHCP) holders are aged 16 to 25. But post-16 education provision rarely receives the same level of attention or investment as SEND in schools, despite being the place where many young people with complex needs develop the skills and independence that will shape the rest of their lives.

This creates a critical gap in the system, leaving too many young people facing uncertainty about what comes after school.

In its FE and skills inquiry, the education select committee recognised the “neglect of FE SEND policy, as well as inefficiencies, limited accountability and policy fragmentation”. Natspec has repeatedly called for closing this policy vacuum.

Our aims

Our campaign’s ambition is to change the narrative. It gives us the opportunity to celebrate what works, and to raise awareness of the specialist expertise that exists across our colleges. We want to champion the belief that a key tenet of an inclusive education is that it sets up young people to be better included in their adult lives thereafter.

The campaign will build awareness of the contribution of specialist FE to an inclusive education system. It will shine a light on the work being done by highly specialist staff in both specialist and general FE settings, often working across disciplines to make education and training accessible, relevant and impactful for young people with some of the most complex needs.

As a result, we hope that policymakers will acknowledge the vital role of specialist FE in the upcoming SEND reforms and put forward proposals that more securely support providers to offer high-quality provision.

Together, they form a system that works best when every type of provision is valued for its distinctive contribution. When learners have access to the right provision, they gain agency, confidence and purpose. They contribute to their communities, move into work or volunteering and lead more independent lives. That is The Power of Specialist FE in action.

At the heart of this campaign are learners themselves. Throughout the awareness week, colleges will share learner stories on social media and in local media, celebrating their journeys and achievements. These stories, told by learners in their own words, reveal the power of specialist FE to change lives and challenge public misconceptions about disability.

Colleges are also inviting their MPs to visit campuses and meet learners in person to hear their stories. These visits are often transformative, enabling policymakers to see first-hand the outcomes that specialist FE delivers, from improved social outcomes to stronger links with local employers.

A collective call to action

Beyond the awareness week itself, The Power of Specialist FE is a movement. We are calling on policymakers to embed specialist FE firmly within post-16 education and skills strategies, backed by sustainable funding that reflects the complexity and cost of delivering transformative education and training.

Colleges and providers across the FE landscape can get involved through sharing stories, amplifying our campaign’s message or engaging with their local representatives.

Resources to support campaign participation are available on our campaign website. Together we can bring to life the work of this part of the sector and make it impossible for policymakers to overlook it in the future. 

Milburn’s the man to make us think differently about NEETs

In Westminster and beyond, Alan Milburn has earned his reputation for telling uncomfortable truths when few want to hear them. I’ve known him for many years and have seen that fearlessness in action.

Under his leadership, between 2012 and 2017, the social mobility commission became a force to be reckoned with. He confronted powerful elites and elusive prime ministers alike in trying to level the country’s deeply unlevel playing field of opportunity. When the government failed to back his work, he resigned on principle.

Raised by a single mother on Tyneside, Milburn’s first political activism came from fighting for shipbuilding and steel jobs. That early grounding has never left him – which makes him the ideal person to lead a new review into what is increasingly a national crisis of opportunity. Nearly one million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET).

As someone who dropped out of school myself before returning to retake A-levels, I know how it feels to be an outsider. I was lucky: teachers, friends and family gave me a second chance. Many of the young people now labelled “NEET” will never get that chance. I also happened to have an academic bent. This meant I could fit into an education system that valued above all else performance in narrow academic assessments.

If this review is to make a lasting difference, Milburn must challenge three powerful orthodoxies that have long derailed solutions to one of social mobility’s seemingly intractable problems.

The first trap is the deficit approach that still dominates so much national policy. Even the term “NEET” sounds more like a disease to be cured than a description of young people’s lives. Labelling them by what they are not doing defines them as failures rather than as individuals with strengths and futures.

The equity approach I advocate starts from a different place: standing in the shoes of the young people we aim to serve. It asks how we can better understand what they offer, what needs to change in our institutions, and how we can work together.

It’s so tempting for politicians to slip into the blame game. See for example the debate over the underachievement of “white working-class boys”. Too often from the national stage we pathologise the communities we have failed in the past. The problem isn’t necessarily that these young people don’t value education – it’s that our system hasn’t valued them.

So, one simple step: let’s change the language. Instead of “NEETs”, talk about young people in transition, those seeking next opportunities, or those facing barriers to participation.

We also need to look at the bigger picture. The review rightly focuses on the growing mental health emergency among younger generations. Rising anxiety and hopelessness are inevitable when the old life model that guided previous generations – work hard in education, get a stable job, buy a home – has broken down.

Tackling this demands more than therapy sessions or attendance drives; it requires rebuilding a sense of purpose, belonging and opportunity for a generation who feel the system no longer works for them.

My research for the Monday Charitable Trust found that half of those failing to reach a standard pass in English and maths at 16 had already fallen behind by age five. Their trajectories were shaped as much by socio-emotional skills as academic development. Low skills are passed down from one generation to the next. These are structural, intergenerational problems, not short-term policy gaps.

Finally, the review can do something governments rarely manage: breaking down the policy silos. For too long, we’ve treated education, employment and health as separate domains when they are deeply connected. The danger now is “initiativitis”: a flurry of disconnected reforms – the curriculum review, the youth guarantee, the white working-class review – without a unifying vision.

Milburn has never shied away from asking the hard questions. I hope his review will do just that: forcing us to confront the deep issues that threaten to scar a whole generation.

What Victorian philanthropists can teach today’s FE policymakers

Auspicium Melioris Aevi – “Herald of a new age.”

These words beneath the crest of the Working Men’s College, founded in 1854 by a group of Christian Socialists, encapsulate a radical vision: education not as charity, but as a right. It was a means for working people to participate fully in civic and cultural life. 

The Reverend Frederick Maurice, one of the College’s key founders, believed education should form citizens, not just employees. By calling it a “college”, he implied a society where teachers and learners were equal members. This marked a stark departure from the earlier adult educational efforts of the mechanics’ institutes. Liberal studies, humility in teaching and a rich social life became integral to the college. 

Maurice was joined by an extraordinary group of philanthropists – Thomas Hughes (author of Tom Brown’s Schooldays), John Ludlow, the philologist Frederick James Furnivall. It was also supported by figures such as the writer John Ruskin and Dante Gabriel Rossetti, who shaped WM’s early art teaching. [1] [2] 

The college shared its ethos with Birkbeck College, as both prioritised skill acquisition within a broader vision: developing individuals as citizens and community members, not just workers. No single institution can offer every opportunity, but their benefactors instilled a lasting commitment to a wider educational community – a principle that remains relevant today. 

Colleges are communities where people learn from and with each other, not only from teachers or texts. In a world overflowing with information, learning to evaluate and synthesise knowledge collaboratively is essential, whether navigating data systems or developing cultural literacy. Yet current structures and funding rarely encourage this mutual learning. 

Today, we see a revival of analogous impulses among Gen Z: crafts, supper clubs, and collective creativity are being embraced not just as hobbies but as medicine for loneliness, digital fatigue and a loss of connection. These mirror the same drive behind the founders of WM College, who believed that learning should restore community, moral purpose and human flourishing. 

Mathematics and languages were valued not merely as practical skills, but as gateways to higher knowledge – aimed at producing students, not just mathematicians or linguists.

Similarly, the arts were treated seriously. Pre-Raphaelites like Rossetti, Edward Burne-Jones, Ford Madox Brown and William Morris taught evening classes, bringing art to the working classes. Students often discovered renewed purpose, employment opportunities or new skills – echoing today’s need for education that enriches life as well as work. 

As early as 1965, WM College formally admitted female students – pioneering inclusion. These steps reflected not just demographic inclusion but a philosophical one: that men and women are equal in ability and citizenship. 

From the start, WM College fostered a sense of community and inclusion. Students learned from tutors and one another, developing mutual support and intellectual curiosity.  
 
Today, the adult education landscape is vastly different. Responsibility for skills shifts between departments, funding is fragmented, and providers face pressure to focus narrowly on employability outcomes. 
 
Skills policy is wrongly low-down in party priorities, with much talk of trade colleges but little sustained support for adult learning beyond vocational outcomes. Yet the lesson from Maurice and his contemporaries is clear: one need not wait for perfect policy conditions to act. They built a college where formal adult education barely existed, because it was the right thing to do. 

What might today’s policymakers, funders and philanthropists learn from these 19th-century pioneers? 

  • Education shapes society as much as it serves the labour market. WM College’s founders saw it as a tool for civic renewal, building character, social cohesion and moral responsibility. 
  • Long-term commitment matters. The college’s early supporters invested decades of sustained effort, not just funds or enthusiasm. Modern philanthropists should take note. 
  • Community is central. At WM College spaces are created where people of all backgrounds can meet, learn and grow together. In an era of social fragmentation, this model feels urgently relevant. 
     

Today, as young people rediscover the therapeutic, communal, and creative value of making things with their hands, there is fertile ground for adult education that nurtures wellbeing, human worth and shared life. 
The challenge is to act with the courage and imagination of those Victorian philanthropists, who built not just a college but a movement rooted in civic purpose and inclusion.

Accounting needs to modernise so we can tackle the skills gap

Almost four in five UK employers say they’ve got skills gaps in their business. That’s a huge number and it comes at a real cost.

Staff are stretched; productivity takes a hit; quality drops and recruitment costs rise. Finance and accountancy teams aren’t immune. In fact, they sit right at the heart of it.

The role of the accountant has evolved – and continues to do so. It goes far beyond crunching numbers and arranging tax and VAT returns. Our new report shows how employers want people who can lead teams, think strategically (27 per cent), analyse data (23 per cent), and guide organisations through digital change.

Yes, the technical skills still matter – things like budgeting, reporting and payroll – but they’re no longer enough on their own. Transferable skills like problem-solving (27 per cent), leadership and management (25 per cent), as well as critical thinking are now just as important.

This shift reflects the way businesses now work with their finance teams. Accountants aren’t just keeping the books balanced, they’re helping boards decide where to invest, how to manage risk and grow responsibly. That requires confidence, communication and the ability to influence.

Digital skills are climbing the list too. Employers identify AI literacy and automation (25 per cent) alongside cybersecurity (20 per cent) as crucial finance and accounting skills for the future.

Finance professionals need to be confident working with new tech and aware of the risks that come with it. The message from employers is they want a mix; training must deliver the technical, digital and human skills side by side.

Challenges employers face

Unfortunately, while most employers see training as the answer, they’re struggling to make it happen. A massive 84 per cent say they face barriers to upskilling, leading to 10 per cent outsourcing work overseas.

We need urgent action, because every outsourced role is one less chance for UK talent to gain experience, and to strengthen the long-term resilience of the sector.

The biggest problems are lack of time (41 per cent), cost, low engagement (27 per cent) and a lack of suitable training (22 per cent).

However, that doesn’t mean progress isn’t happening. A quarter of employers have upskilled staff in the past year, and one in 10 are using apprenticeships to bring in new talent.

Looking ahead, many are planning for mentoring, professional courses and certified short programmes. That’s encouraging – but employers can’t fix this on their own. They need the government to step-up too.

Recommendations for businesses:

  • Provide clear progression routes to retain and nurture talent, and partner with training providers to upskill employees in automation, cybersecurity and digital finance systems.
  • Work with training providers and awarding bodies to co-design training schemes that meet real-world business needs to provide a pipeline of talent to help your business grow.

Recommendations for government

  • Create an “SME Skills Navigator” service to help small employers access relevant finance training and apprenticeships.
  • Develop a campaign targeted at learners and employers to increase the attractiveness of apprenticeships, with a particular focus on SMEs.
  • Urgently clarify what types of short courses in accounting and finance are eligible via the new growth and skills levy, with clear timelines for implementation.

A joint effort

Finance is the backbone of every business. If we don’t tackle the skills gap, we’ll feel it across the economy – through lower productivity and innovation, weaker growth and fewer opportunities.

The good news is employers are willing to invest in their people. With the right support, they can. Everyone needs to play a part – the accounting industry, government, training providers and businesses – to ensure finance professionals have the full skillset they need to thrive.

This isn’t just about businesses getting the numbers right. Strong finance skills support better decision-making in every sector, from charities to public services to start-ups. They underpin innovation, investment and the resilience of communities.

If we build a pipeline of finance professionals with the right skills, we’re not only protecting the economy today – we’re giving the next generation of accountants the tools to grow it tomorrow.

Fake cards, real risks: building sites need digital skills passports

For almost 30 years, CSCS cards have been a golden ticket to work on building sites but as an FE Week investigation exposed last year, they’re open to abuse.

Not only do unscrupulous individuals offer fake cards claiming they beat anti-fraud technology, but others have infiltrated training centres to sell them to people who aren’t given the necessary health and safety training.

With huge labour shortages in construction, the emergence of fake cards became rife.

Stakeholders must be confident in the skillsets of those they employ. Likewise, newly qualified apprentices awarded a degree, diploma or certification must be reassured they are competing on a level playing field with others in the industry.

Physical cards no longer meet the demands of a modern construction workforce. It’s time to move towards a smarter, digital solution; digital passports.

Causeway Technologies is spearheading a campaign that involves lobbying ministers and stakeholders to make digital skills passports mandatory in every public construction project.

The technology is already used on some of the UK’s largest projects – by more than 600,000 people in the UK. What’s missing is policy leadership to make it mandatory.

A digital skills passport allows employers, contractors and clients to instantly verify a worker’s qualifications, competencies, and health and safety records.

It provides a secure digital profile connecting verified qualifications, training records and on-site experience in one continually updated platform. The worker simply logs in or scans a QR code on a mobile device, instantly sharing verified training, qualifications, and competency data.

Why is this so important? Because whether you’re managing a major infrastructure project or building a single home, you need to know the person doing the job is trained, and the evidence is real. Without digital checks, it’s far too easy for credentials to be forged, missed or left out of date. That’s not just an admin issue – it’s a safety risk.

Causeway Technologies provides the digital infrastructure powering current skills passport systems. Our technology does not oversee the passport itself but ensures stated skills are transparent, portable, and trusted – bridging education outcomes with workforce deployment.

The technology already powers the workforce systems behind Network Rail’s Sentinel and the Highways Passport scheme, the world’s largest passport programme. In total, it is used by over 900,000 workers worldwide.

In the new skills white paper, it was revealed Skills England has been tasked with exploring the further development of skills passports.

The new government agency will “review best practice and learn from previous experience”, but the idea is the passports would list an individual’s skills, competencies and work experience in a standardised way. 

Digital skills passports can provide:

  • Virtual safety: A short-life QR virtual check-in backed by multi-factor authentication means IDs can’t be screenshot. In other words, they change, so can’t be copied.
  • Approved training providers: Skills passports are backed by a list of approved training providers who can add qualifications. Should qualifications be applied fraudulently, it would be flagged and the company responsible blocked.
  • Link to governing body databases: Skills passports can link directly to governing body system databases and be checked. 
  • Photos: All passports have images on them, and true 3D biometric checks can be used for secure sites.
  • Evidence: Unlike a physical card, a skills passport can list not only qualifications but copies of certifications and training hours, all stored on the person’s record.

Of course, no system is immune to abuse and there will always be people looking to cut corners. But that’s exactly why we need better tools to close the gaps. If we want to protect workers, uphold standards and build with confidence, we can’t rely on plastic cards and good intentions.

A digital skills passport should be industry standard. It’s time to move from intent to implementation and set a new standard for skills and safety that takes workforce trust to the next level.

AI will provide the fake evidence that wrecks teachers’ lives

AI is everywhere in education. Students are using it, and staff too. But there is a darker side to the AI revolution.

Some students have become victims of blackmail based on artificially-generated pornographic photos and videos, created from unwisely gifted selfies but also from publicly available pictures on the websites and social media accounts of colleges themselves. 

How many of us are even alert to this?

Rife AI abuse is already the bane of safeguarding leads’ lives. In other countries, teachers have already lost their jobs for producing deepfake child pornography.

But AI is also being used against teachers. It’s only a matter of time before lives are ruined.

The number of complaints against teachers seems sadly to be on the rise. A huge proportion are dismissed as vexatious and not upheld, but final acquittals are often based on a lack of supporting evidence.

What happens when evidence is produced to strengthen a complaint? That obviously makes a case quicker and easier to resolve. Guilt is then easy to apportion and difficult to avoid. 

A video is shown of a teacher making a racist statement in a lesson. Case closed. A photo is presented showing a teacher in a compromising sexual situation. Case closed. An audio recording is played of a teacher propositioning a student. Case closed. The story has been heard before. Another creepy teacher. Another racist corrupting our kids. Lives ruined.

But how can evidence be trusted in a world awash with AI? If a student complaint comes with apparently strong supporting evidence, the teacher involved could never survive for long with no realistic defence. But apparent evidence can now be easily generated in seconds, at the click of a couple of buttons.

That is all it would take to fake the evidence that would break a career. And the speed of technological advance makes it increasingly hard to distinguish real facts from AI fiction. Management’s soothing reassurances about applying common sense cannot cut it anymore.

How could a teacher defend themselves adequately in such a nightmarish scenario? It would be impossible with evidence as crystal clear as can be, in full digital and Dolby quality.

I don’t envy investigating managers, who require the wisdom of Solomon in our age. And I don’t envy the teachers who are about to find themselves in such situations. 

It surely won’t be long before teachers lose their jobs on the back of AI-produced deepfakes. Which obscure but conscientious teacher currently toiling away quietly in an unsuspecting classroom will be first to have their career scuppered, their character traduced and relationships ruined because of a creative and IT-savvy student with a grudge? 

That teacher victim is as yet wholly unaware of how a photo of them could already have been manipulated, or an audio clip secretly recorded and doctored to make them say something misleading which they would never say in reality.

I don’t think we teachers are ready for what is about to hit us. We lack the tools or knowledge to defend ourselves. 

In the government’s latest advice on AI use in schools, there is plenty about how to integrate the technology into the everyday life of a school, and about keeping children safe. But there is absolutely nothing about deep-fake complaints against teachers.

Likewise with the teaching unions’ websites and AI guidance. This isn’t even being talked about yet. But we need to get ready now because it’s coming.

Are we going to wait until an innocent teacher is condemned, protesting their innocence and impotently questioning the evidence that has been used to accuse them?

Where will those teachers be able to turn for support and advice when they are accused? You can bet the nation’s newspapers will show them no mercy when the matter is made public.

The first teacher to have their life ruined by AI is out there somewhere today, planning lessons, marking work, training students in the arts of learning, as yet wholly unaware of the juggernaut that is about to smash into their life. 

And I am sadly sure that in some dimly lit bedroom somewhere soon, the evidence that destroys them will be surreptitiously produced.

We need a ‘UCAS for adults’ and the DWP can help develop it

The skills white paper pledges to “make lifelong learning a reality”. But for this to happen, the adult lifelong learner needs three things: A positive experience of compulsory education, confidence in their ability to achieve success in learning, and assurance that improving their skills and qualifications will enhance the quality of their life and/or increase their earnings.

The first two often go hand in hand. Getting the qualifications at school or college to progress into a well-paid career gives people an ongoing self-belief in their ability to achieve good results. This is true for around two thirds of the school population.

Quite rightly, the document focuses on the 31 per cent who don’t progress well and asks: what can be done to improve non A-level education to get more pupils enjoying and succeeding at school?

Their answer – to replace all technical and vocational qualifications at level 3 with V Levels – addresses only a small part of the problem. The curriculum and assessment review’s recommendations to provide the diversity of young learners with stronger routes to a variety of positive destinations – not only “going to uni” – is much more promising.

The white paper barely touches upon the third prerequisite for the adult lifelong learner – seeing the relevance of continuing formal learning to boost careers. There is only passing reference to an adult careers advice. And in contrast to the moves to simplify 16-18 vocational education, a vision is presented of an adult skills system of labyrinthine complexity.

Adult learners will be confronted with a smorgasbord of options: College-based adult courses, sector skills packages, bootcamps, sector-based work academies, lifelong learning entitlement (LLE) courses and new “apprenticeship units”.

These will be overseen at national level by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education supported by Skills England; at sector level by “sector coalitions” of employers, providers and government; and at local level by strategic local authorities through engagement with local skills improvement plans and control over devolved adult skills funds.

Providers and those responsible for local delivery strategies are questioning how all these training products and services will be effectively coordinated.

And how will students navigate this? Who will provide the lifelong learner with what they most need – clarity over which new learning and qualifications will give them the best returns on their investment?

The answer must surely be to build a greatly enhanced careers advice information and guidance (CIAG) service, accessible to adults across the country – a “UCAS for adults”.

Online services won’t be enough; such a service will need to interact with colleges and adult education services and have regular face-to-face contact, just as UCAS web-based information is backed up by a network of advisers in schools and colleges.

Adult learners are an enormously diverse group who may not have had positive prior experiences of education, with varying readiness for further learning. 

A good quality national adult CIAG service will come at a cost, and in the current financial climate it will be challenging for providers to find additional resources. But the transfer of skills to DWP provides opportunities.

The hubs for much of the Great Britain Working initiatives are local Jobcentres, which until now have been focused on helping unemployed clients find immediate short-term jobs. Giving them a wider remit to look at the longer-term skills needs and ambitions of their clients would enable the development of a stronger network of CIAG services properly resourced to Gatsby standards, and fill some of the gaps, especially for “left behind” adults.

In this respect the merger of the National Careers Service into JobCentre Plus announced last year is very positive. It will bring a new influx of skilled professionals with the right attributes to help deliver a service with real impact.

It was also encouraging to see a Jobcentre in Waltham Forest College held up as an example of good practice following DWP secretary Pat McFadden’s visit; we need more of this synergistic thinking.

The white paper’s proposals provide many of the jigsaw pieces for a properly joined-up lifelong learning strategy. But there are bits missing, and the pieces cry out to be connected to make a coherent picture – of an education system that encourages the lifelong learner to thrive.

We need to deliver a new V Level vision for Level 3

It is exciting to see the curriculum and assessment review (CAR) recommendations for the introduction of V Levels become government policy.

This marks a genuine opportunity to simplify and clarify the post-16 qualification landscape. At present, young people, parents and employers must navigate a complex mix of qualifications, differing in size, grading approach and recognition.

For too long, questions have persisted about the coherence, quality and status of vocational qualifications. While A Levels are well established as a respected academic route, the large and varied range of vocational and technical qualifications has lacked consistency and clarity. CAR’s findings confirmed long-standing concerns about applied general qualifications (AGQs) and the resulting confusion among learners, parents, employers and stakeholders.

Previous reform attempts, from the 14–19 diplomas to proposals to withdraw AGQs, have faltered through issues such as flawed design or political change. Too often, these efforts have failed to recognise that many 16-year-olds are still exploring their direction and should not be forced into rigid pathways too early.

We heard clearly that the previous two-pillar model of A Levels and T Levels was not sustainable and would not meet the needs of all young people or UK PLC.

T Levels are proving valuable as rigorous, occupation-specific qualifications. For example, the T Level in education & early Years is working well. But CAR identified areas for improvement, particularly in the size, duration and complexity of assessment, which are intensified by some pathways having a May completion deadline.

Even with improvements, A Levels and T Levels cannot meet the needs of every learner. Some students want to explore a sector rather than a specific job. Others prefer applied learning or mixed study programmes.

The vision for V Levels

CAR concluded that applied and vocational qualifications require greater coherence and purpose. We therefore support simplifying the current range of qualification types and sizes, while maintaining the flexibility needed to serve diverse learners and employers. Although excessive diversity has caused confusion, it often evolved for good reasons, including the need to engage young people at risk of becoming NEET. Any reform must protect that inclusive intent.

We support the government’s view that most V Levels should be small qualifications, giving students flexibility to combine them in a suite of vocational awards or with A Levels. This approach also supports continued study of maths or English, where needed. However for some disciplines, such as art and sport, larger qualifications will remain essential. Subject experts in these areas need to have the ability to sequence learning around skill development and creative progression.

Some routes to higher education or employment benefit from larger qualifications that offer a holistic approach. For example in social care, broad qualifications reduce unnecessary repetition of common topics such as health and safety. For vulnerable learners, the stability of a substantial qualification can also aid engagement and retention.

Larger qualifications enable teachers to plan and integrate learning effectively, promoting deeper understanding and better progression. By contrast, managing multiple smaller qualifications can increase bureaucracy without improving outcomes.

While it may be tempting to make all large qualifications T Levels, doing so risks undermining the distinct identity and purpose of T Levels as occupation-specific routes. V Levels and T Levels must be differentiated by purpose, not just size.

Moving forward

Drawing on lessons from past reforms, we hope the government’s consultation on V Levels will:

1. Maintain the three-pillar vision (A Levels, T Levels and V Levels) outlined in the post-16 white paper.

2. Ensure that practical effectiveness, not administrative neatness, drives design and implementation.

3. Keep learners’ experiences and progression at the centre, alongside the needs of providers, employers and Skills England.

4. Undertake robust impact modelling to ensure reforms enhance, rather than restrict, the life chances of the largely working-class cohort currently studying AGQs.

The white paper shows strong alignment between CAR’s recommendations and the Department for Education (DfE)’s strategy. It now falls to the sector to pick up the baton, to work collaboratively and proactively with the great team at DfE to deliver on this shared vision.

If we do this, we can avoid the missteps of the past and create an ambitious, clear and impactful post-16 tapestry fit for the future.