Latest news from FE Week | FE Week

We need a 14-24 participation strategy to tackle NEET crisis

Challenges such as entrenched poverty, growing health needs, labour market instability and a post-16 qualification system in turmoil have contributed to a rise in 16 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training to 957,000, according to the latest figures just out.

One of the most significant pressures is the rise in health-related barriers to participation.

More than half of NEET young people report a health condition, and demand for specialist mental-health services has more than doubled since 2020.

Yet access remains uneven, with long CAMHS waiting lists and patchy rollout of mental health support teams across schools and colleges.

Young people with SEND face even greater disadvantage: they are four times more likely to be NEET. Transitions into secondary school can be particularly destabilising, contributing to absence and disengagement. This reflects not a lack of ambition, but a system poorly designed around the needs of vulnerable young people.

Poverty and place-based inequality compound these challenges. High transport costs, limited services in rural and coastal areas and housing insecurity all restrict access to learning.

Opportunity varies starkly across England and for many in rural or more isolated areas, travelling to college or an apprenticeship provider is unaffordable or impractical.

The system is also wrestling with qualification reform. The growing mix of A Levels, T Levels, applied generals, alternative academic qualifications and forthcoming V Levels creates a complex landscape to navigate.

The defunding of some qualifications before alternatives are established risks leaving cohorts without a suitable local option, especially where T Level industry placements cannot be delivered. This is narrowing rather than expanding pathways.

The GCSE English and maths resit policy remains another longstanding barrier which can undermine engagement. While the recent skills white paper outlines future changes, ASCL remains concerned that the reforms fall short of removing this barrier to progression.

Meanwhile, youth unemployment remains higher than overall unemployment, and economic inactivity has surged.

Employers increasingly report that young people lack technical and wider employability skills, partly because structured work experience opportunities have declined.

Apprenticeships, although promising, remain limited: SMEs are far less likely to offer them, reducing opportunities in the very places that need them most.

Another glaring weakness is the lack of coordination at critical transition points. There’s no national mechanism for tracking post-16 attendance, meaning early warning signs of disengagement go unnoticed.

Once a young person leaves a school or college, there’s little capacity to maintain contact. Local authority duties end on the last Friday in June of Year 11 – misaligned with the requirement for young people to remain in education or training until 18. The system effectively loses sight of young people at the moment they are most vulnerable.

Participation partnerships

We’re calling for a national 14-24 participation strategy, supported by local ‘participation and progression partnerships’ with statutory responsibility for transition oversight.

Mandatory transition reviews – modelled on those used for education, health and care plans – would help identify risks earlier. Health and SEND support must be strengthened through the rollout of mental health support teams, statutory maximum waits for children’s mental-health services and integrated SEND mental-health provision within FE settings.

Qualification reform must be stabilised by pausing the defunding of applied generals, expanding level 2 and below provision, and introducing a national directory of post-16 admissions requirements.

We also want to see centralised post-16 attendance tracking that reflects the flexibility of FE timetables, an expanded definition of Children Missing Education (CME) up to age 18, and a statutory re-engagement duty for learners withdrawn under the four-week funding rule.

A youth guarantee offering every 16 to 24-year-old a job, apprenticeship, education place or re-engagement programme without waiting 18 months to qualify, as is the case with the current proposal, would help ensure no young person is left without options.

Improved transport, more accessible apprenticeships and secure accommodation for vulnerable 16 to 19-year-olds would remove some persistent barriers to participation.

The NEET crisis is complex. But with coordinated cross-governmental reforms, early intervention and a stable, accessible post-16 system, it can be reversed.

AI training is of limited use if staff can’t safely use the tech

AI continues to be a fast-developing topic, with new models being rolled out at increasing frequency and its everyday use accelerating at pace. Yet with this comes responsibility for ensuring users know how to engage with AI safely and responsibly, and with meaningful impact.

The government recently announced its plans to provide free AI short courses to all adults across the UK as part of its ambition to upskill 10 million workers by 2030.

The courses are said to be able to give people the relevant skills needed to use simple AI tools effectively in the workplace, and set the standard for what good AI upskilling looks like.

Yet whilst short courses like these are, in principle, excellent ways for the workforce to build a foundational understanding of AI and how to use it, speed should not come at the expense of substance.

AI is rapidly reshaping the needs of employers and many may rely on short courses as a ‘quick fix’ to fill existing digital skills gaps. However, they should not be used as a substitute for the deep, applied skills employers need if AI is to be embedded productively and safely at scale.

FE Week also reported recently that there are growing concerns about the consistency and quality of some of the AI short courses being delivered, thereby raising questions about whether they risk repeating past mistakes of prioritising volume over impact.

If we are serious about building a genuinely AI-ready workforce, the government and employers must recognise that apprenticeships are the central pillar to achieving this ambition.

AI capabilities are not built in isolation from the workforce. We regularly hear from employers and partners that what they need are people who can apply AI tools in their everyday roles, and understand the risks and limitations as the technology evolves.

That not only requires human judgement, but structured, work-based learning which cannot be achieved in short bursts of training which are disconnected from day-to-day practices. This is where apprenticeships have a very clear advantage.

Whether in AI, data or cybersecurity, apprenticeships allow skills to be built in contexts aligned to real business needs and assessed through practical outcomes. Learners can develop technical digital skills alongside their professional judgement, and in far more detail than is available through short courses alone.

Crucially, however, is the fact that apprenticeships provide a scalable route to upskilling the existing workforce rather than only new entrants. Many employees who will use and manage new AI systems are already in the labour market and as such, apprenticeships offer a pathway for sustained development and confidence as they progress throughout their careers.

An important consideration with this, however, is how the growth and skills levy will be used to support digital upskilling. From April, levy funds can be used for shorter module training courses or ‘apprenticeship units’ which will be lifted from existing apprenticeships in critical industries like AI in the first instance.

Such reform presents an opportunity to ensure funding mechanisms actively support long-term capability building, while also enabling the use of targeted, short-term solutions where they add value. Flexibility is crucial, and when used well it can complement – rather than sideline – high-quality, longer-term apprenticeship provision.

National Apprenticeship Week prompted reflection on the future of the system, but policymakers should resist the temptation to frame the way forwards as a choice between speed and quality. The challenge is to do both. Short courses can complement the system, but they cannot replace the role apprenticeships play in building durable, job-ready capability.

If the UK genuinely wants to create an AI-ready workforce that supports productivity, progression and long-term resilience, apprenticeships must be treated not as an optional extra but as critical infrastructure for the country’s skills system.

Getting that balance right will determine whether AI becomes a driver of inclusive growth or another missed opportunity.

‘Fundamentally wrong’: Greater Lincolnshire leaders approve ESOL cuts

Plans to cut funding for English language lessons aimed at migrants have been approved in Greater Lincolnshire – despite fears it will harm community integration.

At a budget meeting on Wednesday, Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority agreed to scrap English for speakers of other languages (ESOL) courses from 2027 and develop a literacy programme instead.

The council’s Reform mayor Dame Andrea Jenkyns aims to redirect the £1 million ESOL adult skills fund cash towards the literacy qualification to “help more adults into paid employment”.

Meanwhile, her skills lead, North Lincolnshire council leader Rob Waltham, claimed ESOL classes create “segregation” as learners are separated from other groups due to the “origin of their birth” or “their colour”.

The Tory politician added it was more inclusive “to make sure we don’t segregate people” and ensure public adult education funding is spent “on the right people”.

The funding rules were approved ahead of the combined authority taking control of its £17-19 million adult skills fund budget in September.

Jenkyns, backed by a group of Reform and Conservative local council leaders, also voted to re-introduce a rule that learners must have been resident in the region for three years before they can apply for council-subsidised courses.

The Reform mayor called the decision “a really exciting moment” for the estimated 200,000 residents who lack a level 2 qualification, and claimed leaders from other areas were interested in the development.

She said: “What I’d like to see is, next month, we get the business community, we get FE and HE in the room, we get the private providers and Ofqual as well, and we design an amazing literacy qualification that’s linked to economic outcomes.

“I’d love our county to be that beacon of light for these people, where other counties follow suit, and we’ve already had other counties and combined authorities watching the space and contacting us.”

The funding vote followed a public consultation that attracted 375 responses, with 73 per cent saying they disagreed or strongly disagreed with cuts to ESOL funding.

In 2023-24, about £1 million was spent on delivering the language courses for 1,427 Greater Lincolnshire residents.

‘Using migrants as a political football’

Four district council leaders opposed the ESOL cut, with North Kesteven District Council leader Richard Wright arguing it was “fundamentally wrong”.

He said ESOL helped women from patriarchal societies, such as Afghanistan, who were “legitimately here”.

Wright, a Conservative, added: “If we want people to integrate into society, if we want to actually have people contribute to GB PLC to pay their taxes, to get employment, they need to be able to speak English.

“So to say that after a year we will stop the ESOL, to me is fundamentally wrong – there’s a case for ESOL, there’s a case for literacy, but one doesn’t replace the other.”

Naomi Tweddle, leader of Labour-run City of Lincoln Council, warned the impacts could be “far more wide reaching than are anticipated”.

And Nick Worth, Tory leader of South Holland District Council, said Jenkyns “clearly hadn’t listened” to the message delivered by the public consultation, but the mayor shot back that the number of responses was “very small”.

University and College Union general secretary Jo Grady said: “This decision to cut ESOL funding is an attack on community cohesion and integration that will cause serious harm across Lincolnshire.

“This cut must be stopped and adult education in Lincolnshire must be fully funded.

“It is yet another example of Reform using migrants as a political football to inflame division and hatred; on the one hand, Nigel Farage complains about hearing foreign languages spoken in public, yet on the other, a Reform mayor is stopping migrants accessing the very courses that will enable them to speak English.”

Chance to step back revealed a hard lesson in student soft skills

As educators, we rarely have time to pause, reflect and truly hone our practice. But when we do get an opportunity, we often find innovative solutions to persistent challenges or gain perspective that takes us in a new direction.

My experience of T Level mentoring with the Education Training Foundation (ETF) provided space to reflect and move beyond the comfort zone in my teaching.

This gave me the confidence to invest further in my practice by applying for the Technical Teaching Fellowship programme, run by ETF and the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851.

When I started my fellowship, I wanted to use my research project to investigate why my first cohort of management T Level learners had such mixed experiences with their industry placement.

Several learners weren’t happy with the placement, and one was unfortunately let go.

When I spoke to employers, they were honest about learners lacking the skills to succeed in the workplace. I wanted to understand the workplace-readiness skills gaps and how we could use digital technologies to address them.

My assumption that the main problem would be technical skills – use of Teams, Excel, Outlook – was soon challenged. It wasn’t these skills, but human skills such as communication, resilience, adaptability and confidence that both learners and employers felt most affected their ability to succeed.

Employers emphasised that while they were able to provide support with most technical skills on the job, it was these soft skills that were harder to teach but were invaluable to learners’ progress from day one.

Holding focus groups across my T Level cohorts, I explored which areas learners needed most support with. Together, we identified core professional habits and behaviours required for workplace success: punctuality, reliability, planning, confidence talking on the phone and conflict resolution (including taking constructive feedback).

The ability and confidence to plan routines, including finding their way to places, was a top concern for many learners. In class we looked at bus and train apps, and downloaded maps to plan routes. We explored being flexible and adaptable, considering alternative routes and transport options for unexpected scenarios.

For other behaviours, I drew on AI tools. To build confidence talking on the phone, I used an AI roleplay simulator to roleplay scenarios where learners could interact live through headsets.

While we trialled a paid tool for roleplay, free tools were also useful. These included the ‘coach function’ within Microsoft PowerPoint, which records learners delivering their presentation and provides feedback on pauses, pitch, and repetition.

Learners found this useful in preparing for the 20-minute presentation required as part of their employer set project.

Importantly, as well as supporting our learners with skills, I worked with employers on how to support learners’ understanding of expectations in the workplace.

This involved breaking down unfamiliar language, asking for clarity on terms such as ‘smart-casual’ dress code and establishing non-negotiables.

I also ensured that employers were equipped with the right information to support individuals. For SEND learners, I created a one-pager outlining their particular support needs in the workplace which we hope to roll out to colleagues.

It’s been fantastic to see my learners growing in confidence for their industry placements after focusing on developing their soft skills.

The next stage of my fellowship project involves sharing my learnings with the wider sector. I’m doing this by creating a digital handbook with tips and ideas for practitioners and through other activities, including organising an in-house conference.

My experience has prompted me to consider sector-wide issues and think about our changing policy landscape, which has also given me valuable perspective and context for my own practice.

I look forward to sharing specific learnings from my research, but my overarching takeaway remains this: grasping any opportunity to step back and reflect, in whatever form this may take, is one of the most valuable things we can do as educators, not just for our learners but for ourselves too.

Apprenticeship reform may save money now but cost growth later

The current direction of apprenticeship reform, with the removal of level 7 funding and wider restrictions under the proposed growth and skills levy, risks destabilising employer confidence, shrinking provider infrastructure and undermining long-term economic productivity.

Defunding additional apprenticeship programmes risks alienating employers as leadership and management would be hit hardest.

Ironically, this may initially save money, but over time differing programmes would be utilised and the spend may well just shift across provision, ultimately returning budget pressure.

We have instead come up with an approach offering a more palatable transition that delivers cost savings across the entire arena, irrespective of sector or programme.

This would further safeguard public funds, while also giving the Treasury greater control over all programmes.

A balanced alternative is available. By introducing a tiered co-investment model and embedding structured mechanisms to support NEET (not in education, employment or training) reduction, the government can save money while protecting leadership pipelines, sustain provider infrastructure and expand access for young people.

Government context

Recent reforms prioritise youth participation and NEET reduction, amid significant fiscal pressure. The transition from the apprenticeship levy to a growth and skills levy, and the removal of funding for most level 7 apprenticeships, reflects an understandable focus on reallocation of public funds.

However, reform must avoid unintended structural damage to employer engagement and delivery capacity.

Employers report growing frustration regarding the removal of higher-level apprenticeships and uncertainty surrounding future levy rules.

Increased restrictions on programme availability to support workforce development risks further disengagement.

With rising operational costs and offshoring trends, removing access to leadership and management development via apprenticeships may weaken UK productivity and long-term economic resilience. Leadership and management development is at the core of nearly all LSIPs’ (local skills improvement plans) strategies, too.

Training providers have already absorbed multiple financial shocks: loss of functional skills funding, removal of level 7 funding, rising operational costs and static outdated funding bands.

Despite this, success and retention rates have improved and providers continue to invest in quality, infrastructure and compliance under the newly strengthened Ofsted regime.

Further defunding risks redundancies, provider exits and a significant contraction in national delivery infrastructure.

Tiered co-investment model

Our proposal of a phased tiered co-investment model would generate savings while preserving employer engagement and provider stability.

We propose that during the first year (2026-27), 16-18 training would be 100 per cent funded, 19-24 would be 95 per cent funded and age 25-plus would be 90 per cent funded.

The second year would be the same, except that training for those aged 25-plus would be 85 per cent funded.

We estimate this strategy would save at least £321 million.

Providers to support NEET reduction

The government aims to reduce the NEET rate by putting two‑thirds of these young people (around 600,000) in higher‑level education or apprenticeships by 2040.

This represents almost double the current apprentice numbers in participation, and makes it imperative that ministers protect and build on current apprenticeship infrastructure, not curtail it. And for that to happen, training providers need stability.

Providers above a defined turnover threshold should demonstrate a minimum percentage of provision allocated to under-25 and NEET learners. Alignment should be linked to programme areas, expertise and provider size.

The government should also fund pre-apprenticeship bootcamps and consider short-term wage subsidies to reduce employer risk during the first 12 weeks of youth employment.

It should publish provider-level data on NEET participation, sustained outcomes and progression rates to encourage transparency and sector leadership, and consider inclusion in the apprenticeship accountability framework.

Partnerships should be encouraged between large providers, community organisations and Job Centre Plus to improve access to hard-to-reach young people.

And there should be increased emphasis within inspection frameworks on inclusion, youth engagement, barrier removal and sustained employment outcomes.

A balanced approach recognises that providers must contribute to youth inclusion, while funding structures and accountability mechanisms must make that contribution viable and sustainable.

Adult education is also about strengthening our democracy

Adult education is at a crossroads. For decades, it has been framed almost exclusively through a labour-market lens: a means to improve employability, boost productivity and fill skills gaps. While this focus is understandable, it is also incomplete. Adult learning has always played a much broader role in society – one that is increasingly vital as we face deepening social polarisation and democratic disengagement.

At WM College in the heart of London, we see daily how adult education changes lives not only by supporting progression into work, but by helping learners feel connected to their communities and confident in their voices. Learning creates spaces for discussion, reflection and shared experience – all essential ingredients for a healthy civic life.

Historically, adult education in Britain was deeply intertwined with civic life. From working men’s clubs to mutual improvement societies, learning did not take place only in formal classrooms; it happened in everyday social spaces where people gathered, discussed, debated and supported one another’s growth.

Recent data from the Learning and Work Institute shows a sharp decline in adult learning participation especially lowest among those who are already the most marginalised – people facing economic disadvantage, social isolation or historic exclusion from formal education. Research also indicated the loss of communal social spaces directly feeds into a sense of powerlessness, particularly in deprived areas where civic participation rates are consistently lower. The loss of communal learning environment reduces social trust and makes individuals vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation.

The lesson for today is clear: if adult education is to support not only economic participation but also democratic resilience, it must be accessible, community-based and relevant to learners’ lived experiences.

Yet when adults learn together in supportive, community-rooted environments, the benefits extend far beyond qualifications. Learners develop social capital: networks, shared experience and the confidence to engage with others. This builds resilience at both individual and community levels, helping to break down the class barriers that still shape access to opportunity in our society.

We see this in practice when adult learners engage not only with subject content, but with one another – through collaborative projects, discussion-led learning and activity rooted in local contexts. Learners who may initially arrive focused on a single practical outcome often leave with something less tangible but just as powerful: increased confidence, stronger relationships and a renewed sense of agency in their communities.

Adult education strengthens civic participation. Adults who engage in learning are more likely to vote, volunteer, join local groups and participate in decision-making. Adult education is a critical catalyst for developing the analytical skills required to navigate a complex, information heavy world. In an age of misinformation and polarisation, the capacity to think critically, listen to differing perspectives and engage respectfully with others is not a luxury – it is a public good.
Colleges therefore have a crucial role to play. Institutions like WM College act as community anchors – places where learning, civic life and social connection intersect. Through inclusive provision and partnerships rooted in place, colleges can reach adults who might otherwise remain disconnected from both education and civic life.

This collaborative role was reflected recently when WM College hosted an event organised by New City College inviting sector leaders, employers and civic partners to discuss the future of adult skills in London. A clear message emerged: no single institution can meet today’s challenges alone. Strengthening adult education requires deeper collaboration, local government, employers and communities – aligning skills, inclusion and opportunity in ways that support both economic participation and social cohesion. Adult learning must be understood not as a set of disconnected interventions, but as a shared civic endeavour.

Reviving this broader vision for adult education is not a romantic throwback. It is an evolved and pragmatic response to real challenges in our society – one that depends on collaboration across the sector as much as innovation within institutions. If we are serious about strengthening democracy, reducing social isolation and building resilient communities, we must ask: where is learning happening, and who is it reaching? Because it matters not just what adults learn, but how and with whom they learn it.

As the sector looks ahead to the Lifelong Learning Entitlement and broader national initiatives such as renewed Erasmus+ participation, we must ensure adult education is recognised not just for its economic value, but for its civic and community impact.

Adult education can and should be a bridge: between people, between communities and between citizens and civic life itself. Recognising and investing in this role is essential OR are we confronted with the possibility that sustained cuts to adult education is actually weakening democracy in practice.

Apprenticeship reform risks solving the wrong problems

The government says that it wants to get more young people into secure, well-paid work more quickly.

That ambition, set out by work and pensions secretary Pat McFadden, sits behind recent apprenticeship announcements: faster approval of standards, a new apprenticeship clearing system devolved to mayoral areas and last year’s rollout of foundation apprenticeships.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith has indicated apprenticeships in areas such as leadership and management will be defunded.

This is significant: it highlights a policy direction where ministers will treat apprenticeships used primarily for employee workforce development differently from those used for career entry. The question is whether this emerging approach leads to a coherent strategy for young people or is simply an opportunity to defund specific standards that do not fit current priorities in order to make room for a continued top slice from the levy by the Treasury.

If ministers are serious about career entry for young people, then apprenticeship recruitment must become a priority and reform designed properly, leading to very significant growth in apprenticeship vacancies for young people and adults trying to start a career.

One system with two different purposes

With this in mind, the announcement that ministers will slash approval times for updating some apprenticeship standards remains welcome. The need to review standards every three years has existed for some time, but in practice it has proved difficult. With so many standards, it has never been fully delivered.

Apprenticeships currently try to serve two very different purposes with one set of rules.

On the one hand, there are standards aimed at upskilling of people already employed: often highly specific and tailored to the needs of large employers rather than SMEs. On the other, there should be broad, clearly defined pathways for young people entering the workplace for the first time.

These are not the same, yet the system largely treats them as if they are. Simply defunding employee upskilling is not the answer.

There is currently one minimum duration, a mere eight months, in place regardless of whether the apprentice is an experienced employee adding a management qualification or a 16-year-old starting from scratch. For workforce development, with prior learning, eight months may be perfectly adequate. For a young person entering the labour market for the first time, two years is more like the minimum time needed to develop occupational competence.

Defunding some management and leadership standards might suggest the government is preparing to differentiate between different parts of the apprenticeship system.

If ministers are intent on removing levy funding from workforce development standards, they must replace them with something employers can use their levy for effectively.

Simply closing down popular management or project management standards without creating alternative shorter, flexible levy-funded programmes will create understandable frustration among employers. We are already hearing this play out in discussions, particularly amongst those who have built internal progression routes around existing standards and some employers who do use management apprenticeships for career entry. If the government’s priority is the industrial strategy sectors then surely management within those sectors is a priority.

Short, high-quality workforce development apprenticeship programmes could sit alongside longer career-entry apprenticeships. If the government chooses to focus apprenticeships more clearly on occupational competence, this would help meet their manifesto commitment to make the levy more flexible.

But employers will still expect appropriate levy or co-funded routes to develop supervisors, team leaders and managers.

There’s work to do here: Skills England and DWP must also work through how to create the very significant growth needed in career entry apprenticeships.

“Clearing” must be built around providers

The proposed creation of a new apprenticeship clearing system devolved to mayoral authorities takes us to the heart of the biggest problem: access.

There’s no shortage of young people who want apprenticeships. Across the attainment spectrum, many now see them as an alternative to full time education, particularly university. The difficulty is vacancies.

The principle of a clearing system is long overdue, as the current model is fragmented. Larger employers advertise vacancies that young people can apply for directly, but that only works where annual recruitment is predictable and visible. SME employers, who may only take on one apprentice at a time, often operate below the radar.

Colleges and other providers try their best to match young people to opportunities locally, but there is no coherent application system comparable to UCAS. Without a structured application process in the first place, the idea of ‘clearing’ as a follow up makes little sense.

A meaningful system in mayoral areas should be built around providers rather than individual employers. In Year 11,12, 13 (and even later) a young person should be able to apply for a digital, health or construction apprenticeship through a local portal, expressing preferences as they would for higher education. Providers, acting as umbrella organisations for occupational routes, should coordinate vacancies with employers and manage interviews and offers, formalising what many already do informally.

Clearing would then be an ongoing process, not just a late-summer rescue exercise. The system would start while young people are still in full-time education and respond to vacancies throughout the year.

Devolving this to mayoral areas makes sense because labour markets are local. But it must go beyond a simple vacancy-matching portal. It should function as a structured, rules-based access system, with providers central and fairness embedded. Yet even the best application and clearing system cannot conjure vacancies that do not exist.

Foundation apprenticeships aren’t working

Foundation apprenticeships underline the scale of the challenge. With only a handful of starts since introduction, they have yet to gain traction.

Part of the confusion lies in their positioning. Labelled as level 2, they resemble what would previously have been considered pre-apprenticeship provision. They are intended as an entry point, allowing young people to test a sector and develop basic skills before progressing.

However, employers are expected to pay the apprenticeship minimum wage for what is, in effect, speculative activity. At around £8 per hour, this is well above youth apprenticeship pay in many countries with strong systems, particularly for 16 and 17 year olds. For smaller firms in particular, that is a significant barrier to overcome given the risk and reduced productivity involved.

If foundation apprenticeships are to succeed, they may need reframing as genuine pre-apprenticeships: college-based starts that transition into employment, or structured work trials before full apprenticeship status. Without that adjustment, they will not generate the additional entry-level vacancies the system needs.

Reform must be strategic

Recent announcements highlight a direction of travel and challenges for employers to grapple with. Faster reviews, clearing and foundation routes all acknowledge that young people need clearer and more reliable pathways into work.

The likely defunding of some management and leadership standards illustrates the government’s direction. But selective defunding is not the same as a strategy for young people.

Career-entry apprenticeships are fundamentally different from workforce development. They should be longer, structured and clearly occupational. Workforce development programmes can be shorter and more flexible. Both have a legitimate place in a levy-funded skills system.

If government removes one without properly designing the other, and without a clear strategy to expand vacancy-based opportunities for young people, then employer engagement will weaken and access will not improve. This will require a high profile employer leadership campaign, new incentives and programmes such as pre-apprenticeships.

If the overriding imperative is to get more young people into secure, well-paid jobs, then apprenticeship clearing cannot be an afterthought. It must sit within a broader redesign that separates purposes clearly, protects employer confidence in the levy, and actively grows real entry-level vacancies.

Without that, the rhetoric will continue to outrun the reality.

Kevan Collins to be Phillipson’s SEND delivery adviser

Kevan Collins has been appointed as the education secretary’s delivery adviser with a focus on SEND reform and reviewing how the department engages with councils.

Collins, the Department for Education’s lead non-executive board member, will take on the additional part-time role for two days a week.

He will focus on supporting the DfE’s delivery unit on SEND reform and reviewing how it engages with councils “to ensure reform programmes are clear and achievable”.

Ministers released their long-awaited plans to overhaul the SEND system on Monday, which included new duties for colleges and tiers of help for students.

Collins, a former CEO of the Education Endowment Foundation who worked on New Labour’s “London Challenge” school improvement programme, said: “Having worked across the education system, I know that ambitious plans only matter if they translate into real change in classrooms and communities.

“Children with SEND and their families have waited too long for the support they need, and I’m determined to help ensure these reforms deliver for them.

“I look forward to working with colleagues across the department and with local authorities to make that happen.”

Collins will earn £577 per day, totalling £60,000 a year in the new role. This is on top of the £20,000 he receives for 24 days work a year in his non-executive DfE board position.

‘Proven track record’

The appointment began this week and will run until August next year, with an option to extend by another 18 months.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, said: “Every child, whatever their needs, should have the opportunity to achieve and thrive at their local school.

“Kevan has a proven track record of driving improvement across education, and his expertise will be invaluable as we deliver the schools white paper and our mission to shift children with SEND from sidelined to included.”

Collins was previously catch-up tsar during the pandemic under the Conservative government, but resigned over a lack of funding.

After the last election, Labour appointed him as school standards tsar and non-executive board member. He was promoted to lead the board last year.

Collins also previously declared that he is a Labour member and made a £500 donation to the party.

SEND reform will reshape colleges, but workload shock is coming

The devil will be in the detail when it comes to the government’s SEND reforms, but there are key legislative changes on the horizon which stand out for colleges.

The most notable of these is the legal requirement for them to generate and review at least every year individual support plans (ISPs) at one of two levels – targeted and targeted plus – for all learners with identified SEND needs. We will see whether the scope of SEND narrows in the future, but if the same proportion of students (currently about one in five) are deemed to have SEND, that will significantly increase colleges’ workload.

Those ISPs will also involve additional and significant legal duties on colleges:

They will have to generate and constantly maintain the detail of provision in ISPs. That may make provision more agile for learners but also may cause more disputes between colleges and parents and young people. There will be more parental ‘co-production’ expected, which again could improve provision but will certainly increase workload.
Education, health and care plans (EHCPs) when issued will be more strategic documents and schools will also have to issue ISPs alongside ECHPs to contain the detail of the learner’s provision. The council’s duty will be “to secure access to support and provide sufficient funding to the setting, within national banding, to deliver the EHCP”
The consultation tells us that “through the introduction of ISPs, settings will be accountable and responsible for delivering educational provision and supporting the child or young person to learn, rather than this being the responsibility of the local authority”. It appears that no actual specific new legal duties will be imposed on schools/colleges to implement ISPs beyond their current duties to use their “best endeavours” (under SEND law) and to make “reasonable adjustments” (under equality law). However, the extent of a school or college’s “accountability” in delivering provision under ISPs requires further clarification. Guidance on reasonable adjustments will be issued by the DfE. The department should take the opportunity to rationalise the parallel duties that school and colleges have under SEND and equality law, which have long caused confusion in practice.
The consultation states that “where there are concerns about provision, parents and young people will be able to resolve this directly with the setting, including making use of the improved schools complaints process”. Whilst schools and colleges need to be accountable, they are already reeling under the weight of AI-supported and generated parental complaints. They will be very concerned about having to manage an even greater complaints workload unless DfE guidance gives schools and colleges robust powers to deal with vexatious complaints when they occur.

Another necessary and key change will be the transfer of public funding away from distribution through local authority high needs “top up funding” to provide more direct funding of mainstream schools and colleges to support their extended role in inclusion. It will be crucial for schools and colleges to have flexibility in the use of that funding if they are to deliver inclusion in a dynamic and effective way. The risk is that schools and colleges will be bogged down with producing detailed, costed provision maps for all their learners with ISPs to explain how they are meeting their statutory delivery duties.

As regards special schools, there is a distinction drawn between state funded and independent special schools. The common requirement will be that they make provision to deliver “nationally defined specialist provision packages” and “packages will form the basis for future EHCPs, in both mainstream and specialist settings”. Crucially these packages will be “linked to a nationally set costing framework based on the provision outlined in the package”.

Recent ministerial comment has focused on examples of excessive private profit being made by independent special schools, and the consultation document contemplates strong legal controls on their governance and activity.

Legislation is planned to bring the duties and oversight of independent special schools into line with other special schools by creating a statutory definition and standards, aligning their admission duties with that of other specialist settings and requiring them to offer placements based on specialist provision packages and in accordance with national funding bands, and to adhere to the code of practice.

The government is also considering the changes needed to ensure special post-16 institutions are “treated in a similar way, recognising that this sector will continue to play a vital role”.

Given the complexity and depth of these proposed changes, we are glad to note that the government says it will work with the sector to implement these reforms in a “sequenced, phased and manageable way”.