Turing Scheme funding cut by 29%, DfE reveals

The government has cut next year’s budget for the Turing Scheme by almost a third.

The Department for Education today confirmed it has made £78 million available for the international placement scheme during the 2025-26 academic year, a 29 per cent reduction from £110 million last year.

DfE has also limited the maximum funding pot available per FE provider application to £205,000 and has almost halved daily living costs for students going abroad.

The trimming follows fears that Turing would be cut altogether. Reports emerged in March that DfE offered up the Turing Scheme to the Treasury as part of its cost-cutting proposal.

The 2025-26 academic year is a one-year extension for Turing, with the prior EU-funded Erasmus+ programme possibly making a comeback in the future.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith said last month that the government has begun negotiating to “work towards” rejoining Erasmus+.

Allocation changes

In the meantime, DfE has changed how it allocates this year’s Turing funding.

Guidance published today shows that FE providers will be limited to apply for a maximum of £205,000.

Consortiums can apply for up to £600,000 but no more than £205,000 will be given to each provider.

DfE said it will also “rank” providers’ applications by their assessment score, the relative proportion of placements that will go to students and apprentices from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“We assess that this will be the fairest way of allocating funding and will make it easier for providers to deliver all the placements they apply for,” the guidance said.

It also warned that Turing funding should not go towards things that are already covered by local authority funding, student finance or devolved governments.

Next year’s scheme will also have reduced living cost for groups going aboard by almost half.

Students and staff travelling to higher cost destinations will be funded for £55 per day for the first two weeks, and £40 per day after 14 days. Last year’s funding awarded £109 and £76 per day respectively.

The second group, going to lower cost countries, will only be funded a £50 daily allowance for the first two weeks, down from £87, and £35 per day after 14 days, a cut from £61.

The administration and implementation costs have stayed the same – £315 per student for the first 100 students, and £180 per student after that. The same goes for language support – each student will receive £135 for placements over 19 days to help learn the language.

In March, FE Week analysis found that FE providers had sent the most deprived students on placements than any other education provider since the scheme began in 2021.

Overall, further education providers have placed 22,483 disadvantaged learners, representing 60 per cent of all 37,342 participants.

The number of students coming from FE has increased in the four years of the scheme, garnering more than double the funding allocation to FE institutions – from £15.9 million on 2021-22 to £33.6 million last year.

Last year, 74 per cent of all FE applications in England were granted, 1 percentage point lower than 2023-24.

Locked out at level 7: Apprentices face an unexpected glass ceiling

The announcement on the future of level 7 apprenticeships has left many of us in the apprenticeship community disheartened. After years of effort to establish apprenticeships as a viable, equal alternative to traditional university routes, this decision feels like a significant step backward.

I speak from experience. At 23, I began my level 7 master’s apprenticeship just one month after completing my level 6 degree apprenticeship. That continuity was critical. It enabled me to deepen my knowledge, accelerate my development, and ultimately secure the role I’m proud to hold today. But under the new guidelines, future apprentices won’t have the same opportunity as only those aged 16-21 will be able to do a level 7 masters apprenticeship.

The restrictions now mean that unless a young person decides immediately after full-time education to pursue a level 7 apprenticeship and meets the stringent entry requirements set out by the universities, they’re effectively locked out. This assumes that every 18-year-old not only knows exactly what they want to do but is also in a position to meet graduate-level entry standards straight out of school. That’s unrealistic and unfair.

Yes, it’s positive that some can still begin a level 7 directly after school. The solicitor apprenticeship, for example, is one of the few still available for younger learners. And it plays a vital role in supporting social mobility. But these examples are rare. We should be expanding these opportunities, not narrowing them.

There is a solution. Skills England and policymakers must prioritise the introduction of integrated master’s degree apprenticeships, allowing learners to progress from Level 6 to level 7 within the same programme. These longer schemes, spanning potentially five or more years, may not be for everyone, but they offer a genuine, structured pathway for those who aspire to senior professional roles via the apprenticeship route.

The current policy also inadvertently punishes those who begin their apprenticeship journey after GCSEs. These learners typically progress through level 3 or 4 (2–3 years), then a level 6 (4–5 years) before being eligible for level 7, often at age 22 or older. Under the new age restrictions, they’ll miss out. How can we claim to support social mobility and lifelong learning when we block progression for those who have followed the apprenticeship route since age 16?

And what of those who discover their career path later in life? Or those who need more time to gain the experience and qualifications necessary to be accepted onto a master’s-level apprenticeship? These individuals, often from diverse and non-traditional backgrounds, are precisely the ones we should be supporting, not sidelining.

‘We’ve received a message that risks reinforcing outdated perceptions‘

I had hoped the government would offer a more inclusive funding approach, perhaps fully supporting those under 25, offering partial support for those 25–35 and scaling down from there. This kind of flexible model would encourage early uptake without shutting the door on adult learners or career changers.

Instead, what we’ve received is a message that risks reinforcing outdated perceptions: that apprenticeships are only for entry-level roles. And that university remains the only route to higher qualifications and professional status.

These new guidelines rely on employers having enough available funds to put employees through a part-time masters and be willing to support them working reduced hours to upskill, which many employers are unable to do.

We owe it to the next generation of apprentices to fight for better. Let’s not allow ambition to be capped by arbitrary age limits or funding structures. Let’s build an apprenticeship system that truly supports lifelong learning, real progression and equal opportunity at every stage of life.

Christine Gilbert set to be appointed Ofsted chair

Former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert is set to be appointed as the new chair of Ofsted, FE Week’s sister title Schools Week understands.

Gilbert, who served as chief inspector of Ofsted between 2006 and 2011, last year led the independent review into the watchdog’s response to the death of headteacher Ruth Perry.

FE Week also understands Ofsted will now delay publishing its consultation response until the start of September – rather than in the summer as originally planned.

Ofsted had mulled pushing back inspections, but decided to maintain rolling out new report cards in November. 

But delaying the consultation response – which will outline formalise inspection plans – means education providers will have even less time to see how inspections work before they face being inspected – a move likely to face strong criticism from unions.

Gilbert’s appointment is likely to be welcomed. Her damning report, published in September, found Ofsted’s response to Perry’s suicide was “defensive and complacent”.

Her appointment will begin on September 1, 2025 and will be for a period of three years. She will be paid £55,000 a year for working two days a week in the role.

Gilbert said: “It’s a privilege to accept this appointment as chair of Ofsted. I’m very much looking forward to supporting Sir Martyn Oliver and Ofsted in their determination to raise standards, increase opportunities and improve lives.”

Gilbert called for Ofsted board to be ‘strengthened’

Gilbert made a string of recommendations for Ofsted. The watchdog is currently carrying out a widespread overhaul of the way it carries out inspections. 

She found the Ofsted board “had little or no involvement in determining the strategy for dealing with the crisis and communicating to the media and stakeholders”. 

The board’s role “appears curiously limited, apparently leaving some of Ofsted’s most critical activities outside of its control”, she said.

“This degree of autonomy and entitlement for HMCI does not make for effective governance.”

Gilbert urged Ofsted to review its governance framework to “strengthen the role of the board with the aim of establishing constructive challenge to support Ofsted in its learning and reform”.

The chair role was previously held by Dame Christine Ryan, who left at the end of March following four-and-a-half years.

Star Academies chief executive Sir Hamid Patel has since been serving as interim Ofsted chair.

Gilbert previously spent 18 years working in schools as a teacher and headteachers. She has also served as director of education at Harrow council and at Tower Hamlets council, where she “led the dramatic turnaround in performance and quality of local schools” and rose to the role of chief executive.

She is also chair of the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF), and has been a visiting professor at UCL Institute of Education for more than a decade.

Gilbert has led and taken part in several service reviews, mostly in education but also including Baroness Casey’s damning 2023 review of the Metropolitan Police.

She was made a dame in the Queen’s Birthday Honours in 2022.

Cambridge sixth form college scores Ofsted ‘outstanding’ hat-trick

A large sixth form college in Cambridge has been awarded a third consecutive Ofsted grade one for its “exceptional” quality.

Hills Road Sixth Form College was given top marks by inspectors after they found high exam achievement rates and “outstanding” support for high needs learners.

The large sixth form had 2,902 students on a combination of A-level subjects alongside the extended project qualification (EPQ) during its April 1 to 4 inspection.

The college was first awarded an overall ‘outstanding’ judgment in 2007 and then again in 2022. The result comes in time for the college’s 50th anniversary celebrations.

Ofsted’s latest report said that students enjoy their studies “greatly” and take pride in the challenging and “stimulating” lessons.

Inspectors found attendance was high, even to the extra voluntary lessons to prepare learners for maths exams.

“Students attend well, arrive promptly to lessons and are eager to learn. They routinely go beyond what is expected of them,” the report added.

As a result, a “very high proportion” of students achieve A* to B grades in A Level exams and nearly all progress to further or higher education or employment. 

Principal Jo Trump said: “This report is a lovely recognition of all the fabulous staff and students who make up the Hills Road community.

“We are lucky to benefit from the dedication and care of our staff and the energy and enthusiasm of our students. We are proud of the outcome, and prouder still of our community that makes it all possible every day.” 

Curriculums are of “exceptional quality”, Ofsted said. 

They found that making students study the EPQ allows them to “showcase both their creative and academic potential” which prepares them well for university.

Meanwhile, teachers were highly praised for thoroughly checking learners’ understanding and reinforcing foundational knowledge before moving onto more complex topics.

Inspectors also pointed out that teachers at the college use “highly effective” questioning.

For example, psychology teachers use probing questions to support students to improve their understanding of the theories of attraction.

“Students then use their improved understanding to explain the limitations of each of these theories fluently and with confidence,” the report added.

For the 21 SEND students, Ofsted was wowed for teachers’ “outstanding” support, using inclusive teaching techniques in class, well-thought-out seating plans and specialist staff where needed. 

Inspectors were also impressed with the range of wellbeing services students have access to, such as drop-in session, a therapy dog and internal and external counselling sessions.

The watchdog also found the sixth form college made a “reasonable” contribution to meeting skills needs.

The report said leavers and governors have a good understanding of local skills needs and have put in place “strategic targets” to improve their contribution.

Governors were found to hold leaders to account “exceptionally” well and support them in the development of colleges policies like safeguarding practices and staff wellbeing initiatives.

AI guidance for colleges: 9 key findings for leaders

Colleges could use AI to help monitor attendance patterns, generate tender documents and come up with ideas for lessons, new government toolkits have said.

The guidance, published today and drawn up by the Chiltern Learning Trust and Chartered College of Teaching, also says college should plan for “wider use” of AI – including to analyse budgets and help plan CPD.

Government said the toolkits are part of a new “innovation drive”, which has also includes investment to “accelerate development” of AI marking and feedback tools.

A new pilot has also been launched today to trial tools in “testbed” FE providers.

The government has also previously produced guidance on “safety expectations” for the use of generative AI – artificial intelligence that creates content – in education, along with policy papers and research on the subject.

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said: “By harnessing AI’s power to cut workloads, we’re revolutionising classrooms and driving high standards everywhere – breaking down barriers to opportunity so every child can achieve and thrive.”

Here’s what you need to know on the new toolkits (which can be viewed in full here)…

1. Marking feedback and ideas for lessons

For teaching and learning, the documents state generative AI may be able to support ideas for lesson content and structure, formative assessments, analysis of marking data and creating “text in a specific style, length or reading age”.

On assessments, the guidance says this could include quiz generation from specific content or offering feedback on errors. AI could also “support with data analysis of marking”.

It can also produce “images to support understanding of a concept or as an exemplar”, exam-style questions from set texts, and visual resources, like “slide decks, knowledge organisers and infographics”, a slide in one of the toolkits adds.

2. Draw up an AI ‘vision’

The guidance stressed “it’s essential” colleges “are clear with staff around what tools are safe to use and how they can use them”. Those included on the list should “have been assessed” and allows colleges “control over” them.

It recommended college leaders lead by example and use AI tools responsibly themselves and set boundaries for AI use so users can safely play around with tools.

When exploring AI use, the guidance encouraged colleges to invest in staff training and to collaborate with industry as well as creating an AI culture within the college community.

Chris Loveday, vice principal at Barton Peveril 6th form College, said his college used inset days to train staff in AI.

He said: “The public large language models were available and I think if we didn’t have clear guidelines to support staff, it would have been easy for them to think it would be okay to put a class set of data into the open source models without truly understanding that that was training the large language model that it was available in the public domain. So the first INSET was focused on AI safety.”

As part of this, the report also warned about two issues “inherent” in AI systems: hallucinations and bias.

The former are “inaccuracies in an otherwise factual output”. Meanwhile, bias can occur if “there was bias in the data that it was trained on, or the developer could have intentionally or unintentionally introduced bias or censorship into the model”.

It recommended to always have a human in the loop to double check what AI systems produce.

3. Reducing administrative burden

The toolkits also say technology could support cutting down time spent on admin, like email and letter writing, data analysis and long-term planning.

One example given for school leaders was producing a letter home for parents about an outbreak of head lice.

The toolkit also said policy writing, timetabling, trip planning and staff CPD were other areas in which it could be used.

A 2024 user research report by the DfE said teachers were most keen on using time saving AI tools for marking, data entry and analysis of pupil progress or attainment.

Colleges can also reduce the administrative burden by using AI to analyse attendance patterns and supporting home communications, whilst “bearing in mind that all outputs need to be checked for accuracy.”

4. Plan for ‘wider use’, like budget planning and tenders

But leaders have been also told to plan for AI’s “wider use”. 

The writers of the report said some “finance teams [are] using safe and approved” tools to analyse budgets and support planning. Business managers are also using it to generate “tender documents based on a survey of requirements”.

“By involving all school or college staff in CPD on AI, you can help improve efficiency and effectiveness across operations – ultimately having a positive impact on pupil and student outcomes.”

The guidance suggested “integrating AI into management information systems”. This can “can give insights that may not otherwise be possible, and these insights could support interventions around behaviour, attendance and progress”.

5. Adapt materials for pupils with SEND

According to the DfE, the technology “offers valuable tools to support learners with SEND by adapting materials to individual learning needs and providing personalised instruction and feedback”.

For example, it can “take a scene and describe it in detail to those who are visually impaired”.

But specialists and education, health and care plans (EHCPs) should be consulted to “help identify specific needs and consider carefully whether an AI tool is the most appropriate solution on a case-by-case basis”.

Meanwhile, many programmes are multilingual and “could be used with pupils, students and families who have English as an additional language”.

6. Critical thinking lessons, mending digital divide

As the technology becomes more prevalent, “integrating AI literacy and critical thinking into existing lessons and activities should be considered”. For example, AI ethics and digital citizenship could incorporated into PSHE or computing curriculums.

Some schools and colleges have promoted “AI literacy within their curricula, including through the use of resources provided by the National Centre for Computing Education”.

This ensures young people understand how systems work, their limitations and potential biases. Approaches to homework may also have to be considered, focusing on “tasks that can’t be easily completed by AI”.

The guidance added many systems “will simply provide an answer rather than explain the process and so do not contribute to the learning process”.

Loveday added that Barton Perveril is piloting its own bespoke large language model which has “enhanced safeguards” built into it that will not answer questions on misogyny or violence.

He said that provided the pilot is successful, it will be rolled out to all 5,000 students free of charge so there is equality in students’ access to the same model.

“If you give that same student access to a premium large language model, that’s no longer a digital divide, that’s a digital chasm, and we’re trying to make sure that we can help our students bridge that,” he added.

7. Transparency and human oversight ‘essential’

Colleges should also “consider factors such as inclusivity, accessibility, cost-effectiveness” and compliance with internal privacy and security policies.

A “key consideration” listed in the guidance is whether its “output has a clear, positive impact on staff workload and/or the learning environment”.

It is also “essential that no decision that could adversely impact a student’s outcomes is based purely [on] AI without human review and oversight”.

An example of this is “generating a student’s final mark or declining their admission based on an AI-generated decision”.

The guidance said: “Transparency and human oversight are essential to ensure AI systems assist, but do not replace, human decision-making.”

The toolkits also warned over mental health apps, which they said “must be regulated by the medicines and healthcare products regulatory authority”.

8. Beware AI risks: IP, safeguarding and privacy

There were also broader warnings about using AI.

The guidance notes that learners’ “work may be protected under intellectual property laws even if it does not contain personal data”.

To safeguard against this, colleges should be certain AI marking tools do not “train on the work that we enter”.

Copyright breaches can also happen if the systems are “trained on unlicensed material and the outputs are then used in educational settings or published more widely”.

Colleges should ensure AI systems comply with UK GDPR rules before using them. If it “stores, learns from, or shares the data, staff could be breaching data protection law”.

Any AI use must also be line with the keeping children and young people safe in education guidance.

Most free sites “will not be suitable for student use as they will not have the appropriate safeguards in place and the AI tool or model may learn on the prompts and information that is input”.

Child protection policies, including online safety and behaviour policies, should “be updated to reflect the rapidly changing risks from AI use” as well.

The guidance also said newsletters and school websites could “provide regular updates on AI and online safety guidelines”. Parental workshops “can extend the online safety net beyond school or college boundaries”.

9. Be ‘proactive’ to educate young people on deep-fakes

The “increasing accessibility of AI image generation tools” also presents new challenges to schools, the guidance added.

“Proactive measures”, like initiatives to educate students, staff and parents about this risk, have been identified as “essential to minimise [this] potential harm”.

Colleges have also been told to conduct regular staff training “on identifying and responding to online risks, including AI-generated sexual extortion”. These sessions should be recurring “to address emerging threats”.

“Government guidance for frontline staff on how to respond to incidents where nudes and semi-nudes have been shared also applies to incidents where sexualised deep-fakes (computer-generated images) have been created and shared,” the guidance continued.

FE providers wanted to become edtech ‘testbeds’

Ministers are asking schools, colleges and training providers to step forward to become edtech “testbeds” and help find scalable solutions to cut teacher workload.

Officials say the nine-month pilot – for which expressions of interest have opened today– has been launched to “build the evidence base on the impact and scalability of promising technologies”.

As part of a so-called innovation drive, government has also announced a further £1 million will be handed to AI firms to fund the development of classroom tools.

National Association of Headteachers general secretary Paul Whiteman said: “Government investment in future testing and research is vital as staff need reliable sources of evaluation – supported with evidence – on the benefits, limitations and risks of AI tools and their potential uses.”

Participants to receive ‘benefits’ 

The Department for Education said its “edtech impact testbed pilot” will “identify and evaluate innovative educational technologies that can enhance teaching and learning and reduce workload in schools and colleges”.

It will test tools that aim to reduce teacher and administrative workload, improve pupil outcomes and boost inclusion for children with SEND.

Staff in the participating schools and colleges “will receive training and support to effectively implement and use” the systems and connect with other institutions. Those trialling the software will “be able to access a set of benefits”.

DfE hopes the trial will “build the evidence base on the impact and scalability of promising” tech to help leaders “make informed decisions” on which to use.

The government expects up to 100 education providers to take part. It is inviting applications, open until August, from all primaries and secondaries, special schools and all FE providers.

DfE also revealed today that it is investing an additional £1 million to develop AI marking and feedback systems. This is on top of the £1 million split between 16 firms earlier this year to develop similar tech by April.

This comes as the government published earlier today teacher and leader toolkits detailing how to use AI in schools and colleges.  

Devolve FE to ‘maximum possible extent’, MPs urge

Power over post-16 technical education should be devolved to the “maximum possible extent” to mayors and leaders of new strategic authorities, MPs on parliament’s business and trade committee (BTC) have said.

The committee has also urged the government to transfer skills funding and policy at a national level to the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) to “attune” it more to the needs of employers and align with the upcoming industrial strategy.

And the minister for skills role should be a joint ministerial job across the DBT and Department for Education (DfE) to ensure better coordination between the “disconnected” departments.

The committee made the recommendations following an inquiry into the industrial strategy, which is set to highlight key sectors of priority to drive growth. This will be the first industrial strategy for eight years. 

Ministers were set to present it this week along with a multi-year spending review, but reports suggest the release of the strategy has been delayed to the end of June.

The BTC’s inquiry heard that “substantial” skills shortages across the economy are “acting as a barrier to growth and are deterring investment in the UK”.

Expert evidence suggested there is a “strong case to further devolve responsibility for skills to local leaders”.

Around 60 per cent of the government’s adult education budget has been devolved to mayoral combined authorities since 2019. The government has already proposed further devolution of adult skills funding to more areas through the English devolution white paper.

Mayors have repeatedly called for control of more skills pots, including apprenticeships and 16 to 19 education.

While the white paper did not commit to devolution of different types of skills funding, skills minister Jacqui Smith told the BTC there was “potential for further devolution” as she admitted to “tensions” with mayors over skills funding powers.

Multiple mayors said the full responsibility for education and training post-16 should be devolved.

Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham said: “You can create stronger technical education pathways when you can work with the actual employers in your city region who will be employing the young people or older workers who will come through. We are the only ones who can create those meaningful pathways and who can commission colleges according to the actual sectoral strengths of our economy, yet that is still being resisted.”

Sector experts have however warned that releasing further budget lines to mayors would lead to more “bureaucracy” and “inequalities”.

The BTC concluded that skills shortages are “holding back growth and deterring investment across large parts of the economy, including within the UK’s growth-driving sectors”, adding that the skills system is “too fragmented and inflexible”.

Local leaders are “best placed to know the needs of local employers and work with training providers to adapt provision accordingly”, the committee claimed.

It called on the government’s plans in the devolution white paper to “go further”, specifically that “responsibility for technical education and training post-16 should be devolved to the maximum possible extent to mayoral combined authorities and newly created strategic authorities, once they have demonstrated capability to manage local systems”.

Tackling ‘fiefdoms’

The business and trade committee’s inquiry also heard there is “a real disconnect in government”, adding that departments like the Treasury are treated like “fiefdoms” as they “close their doors and they are not interested in listening to other departments”.

There is also concern over “different soundings” from the DBT and the DfE on areas like apprenticeships and there is “still a little bit of government thinking that becomes quite siloed along departmental lines”.

Alan Johnson, a senior vice-president at Nissan Motor Corp, told the BTC there is a need for the industrial strategy “to provide a framework that can be properly deployed and cascaded, such that you get consistency across the different departments”.

Brian Holliday, managing director for digital industries at Siemens plc, echoed this plea for cohesion and called for the DfE’s new agency Skills England to sit “directly alongside” other topics of “innovation, energy, energy prices, and access to finance as critical enablers to deriving growth from the industrial strategy”.

To tackle this, the BTC said responsibility and funding for skills policy at a national level should be transferred to the DBT and the minister for skills “should be a joint ministerial role across the DBT and the DfE to ensure there is a coordination between the two departments, as people transition from school to post-16 education and training”.

Responsibility for FE and skills was under the remit of the former Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) until then prime minister Theresa May moved them to the DfE in 2016.

First area chosen to trial new jobs and careers service ‘pathfinder’

Wakefield is the first place in the country to trial a pilot scheme that aims to “personalise” a jobs and careers service for jobseekers.

A new “pathfinder”, which will work with employers to provide a “pathway into good jobs”, has been designed by leaders from West Yorkshire Combined Authority and Wakefield Local Authority.

Mayor Tracy Brabin said the city is a “test-bed” for new ideas like a coaching academy for Department for Work and Pensions staff that will be rolled out across the country this year as part of its Get Britain Working plan.

DWP secretary Liz Kendall announced last year the National Careers Service will be merged with jobcentres across the country to tackle economic inactivity.

Close to 1 million young people are classed as not in education, employment or training (NEET). Estimated figures fell nationally by 7,000 in the last quarter to 923,000.

Government data shows that over 3,000 16 to 17 year olds were classed as NEET in 2024 in the six constituent councils that make up WYCA. Wakefield recorded 371 NEETs and a 3.5 per cent NEET rate, the third highest rate in the region behind Leeds and Calderdale.

The autumn budget announced £55 million will be spent to develop and test the new service in 2025/26.

It is not yet clear how much funding has been allocated to the Wakefield pilot.

West Yorkshire Combined Authority last week greenlit a £37 million plan to “guarantee a healthy working life” by linking up NHS services with employment support providers like jobcentres and councils.

DWP employment minister Alison McGovern will face MPs later this week to give oral evidence on the merger .

The new services to be piloted will include a new coaching academy, which will train up DWP staff to provide better support, and changes to DWP appointment services to give jobseekers “more personalised” for job seeker claimants.

Wakefield will also test a series of careers events to link up jobseekers with local employers. Officials said more events in the coming months involving the local manufacturing and technology sectors will be open to the public, not just jobseeker claimants.

Mayor of West Yorkshire Tracy Brabin said: “People stand a better chance of landing a good job when they are treated with dignity and respect at a trusted local Jobcentre. 

“Working with the government, we’re investing almost £40 million to help guarantee a healthy working life to everyone in our region, and as the test-bed for the new national Jobs and Careers Service, Wakefield will lead the way on transforming our welfare system to get Britain working.”

Councillor Denise Jeffery, leader of Wakefield Council, said: “Everyone in our area deserves to be supported to access great employment opportunities. But for too long we’ve had an outdated, national approach to employment support which doesn’t take individual circumstances into account and isn’t tailored enough.

“By being part of this Pathfinder, we can help design the next generation of public employment services. Support more local people to access secure, well-paid jobs. And unlock more of the potential we’ve got in our district to build a stronger local economy for everyone who lives in Wakefield.”

McGovern added: “Our one-size-fits-all, tick box approach to jobs support is outdated and does not serve those looking to better their lives through work.

“We are building a proper public employment service in partnership with local leaders that truly meets community challenges and unlocks opportunity.”

Burnham boosts cash to solve FE capacity crisis 

Andy Burnham will use £10 million from his combined authority’s coffers to double the value of a special government grant to boost post-16 student capacity next year. 

The Greater Manchester mayor has approved plans to tackle the 16 to 19 population bulge that many major cities are facing. 

In April the government announced £10 million in capital funding for both Greater Manchester and Leeds to create “additional capacity” from September. 

According to a Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) report, the mayor will put forward £10 million in “recycled” local funding, amid concerns the government’s £10 million for 2025-26 is only a “partial” solution to population growth that is projected to continue until 2028. 

GMCA plans to use its own money to either “flexibly” top up Department for Education capital funding in later years or to pay for workforce and equipment needs. 

The authority will also give half of the post-16 funding to Manchester City Council, one of the region’s 10 boroughs, after identifying high demand for providers from learners travelling from elsewhere in the region. 

Meanwhile, Leeds City Council told FE Week it was “continuing to work” on how the funding will be spent locally and hoped to confirm plans “over the coming weeks”. 

What’s the problem? 

Most of England’s largest cities are under pressure to increase education places as the number of 16 and 17 year olds is projected to grow by 8 per cent, or 110,000, between 2023 and 2028. 

Leeds City Council told FE Week its projection for its own area was a rise from 18,000 in 2023 to 20,000 in 2028. 

In response, its schools, sixth forms and colleges have created 900 extra places in the last three years. 

But Colin Booth, chief executive of Leeds’ main college group Luminate, said the city “urgently needs” around 2,500 more places by 2028 to cover technical level 3 courses and “almost all” subject areas below level 3. 

Projections for Manchester suggest an estimated 6,000 to 7,000 extra education and training places will be needed “in coming years”, on top of the 2,000 places created by post-16 capacity funding in 2023-24. 

According to the GMCA report, those places “mostly focused” on level 3 provision in sixth forms such as A-levels, while technical education places at lower levels were “stretched to their limits”. 

Most for Manchester 

Greater Manchester said the “very welcome” £10 million from the government would likely be used for urgent “repurposing [of] existing facilities” or “converting unused space”. 

To decide which parts of the region funding goes to, officials have devised a formula that combines projected population change, numbers of young people not in education, employment or training, and “travel to learn” ratios between Greater Manchester boroughs. 

As a result, colleges in the Manchester City Council area will share £5 million, while providers in Salford will get £1.2 million. Other boroughs will receive as little as £224,000. 

The council appeared to win much of the funding after an analysis of its post-16 provision last year found it was about to run out of space. 

After raising the issue repeatedly with DfE officials since 2022, the city council had “no option” but to “formally” declare a gap in provision, in the hope this would persuade the department to fund about 2,000 extra places. 

The department had “no strategy, mechanism or funding” to address post-16 capacity issues in the same way as schools, Manchester City Council complained. 

Is £10 million enough? 

Leeds and Greater Manchester have welcomed the £10 million in capacity funding but other cities are understood to be facing similar population pressures. 

But both cities agree funding is needed beyond the DfE’s capital grant, which cannot pay for revenue elements like equipment or staff wages, and may not address continued population growth up to 2028. 

Leeds City Council said that while the extra £10 million was a “major boost” in filling the projected gap in physical spaces and learning environments, additional funding was needed for infrastructure and teaching “given the scale of provision required to meet demand in the city”. 

Nikki Davis, principal of Leeds College of Building, told FE Week: “It’s not just about creating space, recruitment of staff has been notoriously difficult for years.  

“Because of a lack of funding going in [to further education], rate rises are not keeping up with the costs of employment, so we’re not getting people into the industry.”