If we are going to meet the UK’s climate and nature targets, we must put the voices of young people at the heart of the conversation. They are the ones who will be impacted the most by the climate and biodiversity crises but can often feel powerless in making change.
To combat this at East Norfolk College, students are given the opportunity to gain hands-on experience in our ‘Climate Action Plan’ and ‘Wilding’ projects, as part of the Green Schools Revolution (GSR) programme.
Through the department for education’s 2022 climate change and sustainability strategy, all education settings were advised to have a climate action plan (CAP) in place from 2025. Working with GSR, students at East Norfolk College have been put at the heart of this process.
Students have taken what they have learned through CAP and applied it to other areas. For example, the college’s debating club considered a proposition that international organisations need more power to address climate change, and our student forum often considers innovative ideas in support of climate change, such as increasing use of public transport.
This work is a perfect example of youth-led initiatives having real-world impact, with a letter to local council leaders resulting in new cycling and road improvements scheduled for parts of Great Yarmouth next year.
Bringing together experiences from environmental science, law, politics, economics and business lessons, students are using their knowledge to debate important real-world issues.
As they head into the world of work, they are armed with skills in leadership, creativity, idea pitching, collaboration and innovation alongside the experience of positively benefiting their local community.
Their enthusiasm and passion has shifted the college’s attitude to tackling our emissions too. While we are supporting students in their green missions, we have to walk the walk in our own impact and emissions.
So we are embracing as much solar power as we can afford and bringing students and teachers together to understand how we can accelerate the move towards being more carbon-neutral.
Notably, biodiversity loss can often be overlooked among the noise of the climate crisis, but this is a dual challenge we face and they need to be dealt with together. Through the Wildling programme, we are seeking to rewild 30 per cent of our grounds by 2030, in line with the government’s own 30×30 targets.
This having a direct positive impact on our natural environment and on wellbeing
Students can get first-hand experience in helping nature to recover through working on our allotment and greenhouse and leading conversations on food production and new farming methods.
Social media can often create climate anxiety. However, together as a community we can use opportunities working on projects to highlight viable environmental careers and what we can do as individuals to make a difference for future generations.
It is not just students that benefit from this work but teachers too. Youth-led initiatives encourage great enthusiasm and participation as the satisfaction they give makes students feel rewarded.
For teachers who are passionate about tackling the climate and nature crises, such programmes offer an avenue to take action that is not readily available through the current curriculum.
It is also exciting for students and teachers to come together to try new things and experiences, whether that’s new fruit or vegetables grown in our allotment or using natural dyes from plants we have grown in art projects.
Not only is this having a direct positive impact on the natural environment surrounding the college but also on students’ wellbeing. Being around nature can have a positive impact on mental health, reducing stress and anxiety, while promoting a sense of purpose, belonging and connection to the environment.
Inspiring young people to get involved with the CAP and Wilding programmes has directly led to benefits for students in the college, but also for our wider community.
As the government’s curriculum and assessment review is underway, youth-led initiatives must be seen as an invaluable tool for having a real-world impact for young people, teachers and most importantly the planet.
The upcoming social media ban for under-sixteens in Australia is rightly grabbing attention. This is an audacious move in the times we live in, but a repeat here would only increase further education’s role in educating about its dangers and appropriate use.
A ban on popular platforms like Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok will not please many teenagers. On the flip-side, it could prevent more tragic stories of their devastating consequences of on-line bullying and harmful content.
You don’t have to live in Australia to know that parents, teachers and health workers worry that excessive amounts of time on social media can damage individual’s mental health and wellbeing.
The government hasn’t yet acted, but just a fortnight ago, technology secretary Peter Kyle told the BBC that a similar ban was “on the table”.
In fairness, the new government didn’t have to wait long before running into trouble with the platforms, facing appalling scenes as a result of online disinformation after the shocking attack on children on Southport.
But that disinformation didn’t just affect young people, and nor is disinformation the only problem.
While teaching learners functional skills maths last year, it was common to hear tales of students spending between six and eight hours a day on phones. Granted, not all that time was spent on social media. However, it is indicative of how attached some young people are to their devices.
I’m not a medical or mental health professional, so I won’t venture into discussing what constitutes social media addiction. What I’m certain of is that six to eight hours a day on a phone is unhealthy and cannot be ignored.
And national ban or no, it’s also clear that the de facto ban on phones in schools is sacrificing an opportunity to educate about this in favour of more time on teaching the core curriculum.
Above all, we must not demonise
But it’s a curriculum that fails many of the learners who come to us, so they will now arrive with low self-esteem and without the tools to fend off the social media reinforcement of that low self-esteem.
Among the other problems they won’t be equipped to deal with are isolation, relationship breakdowns, fear of missing out, anxiety, depression, imposter syndrome and more.
Inability to concentrate may or may not be alleviated by more focused lessons in school. The jury is out on that one.
In truth, teenagers know the potential damage and yet continue to scroll – much like they continued to smoke in the 70s. This is not harmless fun or an easy-to-kick habit. We can all see that action is required.
There is a balance to be struck, of course. These platforms do help people stay connected and make new friends, to apply for jobs and develop their knowledge and skills.
One way or another, striking that balance is a responsibility that is likely to increasingly fall on our sector.
It seems clear to me that we simply must educate students about how they use their time on phones. This starts by considering its effects and its ethics (Asset or time thief? Democratising or demagogue-enhancing?).
Above all, we must not demonise. We must give them the knowledge and the agency to develop not just effective use but effective methods to manage that use.
And we can only do that if we embed sessions on social media in our curriculum. Given the platforms’ record of undermining British Values and the paucity of that curriculum, perhaps that’s the best place for it.
It might require some outside help, or some staff development, but the investment would surely be worth it, both in terms of their mental health and their future life chances.
Who knows? Staff development and college-wide efforts to allocate times to check social media might be just as beneficial for our adults as for our young people.
The results could be staggering: reduced anxiety levels, less cyber bullying, greater self-esteem and more focus.
No ban is going to rescue our sector, so we might as well start now.
Education research organisation SchoolDash has just published some great work they have done, funded by the Gatsby Foundation, looking at recruitment into the further education sector.
They have analysed – with permission – all the adverts on the Association of Colleges’ website. They used AI (yes, really – they use it to read the adverts) to see who is advertising for what, what they are paying, and whether the job needs to be readvertised before it is filled.
What little coverage there was of the findings sadly missed the most important point. It didn’t say that the average salary (and remember, this is typically for mid-career professionals with degrees and teaching qualifications) is just over £30,000.
Your chance of being a higher-rate taxpayer as an FE teacher is 0.3 per cent. Yup, three in 1000. I guess these things are not news to people in the profession, but they should be news to people in the country at large.
Let’s put that salary into perspective. If you get a job at Aldi, you will earn £13.35 an hour after your probationary period. Assuming a forty-hour week, that comes to £27,750 a year. For sure, you will have to work your share of Saturdays and Sundays, and there are early-morning and evening shifts as well. Supermarket workers work hard.
On the other hand, you can start at Aldi at 16, meaning that a supermarket worker will have five years of earnings before their friend in further education earns their first pay cheque. That head start means that the total pay of the further education teacher will only reach that of the supermarket worker when the two of them are 53 years old.
In fact it is worse than that, because the further education teacher loses a chunk of their pay in student loan repayments.
There is, of course, nothing moral about who earns more. We need people to work in Aldi, and we need people to work in further education. There is nothing intrinsically better about a society that pays one group more than another.
You can buck the market, but you shouldn’t try
Ultimately, people do not earn what they deserve; they earn what is needed to attract the people needed for the job. If Manchester United are to rebuild, they will have to pay through the nose to attract talent of a relevant calibre.
The problem with further education wages is not that they are low per se; it is that they are too low to attract enough talent. SchoolsDash find that four in 10 jobs get re-advertised, either because no-one applied or because the applicants fell below the standard of appointability.
That means low pay is a problem for the students as well as the staff.
I don’t know of any sector that can call itself sustainable when four in 10 job adverts do not get a single application of sufficient calibre to be appointed.
I would love to be able to say that this cannot last, that you cannot buck the market. But we can buck the market if society just doesn’t care about bad outcomes. We see this in social work, which has the same wicked problem of low salaries, vacancies and some very poor outcomes. And no one cares enough to change that either.
So my wish this Christmas is that we will remember not just the children, but the young people and adults studying in further education. That we will realise that if we want them to learn construction, engineering, healthcare, English and maths – the five shortage subjects – the solution is easy: we just need to pay those who teach them adequately.
Not generously, mind. But enough, say, that only one in 10 jobs has to be re-advertised.
All I want is a market wage, because although you can buck the market, you shouldn’t try. It bucks back, and the consequences are – as we can see in this case – bad news for society.
After years of painstaking work, missed opportunities and false dawns, the country’s skills landscape is finally starting to look like one of more equal opportunity. It utterly baffles me that Labour will be the government to set all that back for another generation.
A while ago, I wrote a piece for this paper on the importance of resourcing great careers conversations with people of all ages. I am a careers coach, and I specialise in life transitions when folk are wondering how to get the best out of themselves and their careers.
Thirty-five years after entering the skills world, I am proud that I can introduce career paths to people who would have never thought such a route was for them. And a key element of my being able to do that is the professional Level 7 offer that has grown in recent times.
You may or may not be surprised to learn that I only have a minority of clients who went to Eton, then did PPE at Oxford and from there into the city or other higher-level professions.But I can now say to people who did not tread that traditional path that higher level professions are within their reach.
My work concentrates on encouraging the individual to have confidence, ambition and agency in choosing their career path. I’m not daft enough to imagine that everyone can achieve anything they want to achieve, but I am daft enough to believe that society has a duty to take away pitfalls and barriers from people who want to achieve something great for themselves.
That’s particularly true for those who have come to career choices via a less-than-smooth or obvious route.
Those who were excluded from school. Those who didn’t discover a passion until college. Those whose education was disrupted by family circumstance, or illness, or mental health issues. Those who for purely economic reasons find themselves needing to upskill or reskill.
Never did I imagine that this government would be the one to take away opportunities for those very people. And I say this with my colours nailed firmly to the mast: I have been aching for a Labour skills strategy for what feels like a very long time indeed.
It makes me want to weep that this will be taken away
The arguments about growth are important but they are not what light my fire. What makes me passionate about my work is the importance of the whole person. Wellbeing springs from believing that we matter, that our contribution to society matters and that we are all enabled to play a part in all aspects of society, community and the economy.
And yes, the employer must play their part, of course. But this is a partnership, right? It’s not just about the money. It’s about us – all of us – saying ‘yes, go on, take that less-travelled road into those professions you thought were only for the privileged’.
We all know of instances where public funds are not optimally invested. I’ve been to many a strategy away day funded by the public purse that the world would not have missed, had it been cancelled. And I was around when Individual Learning Accounts led to a flurry of dubious courses.
But surely good policy is about optimising results for the many and only bad policy is about cracking nuts with sledgehammers.
I’ve been to many a meeting and spent many hours in my career talking about parity of esteem between vocational and academic learning.
Finally, I feel like all the talk is yielding results. We are creating vocational routes that are respected. We are investing (not enough, perhaps, but we are) in skills that we are proud of. We are providing routes to careers that folk I see would never have dreamed was within their grasp.
Finally, I can advise young people that they can think wide and high when they are looking at their future. And the reality matches more of their ambitions than it ever has.
It makes me want to weep that this opportunity will be taken away. Shame on us if we allow this to happen, and shame on Labour if they are the government that oversees this travesty.
Two recent reports have helped us understand the types of skills we could be lacking in the future, and how we might obtain them.
Tuesday saw the launch of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) second Adult Skills Survey which is part of the Programme of International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIACC).
It was accompanied by a more detailed report, compiled by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), analysing the skills levels of adults in England. On first reading, the findings appear wholly positive.
Overall, adults in England scored above the international average across numeracy, literacy and problem solving, with a significant increase in numeracy scores since the first survey in 2012.
In literacy and problem-solving, England is second only to Japan among the G7 countries, and was outperformed only by Japan and Germany in numeracy. There has also been a significant improvement in literacy and numeracy skills of young adults since 2012.
But the devil is in the detail and the situation slightly more nuanced. While the improvement in average adult numeracy skills is very welcome, it has been driven by an increase in average skills levels among higher achievers, meaning the gap between highest- and lowest-scoring adults is widening.
The report estimates widening skills inequalities meant 8.5 million working-age adults in England had a low proficiency (achieving a score of below 225 out of 500) in literacy, numeracy or both, when the survey was conducted last year.
Eighteen per cent of adults in England were defined as having low proficiency in literacy and 21 per cent in numeracy – a substantial proportion of the population.
These adults are almost certainly more likely to work in ‘high-risk’ jobs such administrative, secretarial, sales, cleaning, hospitality and warehouse roles, which are projected to decline in the coming decade.
So what can be done to support these people and ensure they do not struggle to adapt to a changing labour market, or drop out of it entirely? That’s where our second report comes in.
We could soon see unprecedented levels of skills shortages
Based on perspectives and ideas shared by a panel of experts, the report makes a set of recommendations designed to help workers in high-risk roles successfully transition into occupations expected to grow by 2035.
Among other things, the report calls on the government to increase real-terms public investment in adult education and skills, close to early 2010s levels, as well as strengthening the right to request time off so that people can remain employed while retraining during an unpaid career break.
NFER also recommends that education and qualification providers should create training courses and qualifications that are tailored to meet the needs of working adults and enable them, where necessary, to learn while working.
Previous reports in the Skills Imperative 2035 have quantified the gravity of the situation, focusing on the essential employment skills (EES) the country will need in the coming decade: communication, collaboration, problem-solving, organising, planning and prioritising work, creative thinking and information literacy.
Our projections show we could soon see unprecedented levels of skills shortages, with seven million workers lacking the EES they need to do their jobs in the next decade.
We suggest around 12 million people in England work in occupations that are expected to decline by 2035. By the end of the next decade, there could be over a million fewer jobs in these occupations.
Allowing skills gaps to widen could stifle the country’s productivity and act as a drag on economic growth, while limiting individuals’ employment and earnings opportunities.
It’s vital that we do all we can to help workers upskill or reskill so they are able to switch to more promising growing careers, such as teaching or healthcare, or simply earn more money in their current line of work.
A shortage of EES, coupled with 8.5 million people who are ‘low proficient’ in literacy, numeracy or both means we have a long way to go. Securing the essential skills required for tomorrow’s workforce is a big task, which needs tackling at once.
The government’s preferred candidate to become the next Ofqual chief regulator has told MPs that T Levels need the “right kind of reform” to “grow, flourish and succeed”.
Sir Ian Bauckham also suggested that ministers should offer alternative vocational and technical qualifications (VTQs) alongside T Levels, ahead of the outcome of the much-anticipated level 3 review that is expected to be published this week.
Bauckham, the former chair and current interim head of Ofqual, faced scrutiny from the House of Commons education committee today at a pre-appointment hearing for the permanent role as the exam regulator’s top boss.
He was quizzed on the “success” of T Levels, new courses designed to be the technical equivalent to A-levels, since their launch in 2020.
‘A case to improve, streamline and simplify’
Bauckham said the feedback he has had from students and teachers taking the qualifications has been “overwhelmingly positive” for learners who are “able to make a decision about the particular occupational route that they want to follow at the age of 16”.
But he described T Levels as an “all or nothing option” due to their large size, “significant” amount of content and assessment “burden” which means they are not suitable for all young people who want to follow a vocational route.
He suggested this was a key reason for low take-up and high drop out rates on the qualification.
“If you’re a 16-year-old, you do have to be in a position to make a decision about a particular occupational route. I think that’s one of the reasons why the inception of T Levels has been relatively incremental, slow, I could say, at the beginning. There were only around 7,000 T Level completers this summer.”
Bauckham said T Levels were “deliberately pitched to be at a demanding level in order to have some level of parity with A-levels.
“I think it would be possible to make a convincing case to improve, streamline, simplify, in some ways, T Levels to establish their role more solidly in the market for young people.”
‘Worrying’ drop out rate
Buackham said it was “worrying” that more than one in four students didn’t complete their studies last year and suggested colleges, schools and teachers have not been offered appropriate support in the early years of the rollout.
“There are probably multiple reasons why that [high drop outs] has happened.”
The first is “probably associated with just the newness of the qualification, and its pitching in difficulty terms at such a high level for a vocational and technical qualification in this space.
“I think some students were surprised at the burden and the level that was being asked of them in T Levels.”
He added it was “probably also the case that some colleges, but schools as well and teachers didn’t have sufficiently good quality and coherent support for teaching them.
“If you want to get success in a particular programme of study, you need to have in place features like a well worked out, clearly sequenced curriculum.
“We know what it is we’re teaching, we know in what order.
“You need very well trained teachers that deeply understand the content that they’re teaching and how they’re going to go about teaching it, and you need really well tailored teaching materials to enable the teachers to put into practice their knowledge of the curriculum with their in depth understanding of the requirements.”
Bauckham said without “those key features, there will be faltering in the early delivery”.
He added: “And I wonder, and this is outside my brief as chief regulator, whether all of that was sufficiently strongly in place at the beginning.
“However, I think that with the right kind of reform within the T Level envelope, I remain an optimist about this, T Levels can be enabled to grow and flourish and succeed.”
Arguments for small alternatives
The interim chief regulator went on to explain how T Levels are “almost unique” in the VTQ landscape because they are “explicitly and specifically allied to the occupational standards in the particular occupational area”.
He said having a VTQ which is underpinned by an occupational standard is “anchored in some objective content that we know commands the confidence of the industry concerned, which is a good thing”.
But, he added, “quite simply, there are young people at age 16 who are not yet sufficiently certain about the area they want to go into to commit to an all or nothing option, which is what T Levels represent”.
The government is expected to announce the outcome of its review of level 3 qualifications, launched in July, this week. This will decide whether alternative VTQs, like BTECs and other applied general qualifications, continue to be funded alongside T Levels.
Bauckham, who is on the panel of Becky Francis’ wider and separate curriculum and assessment review, said today: “I think arguments will certainly be made for the inclusion of smaller, nonetheless rigorous, nonetheless good quality, but smaller qualifications in that landscape as well, to allow some flexibility of combination for students.”
Outlining the remit of the review on Tuesday, Ofsted said it “will investigate how schools and further education (FE) colleges are using AI to support teaching and learning and to manage administrative systems and processes.
“We will look at the role leaders are playing in embedding AI and managing risks associated with AI use.
“We will collect data from schools and FE colleges as well as from academic literature and expert interviews. This will allow us to see how AI is already used and help us consider its potential uses and benefits.”
‘Intended and unintended impacts’
It will also look at how schools and colleges are monitoring the “intended and unintended impacts” of AI and governing its use, and “managing risks associated with AI use”
An Ofcom survey last year found Snapchat’s chatbot My AI was being used by 72 per cent of 13 to 17-year-olds.
The rise in young people using AI has sparked concerns over it being used by pupils to cheat when doing homework or coursework.
The Ofsted review aims to educate policymakers and education providers about the benefits and challenges of AI in education, and identify training Ofsted inspectors may need to help increase their understanding of AI and how it is being used.
The report will collect evidence from up to 20 schools and colleges, deemed “early adopters” of AI. Ofsted will interview leaders responsible for rolling out the use of AI at these schools and colleges.
The report will also look at existing research, and consult international inspectorates and academics with knowledge of AI use in education.
Evidence will be collected in Spring, and Ofsted says it hopes to publish its findings next summer.
‘Imperative’ exams are marked by humans
It comes as Sir Ian Bauckham, the government’s pick for Ofqual chief regulator, warned MPs that although there were some potential “exciting uses” for AI in generating exam questions, it was “imperative that a human oversees the marking of student work”.
“AI still makes mistakes. It hallucinates,” said Bauckham, who has served as interim chief regulator since January.
Sir Ian Bauckham
“Decisions made by AI evaluating a piece of work that a student has produced for a high stakes assessment are less transparent and therefore less open to challenge than they might be if marked by a human.”
Ofqual has “carefully sampled public confidence and attitudes in this space and…the public overwhelmingly wants a human being to oversee the marking of students work”.
But AI can be used for other purposes – for example “for the quality assurance of the examining process”.
“It can sample, it can check… There are lots and lots of useful, helpful, quality-improving things AI can do, but marking work itself must be overseen by a human being.”
But ‘exciting uses’ in question generation
Generating question papers which are roughly the same level of difficulty each year is “labour intensive” and “difficult”, Bauckham said.
“It may well be that AI can support with that, and my judgment would be that there are fewer risks to public confidence there, providing a human is in the loop for final sign-off, than in the actual marking of student work.”
The former school leader, who appeared at the education committee for his pre-appointment hearing, said the “vast majority” of GCSE and A-level assessments involved “some degree of extended writing”, which would need to be marked by humans.
However, he acknowledged “there may be some very simple, selective response items, so multiple choice questions, which can be safely marked by a machine, but we would still expect a human to be in the loop, checking that that is happening, sampling quality and so on”.
He added it was “very difficult to challenge a machine’s decision”.
Young adults in England are outperforming their international peers in numeracy and literacy, a major report has found, highlighting “significant improvements” over the past decade.
Adults in England scored above the international average for numeracy, literacy and problem-solving, with a notable increase in numeracy scores since 2012, according to a decennial survey of adult skills led by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
The OECD assessed 160,000 adults aged 16 to 65 in 31 countries in literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving in 2022 and 2023. Nearly 5,000 adults in England responded, representing a 38 per cent response rate.
It found England was second to Japan in the participating G7 countries in literacy and problem-solving and ranked third behind Japan and Germany in numeracy.
The report, published today, is part of the OECD’s programme for the international assessment of adult competencies (PIAAC).
The first cycle of the decade-long adult skills survey was sent out in 2011 and conducted three times between 2011 and 2018. Overall, the first cycle interviewed 245,000 adults in 39 countries. Today’s report marks the start of the second decade cycle.
The online survey comprised a one-hour long assessment in literacy, numeracy and, for the first time, problem-solving. In England, the survey was led by Verian in partnership with the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) and the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER).
Here are some of the key takeaways from the report.
English literacy rates amongst youngest improve
Overall, England ranked ninth out of the 31 countries based on average proficiency in literacy.
The average literacy rates of English adults in 2022-23 remained similar compared to 2011-12.
Out of a possible score of 500, English adults scored an average of 272.1 points in 2022-23, above the 260 global average. A decade earlier, adults scored 272.6.
However, younger people improved significantly in the last 10 years. Those aged 16 to 24 scored an average of 265.4 in 2012 and 279 in 2023 – the biggest change out of all age groups.
The literacy proficiency of this age group only increased in England, Norway and Finland over the past decade.
In England, 18 per cent of adults were defined as having low proficiency in literacy, compared with 26 per cent across the OECD on average.
These adults, who were placed at level 1 or below (scoring under 225 points), can only understand short and simple texts.
Chile had the lowest literacy rates, with 53 per cent of adults achieving level 1 or below, and Japan was at the top with just 10 per cent of adults with low proficiency.
“England does not do badly on that by comparison, but you still have one in five adults really struggling with the basics,” said Andreas Schleicher, director for education and skills at the OECD.
It is estimated that 8.5 million working-age adults in England have low basic skills in 2023.
“It’s particularly disappointing to see that this number has not gone down much since the last time this assessment took place 12 years ago,” said skills minister Jacqui Smith. “We simply can’t accept this lack of progress.”
Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute said: “This is perhaps not surprising given the 63 per cent fall in adult English and maths classes since 2010. We need a renewed focus on English, maths and digital skills for adults – these are essential skills for life and work.”
Nearly seven in 10 (69 per cent) of English adults achieved levels 2 and 3, higher than the 62 per cent OECD average. For higher achievers, 14 per cent scored level 4 and above, slightly more than the 12 per cent global average.
Rebecca Wheater, NFER research director, said: “It is encouraging to see such improved scores in both literacy and numeracy for the youngest adults, who are no longer outperformed by their international peers.
“However, there is still a significant disparity between the highest and lowest scoring adults and strengthening these vital skills should be seen as a priority to ensure adults have these and other essential employment skills that will be needed for the jobs of the future.”
Young people driving improvement in numeracy rates
In numeracy, England scored 268 points, ranking 13th in the global table, but scored above the 263 OECD average.
English adults with low proficiency levels lagged the global average. Twenty-one per cent scored at or below level 1 proficiency, compared with the global average of 25 per cent.
Looking at the higher-achieving adults, 15 per cent achieved Level 4 and above for numeracy, compared with 14 per cent across the OECD, on average.
Average numeracy rates increased seven points, from 261.8 in 2012 to 268.8 in 2023, compared with the first cycle.
“That improvement has been largely driven by young people doing significantly better,” the report noted.
English 16-24-year-olds scored an average of 256.3 in 2012, which shot up to 275.6 in 2023—the biggest difference among all age groups.
Overall, English young adults performed better than the global average. The 16-24-year-old age group performed better than the 263 global average in numeracy and scored 269 points in adaptive problem solving, above the 250.6 OECD average.
“The distribution of skills in England by age was no longer an international outlier, as the pattern of performance by age broadly matched the pattern across the OECD, on average,” the report added.
Smith said she could not “resist” making the case that the rising rate benefitted from the last Labour government’s “renewed focus on literacy and numeracy in primary schools”.
She added: “We’ve got to build on this and ensure that everybody, no matter what their background may be, gets the best possible start in life, and that does mean high and improving standards in our schools, which is why we need 6,500 extra teachers that we’ve pledged to deliver over this parliament and it’s why the curriculum and assessment review that we have set up is looking at how to secure an excellent foundation in reading, writing and maths.”
Older adults (aged 55 to 65) scored 26 points lower than 25–34-year-olds in combined numeracy, literacy and problem-solving (and 30 points lower than the global OECD average).
“In England and across the OECD, there was a pattern of increasing literacy and numeracy skills with age, and then a decline, with youngest adults scoring more highly than the oldest adults, on average. The age-related decline in skills was also visible for adaptive problem solving,” the report said.
English workers most ‘over-qualified’ in the world
The OECD survey asked participants whether their highest educational qualification is above or below the level that is typically required for their current job.
England scored the highest proportion out of all countries surveyed. About 37 per cent of workers said they were “over-qualified”, compared with the OECD average of 23 per cent.
An additional 41 per cent are mismatched in terms of field of study, as their highest qualification is not in the field that is most relevant to their job.
Schleicher said that this mismatch and over-qualification is due to the lack of alternative academic and vocational pathways in England.
“I do think there is reason to help young people, give them a more varied choice of further education than currently exists.”
He added: “When you look at unit costs, the spending per student in the university sector is far higher than it is for vocational education and training, which would be the reverse in many other countries, where actually the investment is greater there. The funding is just a mirror of that in England.”
A further 7 per cent in England said some of their skills are lower than what is required for their job. The majority (43 per cent) said they need to improve computer or software skills, followed by 28 per cent saying they need project management or organisational skills.
Transportation and motor workers have lowest literacy levels
Adults working in transportation and storage, wholesale and retail trades, and motor vehicle and motorcycle repair had the lowest average scores in literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving in England.
Transportation workers scored 256 in literacy, 258 in numeracy and 245 in adaptive problem-solving, while adults working in professional, scientific and technical activities had the highest average scores for literacy (302), numeracy (302) and adaptive problem-solving (285) in England.
Meanwhile, for the highest earners in England, there was a clear relationship between salary and skills for adults, but this relationship did not extend to adults in the lowest deciles of salary.
A similar pattern was found across the OECD and it is likely that findings are impacted by the uneven distribution of full-time and part-time workers across the deciles.
A “high performing” sixth form college in Hampshire has been rated ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted for the third time in a row.
In an inspection report published today, the education watchdog said Peter Symonds College has continued to drive “exceptional outcomes” for its 4,800 students.
The college delivers “expertly designed training” and has high expectations for students who make “excellent academic progress” alongside significant growth in their “confidence, resilience and character”, inspectors found.
Its delivery was judged ‘outstanding’ in all areas, a slight improvement on the previous inspection in 2020 which found only one area, apprenticeships – which it no longer delivers – was ‘good’.
“Since the previous inspection, leaders have continued to establish a high-performing culture that drives exceptional outcomes for all students and adult learners,” inspectors said.
Principal Sara Russell said she felt “thrilled” that Ofsted inspectors captured a “spectrum of things that make Symonds exceptional”.
She added: “I am incredibly proud of this college and the unparalleled experience it offers students, and I am so pleased to see this work recognised by Ofsted.”
Peter Symonds College is the only publicly funded sixth form based in Winchester, an affluent cathedral city of about 130,000 residents.
Most of the college’s students are 16- to 18-year-olds on full time A-level courses.
It also teaches vocational courses including level 2 qualifications, BTECs, beauty therapy and an education and childcare T Level with 27 enrolled learners.
The college has “strong historical links” with the Falkland Islands, whose post-16 students can board at one of its two residential houses, costing £18,225 to £19,635 per room next academic year.
Ofsted inspectors said a “very high proportion” of students achieve the highest grades, partly thanks to a “rigorous quality assurance process” and “well-sequenced” curriculums.
Students with high needs have “exceptionally well-coordinated support” – including through “discreetly” adapted activities that ensure they make “excellent progress”.
Overall, inspectors reported the college has a “positive, high-achieving culture” with a diverse range of “high-quality enrichment” including career, musical and sports events.
Leaders ensure the college makes a “strong contribution” to meeting local skills needs, with two fifths of students aiming to pursue sectors such as creative industries and construction that are priorities in the local skills improvement plan.
Transferable skills such as “teamwork, communication and resilience” are also cultivated, inspectors added.
Russell said the report “reflects the collective effort and dedication” of the college’s community of the entire Symonds community and its “warm, diverse and supportive environment”.
She added: “Our unwavering dedication to continuous improvement reflects our ongoing mission to provide the highest quality education experience.
“We work incredibly hard to develop and maintain a remarkable offer for our students, and to provide a balanced, well-rounded education where they can be happy and successful. It is great to see this recognised by the inspectors.”
