How FE leaders could help rescue university governance 

It is not surprising that colleges and college groups have focused on the constitution of their governance arrangements and have sought executive search to support them in finding the best board members around, as NCG has done.  This approach can build a more diverse board model that challenges the sector to consider what great governance can look like.

Increasingly, FE boards demonstrate a rich professional diversity, with connections to place, and a varied strategic outlook suffused with community engagement and commitment.  However, board culture arguably is even more important than individuals. And the role of governance lead and chair working together is all important. 

University boards may have a number of alumni who make it look and sound the same, and there can be a bias towards investment/finance experience.  With university boards focused on the finances and estate development, the connection with and awareness of the education or student experience can be limited to a student representative or a student voice report on the agenda. 

As can be seen currently, there has been a lack of awareness of policy development and external risks which can impact on universities. With greater regulation and compliance demanded by the Office for Students, the emphasis has to be shared more evenly. This can only be done if there are Board members who understand this, because of their own background and professional experience. 

There is a view held that vice chancellors like to keep their boards at a distance and seek to ‘manage’ them, rather than truly embracing the intent of governance and the purpose of the board.  University executive teams are losing out when they fail to draw on the talents of their boards. As universities struggle to cope, some have argued that it has been a failure of governance that has led to this situation, as opposed to considering whether it is the approach to governance that has enabled crises to develop. 

Given the record number of colleges that have achieved good and outstanding judgements in recent inspections, it should be recognised that evidence of good governance always plays a key role in these successes.

Moves from within the FE sector itself to create better governance structures show how some colleges recognise and welcome the impact of good governance. Again, the sector has slowly started to appreciate that the role of the director of governance is crucial in ensuring both the executive and non-executive are connected and working effectively and that the board culture is one that supports high performance.  However, there is often a lack of innovation in governance. And sometimes colleges might be missing a trick in how they use advisory groups/key individuals to help challenge and shape strategy. 

We see a much greater understanding of place, community, business and stakeholder management in FE, than many universities – who have to work on their ‘civic university charter’ rather than simply being the ‘community asset’ that defines FE Colleges. FE has historically also done well at finding efficiencies and pragmatically engaging in mergers. 

One way for universities to enhance their governance is to appoint FE leaders to their board. Serving college principals and CEOs (or recently retired) bring huge value around coping with increased regulation/inspection, finding efficiencies, especially with teaching and learning and curriculum design, and collaboration/mergers/restructures. 

‘There’s been a wave of college principals and CEOs retiring lately‘

AQ has recently supported universities with some success in placing FE leaders onto boards.  There has been a recognition from universities that we’ve worked with that FE leaders can strengthen relationships between the sectors. They provide challenge to the university’s relationship with place and business, enhance the relationship between board and executive, improve the management of increased regulation and funding challenges, working more closely with government, and more.  

There has been a wave of college principals and CEOs retiring over the past few months, and we know that many would be keen to join a university board. 

The impact that working in the FE sector has on senior leaders quickly translates into board ‘value-add’.  Given the immense challenges that universities are now facing that input could be transformative, bringing purpose and success to university governance. 

Why HTQs have a strong foundation to build on 

In March 2025, the Department for Education (DfE) published the latest reports of the Technical Education Learner Surveys, administered by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and the National Foundation for Educational research (NFER). One follow-up survey focused on learners undertaking pre-reform level 4/5 courses, which are qualifications combining theoretical and practical experience. They were offered before the implementation of the new higher technical qualifications (HTQs). HTQs include higher national diplomas (HND), higher national certificates (HNC), certificates/diplomas of higher education and foundation degrees. The findings provide a benchmark for comparing learner perspectives of the new HTQs. What standard have they set and what are the implications for HTQs?                                                                                                    

HTQs explained 

Level 4/5 learners surveyed studied at FE institutions in 2020-21 or 2021-22. They were surveyed in summer 2024, approximately two years after course completion. The survey explored their current activities, plans and reflections on their course.  

HTQs were introduced in 2022-23 to address low and declining participation in level 4/5 study and to boost the profile of these qualifications. HTQs serve as a unified ‘quality badge’ for level 4/5 qualifications, applying to new or existing level 4/5 programmes approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE), whose role has been subsumed within Skills England. Employers have been involved in their design to help align courses with employer needs and create clearer progression pathways into work and study. As of September 2024, HTQs were available in seven occupational sectors, with over 170 qualifications approved.  

Learners surveyed studied a range of subjects, with many aligning with the HTQ subjects available in the first two years of delivery and T Level routes. This included courses in digital, health and science, and construction, alongside other technical subjects (e.g. engineering and manufacturing technologies) and non-technical subjects (e.g. business, administration and law).   

Key findings  

The vast majority of level 4/5 learners on pre-reform courses had good progression outcomes matching their expectations. Ninety-four per cent were in employment, study or both and 73 per cent had remained within the same field as their course. Of these, 61 per cent were in work only; 23 per cent were studying only; and 10 per cent were studying and working. Three-quarters reported that their course helped them reach their desired next step.  

Most learners felt their course prepared them well for their next step, particularly those moving onto further study. Around three-quarters (73 per cent) reported their course prepared them for their future career, with 81 per cent and 68 per cent respectively feeling it prepared them well for further study and the workplace. Learners cited technical knowledge and practical skills as best preparing them for their current study or work.  

Level 4/5 courses have helped learners progress at work. Of those working before their course, 72 per cent agreed it had helped them do their current job better or secure a new job. This rose to 82 per cent among those who secured new employment after starting their course.  

Skills developed by the course were utilised most by learners studying or working in the same general field. Two-thirds (67 per cent) were using skills developed on their course ‘a great deal’ or ‘quite a bit’ in their current studies, compared to 58 per cent of those in work. However, among those working in the same general field of their course, this increased to 69 per cent.  

Most level 4/5 learners were fulfilled by their current situation and would recommend their course. Over seven in ten (71 per cent) were fulfilled by their current situation, with a quarter (26 per cent) being very fulfilled. Additionally, three-quarters (76 per cent) were ‘very likely’ or ‘quite likely’ to recommend their course. 

Overall, learners aged 26 and above were more positive than younger learners. This could be because older learners are more established in their field and choosing a level 4/5 course has helped them progress or get a new job.  

Implications and future research  

Despite government concerns, learner feedback on pre-reform courses was very positive. HTQs are building from a strong foundation, with pre-reform courses providing high-quality experiences and outcomes. These findings reaffirm that taking HTQs should be seriously considered, particularly given their stronger alignment to employers’ requirements. This will help Skills England to address the ‘missing middle’ and satisfy acute employer demand for higher technical skills.  

Looking ahead, future research should explore whether HTQ learners are similarly or more positive about their courses once they are bedded in – particularly regarding preparation for employment and acquiring skills aligned to workplace requirements. 

Ofsted to introduce report cards on reduced inspection timetable

Only the most senior Ofsted inspectors will carry out inspections when they return in November, meaning fewer will take place than usual.

However the watchdog was unable to say how many fewer inspections this would mean for education providers. 

The move is the latest from Ofsted as it attempts to assure the sector over its plans to introduce new report card inspections this autumn.

Critics say the reforms are “far too rushed”, with providers having just weeks between seeing the final plans and being inspected. Ofsted previously pledged education institutions would have a term’s notice to get used to the new framework, but later reneged on this, sparking backlash from the sector. 

Many also still have huge concerns over the proposals for a new five-point grading system an potentially 20 inspection areas.

But in a bid to further “reassure” the sector, Ofsted today announced an “enhanced quality assurance process” that it says will help ensure “a steady and assured start” in November.

Inspections will be led and carried out only by “the most senior and experienced” HMIs to begin with, the watchdog announced.

Fewer autumn inspections

HMIs are civil servants who often work for Ofsted full-time, whereas Ofsted inspectors (OIs) work for the watchdog on a freelance basis and usually hold other positions in the sector. 

OIs will be phased into inspections following training, but Ofsted does not yet know when this will be.

This means there will be fewer inspections than usual in November and December. There will also be no education inspections in the final week before the Christmas holiday, “to allow for further inspector training”.

Ofsted could not say how many inspections there are likely to be in November and December, or how this compares to usual numbers.

Pilot Ofsted inspections to be scrutinised

In early autumn, senior inspectors will also take part in pilot visits to volunteer settings.

Ofsted said its national director for education and its principal inspector, Lee Owston, will personally quality assure the work of most senior inspectors following these visits. Inspectors will also carry out a “comprehensive” training programme before being deployed on a live inspection.

During autumn inspections, a random sample of providers will be invited to take part in “exit interviews” with Owston and senior Ofsted officials, to give feedback on their inspection experience and the reforms.

All providers will be invited to carry out a post-inspection survey.

Chief inspector Sir Martyn Oliver will also invite sector representatives to a series of roundtable meetings “to share their thoughts on the renewed framework”.

Julie McCulloch, director of strategy and policy at leaders’ union ASCL, today welcomed Ofsted’s efforts to provide assurance to schools and colleges, but said “the fact remains that the timeline is far too rushed and the five-point grading system proposed is fundamentally flawed”.

“The assurance that the sector needs is for Ofsted and the government to rethink the current proposals and then introduce the new inspection system in a less frantic manner giving schools and colleges time to absorb and prepare for what are very significant changes.

“A headlong rush towards a poorly constructed inspection system benefits nobody.”

But Oliver said he is “confident” the inspectorate’s reforms “will deliver an improved system of education inspection”.

“But we’re also serious about giving providers the support they need to engage confidently and fairly with the changes, and ensuring a steady and assured start to inspections under the renewed framework,” he added.

“I want to reassure everyone that we’re taking every possible measure to provide a consistent and high-quality inspection experience for all, right from the off.”

Ofsted also confirmed leaders’ all requests for an inspection deferral will be reviewed directly by its deputy chief inspector, “to make sure each case is treated with utmost sensitivity and consideration”.

For the first few months of inspections Ofsted will continually update an online FAQ document and produce blogs to “share reflections” and “counter any emerging myths”.

Ofsted is expected to provide more information in September, when it publishes its delayed response to its consultation.

Compulsory to 18? Too many still drop out at 16

Ten years have passed since it became compulsory to stay in education, apprenticeships or other work-based training until age 18. However, for most of this time only around 90 per cent of young people actually did so. We wouldn’t expect this rate to be 100 per cent as despite being a requirement, there are no repercussions for those that turn away from education, with increasing numbers becoming NEETs (not in education, employment or training) after they complete their GCSEs.

For most of the last decade this picture has been fairly static. However, new evidence suggests it’s time for policymakers to sit up and pay more attention to post-16 participation. Firstly, the Education Policy Institute’s annual report shows that the proportion of young people opting out of post-16 education entirely has been on the rise since the pandemic.

Secondly, it is young people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds who are becoming particularly more likely to disengage.

There will of course be cases where students dropping out of education after their GCSEs does not harm their long-term prospects. Some will find good employment or begin endeavours that lead to fulfilling careers. But this won’t be true for the majority.

DfE’s own statistics show that only a minority of those that weren’t in post-16 education or training secured sustained employment, and there’s a plethora of research showing how qualifications achieved in the 16-19 phase improve employment prospects.

Disadvantage gap

Our report sets out just how stark the situation is. Of those disadvantaged young people who took their GCSEs in 2022, more than one in five did not begin studying towards any substantial post-16 qualifications, or alternatives such as apprenticeships or traineeships. This compares to less than one in ten of their non-disadvantaged peers. And the gap between the two groups has widened by two percentage points in just the last two years, equating to thousands more disadvantaged young people leaving education at age 16.

The focus of our report for 16-19 education is usually to provide an update on the disadvantage attainment gap. On this we find that disadvantaged students were 3.3 grades behind other students across their best three qualifications in 2024. This is marginally worse than in 2023 and reflects zero progress since we started the time series in 2017. However, the overall attainment gap for all 16-19 year olds may be even worse than our analysis indicates, as

it does not take account of those not in education post-16. It is likely to be the lower attaining disadvantaged students who struggle the most in this crucial transition point between school and college.

Given our findings, calls for increased disadvantage funding in the form of a student premium payment are more pertinent than ever. Increased disadvantage funding for 16-19 providers by itself, however, would not be sufficient. Disadvantaged young people must be in education before they can benefit from any additional support, so further work must be undertaken to understand exactly what is happening on the ground, and the government must engage with this worsening problem urgently.

Increasing disengagement

Research cannot yet tell us exactly what is driving this trend. One likely explanation is the increasing disengagement from the education system that has led to an absence epidemic in pre-16 education is now affecting participation post-16. The rate of persistent and severe absenteeism at school has doubled since the pandemic, and it is likely the very same young people are then disengaging from education entirely at the end of year 11. The fact that if not done properly, post-16 education for lower attainers can feel like a cycle of failure will also not help. What’s more, this problem is only likely to be exacerbated by the population bulge that is now working its way through the 16-19 phase. With more students vying for places in some areas, the most vulnerable young people may find it even harder to secure a place on a suitable post-16 course without greater support.

While research continues to demonstrate that compulsory education to age 18 is beneficial, to reap this benefit, the government must ensure that there is a suitable, accessible and appealing post-16 education offer for all young people, and better support mechanisms must be put in place to ensure the most vulnerable are not allowed to fall through the gaps.

Online learning flattens barriers in the age of devolution

Devolution in post-16 education isn’t a passing policy trend – it’s the direction of travel, whatever your political stripes. Whether you’re enthusiastic or cautious, the reality is that localism is here, and it’s expanding.

Thanks to technology, we live in an era of extraordinary accessibility. Entertainment, information and services are at our fingertips streaming into our homes. Sometimes, it sparks unlikely comebacks. Kate Bush’s resurgence through Stranger Things wasn’t just a pop culture moment – it reminded us that timing and access can bring long-standing talent back into the spotlight.

We should treat online learning the same way. It’s not new, but it’s never been more powerful. As we embrace devolution and build more responsive systems, we must not overlook the transformational potential of online education.

Local leaders understand their communities – the challenges, employers and opportunities. From tackling youth unemployment to green skills pathways, a local approach enables decisions closer to where they matter most.

Devolution gives colleges, training providers and community organisations the platform to shape provision that reflects local ambitions. But delivery models must not unintentionally narrow access. While “local” speaks to geography, skills challenges don’t respect borders, and neither do learners.

Flexibility: The other local solution

I spend a lot of time on the road, putting miles on my beloved motorbike visiting colleges, combined authorities and more. No two places are the same but the barriers learners face often are.

And while I have the freedom to choose my route, many don’t have access to transport or the flexibility to fit learning into their lives.

Not everyone can reach a training centre. Geography, travel costs, caring duties or health concerns can all make attendance a challenge.

That’s where online learning becomes essential. It opens doors for:

  • Rural and coastal learners
  • Parents and carers
  • Individuals with health needs
  • Shift workers
  • Adults returning to education

The list goes on. Online learning isn’t an add-on, it’s a core enabler of inclusion. At recent conferences, the message was clear: if we want inclusion, we need flexibility.

Like many Kate Bush tracks, online learning has stood the test of time in adapting and expanding and is now more relevant than ever.

Aligning with national strategy

The industrial strategy, Building a Britain Fit for the Future, makes clear that skills are key to growth. One pillar, ‘people,’ calls for a world-class technical education system.

Online learning supports that vision. It connects people to opportunity enabling reskilling, career shifts and wider participation.

Some of the best ideas aren’t new, they just need the right moment. Like Running Up That Hill, online learning is being recognised for what it’s always been: effective, accessible and essential.

Connecting the dots

If devolution is about local need, we need systems, not silos.

No one provider can do it all. Strong systems connect colleges, training providers, community learning, employers and local authorities working together.

That’s the power of devolution: connecting the dots. Or as Bush might say: less Cloudbusting, more clarity.

Don’t keep learners on the hill

In 2023, I wrote a Bon Jovi inspired article and said, “devolution is not incompatible with learner demand, but it is a barrier.” That still stands. When systems favour what’s nearby over what’s accessible, learners are left running up that hill.

Online learning flattens that hill. It meets people where they are. Like Bush’s chart return, it shows trusted solutions still create transformative results.

Let’s not let geography decide futures

Devolution holds promise. Local leaders can build bold, inclusive systems. But that means going beyond what’s on the doorstep.

Let’s stay true to the spirit of localism meeting learners where they are, in classrooms or online. As Kate Bush might say, stop wuthering and build systems that help every learner fly, not fall.

JCB Academy breaks ground with Ofsted grade 1

An independent training provider specialising in construction and engineering apprenticeships has been upgraded by Ofsted to ‘outstanding’.

JCB Academy, headquartered in Staffordshire, was praised for its work with “world-leading organisations” to develop curriculums and “exceptional” teaching to help hundreds of engineering and construction apprentices.

In a glowing grade 1 report published this morning, Ofsted found that apprentices thrive in their studies and go onto supervisory and leadership roles after completing their apprenticeships at JCB Academy.

At the time of its June 3 to 6 inspection, the ITP had 250 apprentices in learning, 135 of which were on the engineering technician apprenticeship, its most popular standard.

The provider was last inspected in 2019, where it was awarded a ‘good’ rating.

Inspectors were impressed that apprentices develop “mastery” in very sought-after skills in the engineering and construction sectors.

Though most apprentices start with little or no prior knowledge, the report said they quickly learn skills that make a “swift and lasting positive contribution in the workplace”.

They noted that most apprentices achieve their qualification and go onto long-term employment, with many “securing promotions to supervisory and leadership roles”.

JCB Academy principal Jim Bailey said the firm was “pleased” that its apprenticeship programme has been recognised as ‘outstanding’ in every category. 

He said: “This achievement reflects the exceptional commitment of our staff, the dedication of our apprentices, and the valuable partnerships we maintain with dedicated and passionate employer partners.

“At The JCB Academy, we remain committed to providing an industry-focused education that prepares learners with the skills, character, and confidence necessary for success in their chosen careers.”

Apprentices were found to have high attendance to lessons, a good understanding of extremism, and often exceeded their expected progress. Ofsted pointed out that sometimes, apprentices have instructed more experienced colleagues on how to operate unfamiliar equipment in the workplace.

The watchdog’s report added: “Level 3 engineering technician apprentices learn to use industry-standard software for their computer-aided design drawings rapidly and skilfully.” 

The inspectorate also complimented tutors for “skilfully supporting” apprentices to build confidence and character and providing comprehensive career advice.

Apprentices also gain a “deep understanding” of diverse career pathways and receive tailored support to help them achieve their ambitious goals.

“Exceptional teaching helps apprentices thrive in their studies,” inspectors said.

JCB Academy subcontracts construction apprenticeship provision to Accxel Limited to 47 apprentices, half of which were aged under 18 when enrolling. 

Inspectors said leaders have input “rigorous assurance processes” to understand the quality of education, including within its subcontracted provision.

“They undertake frequent learning walks, annual lesson observations and apprentice and employer surveys. Leaders take precise and well-considered actions where necessary to improve the provision’s quality continuously,” the report said.

Governance at JCB Academy was found to be “highly effective”. Senio leaders provide governors with detailed information on performance of apprentices and course, which they use their expertise to hold leaders to account.

Term limits and recruitment reform is vital for effective FE governance

If the FE sector is to thrive in an era of devolved authority and heightened accountability, one thing is clear: governance reform can’t wait. Too many colleges are stuck in a cycle of complacency, where boards are packed with allies, scrutiny is superficial, and term limits are ignored.

The result is a system that values stability over challenge and conformity over innovation.

The fix? Two fundamental changes: mandatory term limits for governors and independent recruitment processes.

Without these, FE governance risks becoming an echo chamber where accountability statements collect dust and real oversight takes a back seat.

Self-perpetuating boards and the ‘old guard’

A senior governance colleague recently told me: “When new governors push for progress, they’re often vilified by the ‘old guard’, leaving them intimidated into silence.”

Sound familiar? It’s a culture that’s all too common. CEOs and chairs handpick governors who won’t challenge them, long-serving members dominate discussions, and promising candidates are rejected for fear they’ll rock the boat.

But here’s the thing: harmony isn’t the goal of governance, robust scrutiny is.

As one Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development review notes: “The governance office is the conscience of the organisation, ensuring short-term pressures never eclipse long-term values.”

Why term limits are essential

Guidance on governor tenure is so vague it’s practically an invitation to overstay.

While the FE Code of Good Governance suggests nine years as a benchmark, many treat it as a starting point, not a limit.

The fallout? Groupthink, reduced independence, and boards that lack the fresh ideas needed for today’s challenges, from local skills improvement plans to devolution.

Mandatory total term limits of, say, eight years max, would ensure a steady influx of new ideas while keeping institutional memory intact through staggered rotations and succession planning.

Meanwhile, allowing CEOs and chairs to dominate governor recruitment is a glaring conflict of interest. Instead, FE colleges should adopt independent nomination committees to bring in diverse, skilled appointees.

Skills-based recruitment should be the norm, prioritising expertise in finance, education and digital transformation. And boards should reflect the communities they serve, not just the inner circle of leadership. Whilst this is seen and done in many colleges, it is too often controlled from the top.

This isn’t pie-in-the-sky thinking. Australia’s TEQSA (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency) audits and enforces strict governance standards, and Canadian colleges use independent panels to appoint board members.

Training and culture: Learning from Weston

The Weston College scandal around the chief executive’s pay laid bare the gaps in governance training. While the Institute of Directors’ Governance Professional Programme is a step in the right direction, we need mandatory training for governors as well, covering financial oversight, risk management and inclusive leadership.

A national governance qualification, written for governors, backed by the Association of Colleges and the Education and Training Foundation, would raise the bar.

Whistleblower protections are a must, so concerns can be raised without fear.

And we must guard against items such as accountability statements being treated as tick-box exercises. Because if that’s all they are, then once completed they become forgotten and any potential for behavioural change is lost.

Change for the better

Governance needs a cultural change with boards’ performance being measured. Such measurement could be undertaken via an annual review, and overseen by a specialist body such as the Association of Colleges or even the FE Commissioner’s team.

The FE sector isn’t a collection of independent fiefdoms, it’s a cornerstone of the public sector that is accountable to mayors, employers and learners. To meet its responsibilities governance must step up with term limits, independent recruitment and professionalised training.

Governors are ready to lead this change, but they need support from policymakers and sector bodies to speak up and break the status quo.

Bottom 10 per cent missing out on GCSE core subject success

Between 2012 and 2023, young adults in England went from being one of the worst-performing groups in the OECD for literacy and numeracy to one of the best, making improvements on a scale not seen across other countries or other age groups in England.

The Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) shows dramatic improvements in essential skills among 16 to 24-year-olds. Literacy scores improved by seven per cent and numeracy by nine per cent.

Some, including the current skills minister Jacqui Smith, have attributed this improvement to schools. However, we have not seen similar improvements among 15-year-olds in PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment). Between 2012 and 2022, their scores stagnated. Improvements in maths for year five and nine in TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) were not on the same scale as the increase seen for 16 to 24-year-olds.

The 16-19 condition of funding, introduced in 2014, has drastically increased the continued study of English and maths, supporting around 3 million young people over the decade – specifically the lower attainers who would be represented in the bottom half of the PIAAC distribution.

Concerning lack of progress

The graphic below shows the average improvement among young adults between 2012 and 2023 by decile of the PIAAC distribution. Decile 1 (D1) are the lowest 10 per cent of students and decile 10 (D10) the highest.

It shows how the largest improvements were concentrated in the bottom half of the distribution, particularly for literacy. This signals improvements arising from resits.

But it also demonstrates a very concerning lack of progress for the bottom 10 per cent of students.

Students in decile 2 (between the 10th and 20th percentile of achievement) make the most progress in literacy and numeracy, with a huge spike in attainment between deciles 1 and 2. These are students very likely to have been subject to the resit policy. In numeracy, improvements have been larger and spread across more of the distribution (deciles 2 to 7 make more than 7 per cent improvements in scores). This wider increase in numeracy probably reflects the growth of A-level and Core mathematics.

We can triangulate these improvements against the increase in 16-19 English and maths achievement from 16.4 per cent in 2012/13 to 28.9 per cent in 2018/19 (the last year before Covid grading interferes with analysis). Taken together, the evidence suggests the condition of funding has been effective on average.

Remaining stuck

However, the bottom 10 per cent of the distribution is concerning. These learners should continue to study English and maths during their post-16 education. But between 2012 and 2023, they remained stuck at the lowest standard on the PIAAC scale.

This aligns with the curriculum and assessment review’s interim report finding that those “with lower grades [at 16] were less likely to achieve” by 19, though the report did not explore the causes in detail.

One is that these young adults are more likely to have not been in education or training (NET) between the ages of 16 and 18 (when they would have been resitting GCSE English and maths). The rate of NET for 16 to 18-year-olds between 2012 and 2023 ranged from 12 to 15 per cent.

They are not well served by ‘flexibilities’

There are also many flexibilities in the resit policy that are likely to disproportionately exclude lower attainers from continued study. The policy’s ‘tolerance’ allows institutions to not provide further study of GCSE English and maths for up to 5 per cent (changing to 2.5 per cent) of their entire student body. This disproportionately affects lower attainers and those with additional learning needs.

Moreover, EHCP (education, health and care plan) learners can be exempted altogether rather than being given extra support.

Finally, the policy allows learners with lower prior attainment to study towards functional skills, which has half the guided learning hours of the GCSE. These flexibilities are likely resulting in less English and maths support for those who need it most.

The huge improvements in young adult literacy and numeracy over the last 10 years deserve to be celebrated. They have been concentrated among the bottom half of students, suggesting that the resit policy has had a material impact on literacy and numeracy for young adults.

Sadly, students at the bottom 10 per cent of the distribution have been left behind. They are more likely to be disadvantaged, have additional needs, and are not being well-served, both by the unintended consequences of ‘flexibilities’ and by a 16-19 education system that sees too many students become NET. This needs to be a clear focus for the ongoing curriculum and assessment review.

Colleges can play their part in getting more teens to vote

The government’s announcement that 16- and 17-year-olds will be able to vote in the next general election is nothing short of a seismic shift for democracy. For those of us working to engage young people in civic life, it’s also the defining moment we’ve long hoped for and which brings new urgency to the work we do every day in further education.

At Trafford and Stockport College Group this news lands with particular resonance. Over the past two years, we’ve been piloting a pioneering voter registration initiative that allows students to register at the point of college enrolment. It’s a simple opt-in tick-box on a form; practical, secure, and student-friendly. But its impact has been anything but small.

Auto-enrolment pilot

Our first-year pilot in 2024 saw over 1,000 students register. Since then, momentum has grown rapidly. With the backing of local election managers, MPs, and Greater Manchester leaders, the scheme is now ready to be rolled out across all Great Manchester colleges and other colleges across the UK have begun replicating our model. What started as a local pilot is fast becoming a national movement and the government’s announcement is the wind in our sails.

But with this new right comes a critical question: how do we ensure that newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds feel empowered to use their vote?

This is where FE colleges have a unique and powerful role to play to ensure our young people are socially aware, politically engaged, and more than ready to take part in shaping their future. What they need is a system that lets them in, and educators who help them feel confident once they’re there.

Registering to vote isn’t just about participating in elections. It supports independence, boosting credit scores, making it easier to rent a home, and giving young people the power to sign their own phone contracts. But more than that, it sends a message: your voice matters. You belong in the democratic process.

For too long, our youngest citizens have been trusted with responsibilities – working, paying taxes, even joining the armed forces -while being denied a say at the ballot box. Now that imbalance is being corrected. The right to vote at 16 affirms a belief in young people’s capacity to lead, to contribute, and to make informed decisions about the world they’re inheriting.

Matching belief with action

Our job now is to match that belief with action. We need to ensure voter registration becomes a seamless part of post-16 education across the UK. That means practical infrastructure, yes, but also a shift in mindset. Civic participation shouldn’t be treated as an extracurricular add-on. It should be embedded in the student journey from day one.

At Trafford and Stockport College Group, we’ve learned some important lessons along the way. Building strong partnerships with local authorities is vital. So is putting student experience at the heart of every decision. When you make registration easy, respectful, and relevant, students respond. And when they feel heard, they’re far more likely to engage not just in politics, but in shaping the communities around them.

This is a proud moment, not just for me personally, but for everyone who’s worked to get us here. From local councillors to policy advocates, educators to students themselves, this change has been powered by people who believe in democracy’s full potential.

But pride must now give way to purpose. The vote at 16 is not the end of the journey; it’s the start of a new chapter.