Gulf between Leeds and Bradford proves need for place-based fixes

Youth inactivity is not a marginal issue, it’s a defining fault line in our economy, and the places feeling it most sharply are cities like Bradford.

Leeds and Bradford are neighbouring cities with a shared history and a connected labour market. But the opportunities open to young people in each look very different. 

Leeds is moving ahead, buoyed by high-value industries and clear routes into professional work. In Bradford, for all its creativity and cultural strengths, too many young people still face limited progression, lower wages and fewer opportunities for social mobility.

This is not a failure of ambition. Bradford’s young people simply lack access to the routes that turn aspiration into opportunity.

The national data backs this up. Youth inactivity and unemployment remain higher in Bradford than Leeds, with some wards showing alarmingly high levels of disengagement among 16 to 24-year-olds. 

This translates into long-term scarring in earnings, health and confidence. In a city that has just marked its year as UK City of Culture, that contradiction should concern us all.

Alan Milburn’s review is rightly focused on the scale of the problem. But the real test will be whether its conclusions recognise that youth inactivity is deeply place-based. National policy alone will not solve it.

The decision to move responsibility for skills into the Department for Work and Pensions is one of the most significant shifts in a generation. In theory, it offers an opportunity to better connect training with jobs and reduce the numbers of young people drifting out of the system. In practice, it could just as easily entrench short-term, work-first approaches that push young people into low-progression roles.

Whether this change helps or harms places like Bradford will depend on whether the government’s £820 million package of place-based employment support for high-need areas is matched by a clear commitment to skills development and progression, rather than treating entry into any job as an adequate measure of success.

Bradford’s challenge is not that work doesn’t exist. It’s that the pathways into good work are fragmented, poorly signposted and too often disconnected from the realities young people face. Colleges, employers, health services and employment support still operate in silos, even though the barriers young people experience are rarely a single issue.

Skills provision has to intervene early, support learners holistically and stay connected to the labour market beyond the first job.

In Bradford, that means making professional and technical pathways visible and local. High-value work exists across West Yorkshire, but too often young people feel they have to leave their city to access it. Skills routes into digital, health, green construction and the creative industries should be designed with regional employers and delivered in ways that feel attainable, not abstract.

It also means building ‘earn and learn’ routes that reduce risk. Short, paid pathways that blend learning with real jobs can be the tipping point between staying engaged and walking away, especially for young people who simply cannot risk studying without an income.

We must also fix the transition points where young people are most likely to disengage. The move from compulsory education into further education or work remains fragile for those facing disadvantage. Literacy, numeracy, confidence and wellbeing need to be embedded from the start.

Health cannot sit outside this conversation. Anxiety, long-term conditions and caring responsibilities are major drivers of inactivity.

Milburn’s review into the cause of rising numbers of NEETs must look beyond national levers and employment metrics. It needs to recognise that places like Bradford are not problems to be fixed, but systems to be enabled.

Real change will not come from redesigning benefits rules alone. It will come from skills systems rooted in local economies, connected to employers and designed around the realities of young people’s lives.

Bradford doesn’t need expectations to be lowered. It needs coherent pathways, joined up support and the confidence that investing in skills is about building futures, not just filling vacancies.

If we get this right, Bradford will not just close the gap with Leeds. It will show how skills can be our most powerful tool for tackling youth inactivity and restoring faith in opportunity.

FE’s social impact risks being ignored if we don’t measure it

Those who work in FE and skills have long understood and recognised the sector’s ability to transform lives.

We know that FE and skills provision equips individuals with the qualifications and confidence to progress, strengthens local economies, and fosters inclusive, sustainable communities by forging local partnerships and strengthening social ties.

Yet, despite this profound impact, FE’s contribution to social value – encompassing social, economic and environmental wellbeing – remains under-measured and under-recognised.

Following the publication of the post-16 education and skills white paper – with its vision for a unified tertiary system, a reformed qualifications landscape and a renewed focus on workforce development – we have a strategic opportunity as a sector.

As set out in the Education Training Foundation’s (ETF’s) new Achieving Social Value in Further Education and Skills report, if we are to deliver on this vision we must move beyond anecdotal evidence and establish a shared framework for measuring social value.

Without robust data, the sector’s full contribution to national ambitions risks being overlooked, and with it, the opportunities to scale impact and guide investment effectively.

What do we mean by social value?

In FE and skills, social value manifests at multiple levels.

For individuals, it might be confidence gained, skills acquired, and doors opened to meaningful employment.

At community level, it encompasses partnerships forged, local skills gaps filled and civic engagement strengthened.

At a societal level, social value broadens to include the downstream impact on economic growth, sustainability and equity.

From green skills programmes to outreach initiatives for disadvantaged learners, the sector delivers wide-ranging benefits that ripple far beyond the classroom.

Take one learner with additional needs who joined Blackpool and The Fylde College to study construction. With tailored support, he progressed to a plumbing apprenticeship, developed his independence, and now volunteers in his community.

Or East Norfolk Sixth Form College, which runs many programmes to increase social value, including holiday schemes for children on free school meals.

These stories featured in our report illustrate the sector’s transformative power, but they also highlight a challenge. Too often, our understanding of impact rests on isolated case studies rather than systematic evidence.

Why now?

The white paper’s emphasis on evidence and workforce excellence offers an opportunity to embed social value into the fabric of FE and skills. A shared measurement framework would allow providers to demonstrate impact consistently, informing smarter investment decisions, and strengthening the sector’s voice in national policy debates.

It would also help us identify what works best, for whom, and under what circumstances, enabling us to scale success.

Currently, longitudinal data capture in FE and skills is rare. While some organisations, such as Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, have quantified social value, these examples are exceptions.

We need sector-wide collaboration to develop common metrics, improve data collection, and build a national knowledge base. This is not about adding bureaucracy; it is about ensuring that the sector’s contribution is visible, valued and resourced.

A shared framework

ETF is committed to working with providers, practitioners and policymakers to make this happen. By embedding social value into institutional planning, workforce development and funding decisions, we can ensure it becomes a deliberate outcome of how we operate, rather than just a welcome consequence.

Aligning this approach with a national workforce strategy will be key to recruiting, retaining and developing the professionals who deliver this impact every day.

The FE and skills sector is an engine for inclusive growth and innovation. But to realise its full potential we must move from inspiring stories to a robust, systematic understanding of our impact.

In doing so, we can ensure the sector is widely, and rightly, recognised not just for the qualifications it delivers, but for the lives it changes, the communities it strengthens and the national ambitions it supports.

Young people can’t choose the pathways they can’t see

For decades, the path from classroom to university has been well-trodden. Teachers are measured against progression targets, schools celebrate UCAS offers like sporting triumphs, and parents seem to know instinctively how to guide their children through the process, because they’ve probably been through something similar themselves.

At every turn you will find structure and widespread social reinforcement. 

The route to apprenticeships, however, is somehow still shrouded in mystery. It is split across different providers, regions and funding schemes. Young people who might thrive in applied learning or technical disciplines are left navigating acronyms and eligibility criteria, often without the same encouragement or guidance that accompanies more “traditional” academic routes.

This has shaped how the country defines success, how schools allocate resources, and how society values different kinds of intelligence and learning styles.

When the system’s default is built around university entry, it’s no wonder that apprenticeships are still perceived as the “alternative” rather than an equal choice.

But in a labour market defined by technical skills shortages and economic uncertainty, is that perception holding us back?

Shifting policy to change perception

Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer recently moved away from the 50 per cent university target, replacing it with a broader ambition that includes apprenticeships and higher technical education.

The move is a statement that says success should no longer be measured by lecture halls and mortar boards, but by the diversity of skills that fuel national growth.

Part of the government’s more nuanced goal is that 10 per cent of young people undertake higher technical qualifications or apprenticeships by 2040. While that may seem modest on paper, it acknowledges that Britain’s prosperity depends on more than one learning pathway. 

Changing entrenched perceptions will take more than a shift in targets, however. For decades, university has been presented as the “safe” or “smart” choice, while apprenticeships have been cast as vocational detours or lesser alternatives.

That stigma has lingered, even as employers increasingly value hands-on experience and applied expertise over theoretical knowledge alone.

To rebuild public confidence, apprenticeships need the same narrative and institutional visibility that universities have enjoyed for generations. Policy may open the door, but public perception determines who walks through it.

Despite the Baker Clause making it a duty for schools to promote apprenticeships, experience shows the reality is inconsistent and often tokenistic. Apprenticeships providers may engage with schools across the country, but the encounters tend to be isolated talks rather than part of a joined-up careers strategy.

Without strong links between schools and employers, students rarely see how apprenticeships connect to real career opportunities.

Employers, meanwhile, operate on different timelines; they need talent immediately, not months down the line. That disconnect undermines apprenticeships’ potential to drive social mobility and respond to genuine labour market needs.

Breaking educational walls

If university is a straight tarmac road, apprenticeships are still a patchwork of cobbled side streets. Most young people could name a dozen universities by the time they sit their GCSEs, but would probably struggle to name even one apprenticeship provider in their region.

Careers advisers are overstretched, teachers are rarely trained or incentivised to champion work-based learning, and the digital infrastructure simply isn’t there to make discovery easy.

UCAS offers a single, seamless gateway to higher education. But for apprenticeships, no equivalent platform exists at scale (at least, not yet). Young people can’t choose what they can’t see.

UCAS reforms were meant to fix this by placing apprenticeships alongside university options, but the change hasn’t shifted the culture. Careers professionals still view higher education as the “safe” or more prestigious choice, and many lack the understanding or confidence to advocate for vocational routes.

Fixing this requires more than a marketing push. We need systemic change and “pathway parity”.

Schools should be supported, and held accountable, for presenting apprenticeships as a genuine first choice rather than a fallback option.

Careers advisers and teachers need the same clarity of process and data that UCAS provides for university placements.

Employers, too, have a role to play by making their opportunities easier to navigate and aligning entry requirements with modern skills rather than outdated academic benchmarks. 

Until that happens, the apprenticeship system will remain a dimly lit network of cobbled streets – rich in potential, but almost impossible to navigate.

Post-16 reforms could worsen the NEET problem, not solve it

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’m squinting at the future but my vision remains out of focus

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.  

Leader wellbeing is central to the success of our college students

“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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.

Teaching leadership early: the missing piece in youth employability

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.

Whether you are tackling your talent pipeline or embedding a clear progression route, CMI can help you to grow your organisation’s next generation of leaders.

Start the conversation.

Purse strings tighten for Multiverse as losses widen

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.

Without real teeth, Skills England risks drifting off course

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.

How successful the first batch of apprenticeships reviewed by Skills England are will be a make-or-break moment, especially given a backlash from employers on ‘dumbing down’ has already started.

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.

Cross-party consensus on skills is also essential. It was encouraging to hear apprenticeships feature prominently in Kemi Badenoch’s conference speech, and some positive noises from Reform UK about boosting the trades.

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.