Latest news from FE Week

Achievement rate is a broken metric. It’s time to judge apprenticeships by pass rates

A few years ago, I read a short but incisive opinion piece in this publication by Jill Whittaker (executive chair of HIT Training) that left me asking: Why does our sector still accept achievement rate over pass rate as the norm?

Every year, the Department for Education (DfE) releases its apprenticeship achievement rate tables, and the sector reacts like it is results day for grown‑ups. The “winners” get applause, the “losers” get a little cosier with their quality team, and Ofsted sharpens its inspection pencil.

But here is the awkward truth: achievement rate is not the flawless measure of quality that we pretend it is.

For years, this single composite figure has been treated as our gold standard. It appears in performance tables, drives inspection narratives and shapes public perception. Governors scrutinise it, providers defend it, and Ofsted uses it as a primary judgment tool (whatever they say!).

It fails, however, to isolate the question that matters most to parents, learners, and employers alike: How good is the teaching, training and assessment the apprentice receives?

Flaw in the metric

Achievement rate blends two things – retention and pass rate – into one number. That means it is influenced not only by the quality of delivery, but also by whether apprentices remain on the programme until the end.

Retention is shaped by a host of factors outside a provider’s control, including redundancy, relocation, caring responsibilities, ill health, or shifts in business priorities.

A provider can deliver outstanding training and offer excellent pastoral support, then still see its achievement rate dragged down by circumstances entirely beyond its control and unrelated to quality.

Why pass rate is fairer

Pass rate – the proportion of apprentices who reach their end-point assessment and pass – is a far clearer and fairer indicator of quality. It focuses on what happens when apprentices are themselves engaged, supported and given the opportunity to demonstrate their competence.

A high pass rate points to:

Effective curriculum planning
Skilled teachers, trainers and assessors
Robust preparation for end-point assessment
Strong employer engagement

It reflects what providers can directly influence, which is the learning experience and the outcomes it produces.

Retention still matters, but it is not the headline

Of course, we want apprentices to stay the course. But retention is a multi-stakeholder challenge, shaped as much by employer commitment, job security and challenging and escalating economic conditions as by training quality. Folding it into the headline measure risks penalising providers who take on the most challenging and often the most rewarding work.

The unintended consequence is that providers may feel pressured to protect the metric rather than the mission. That can mean avoiding high-risk sectors, steering employers away from demanding standards, or recruiting only “safe-bet” apprentices.

None of this serves the wider purpose of apprenticeships, which is to open doors and develop skills across the local and national economies.

A better signal to the sector

Making pass rate the primary measure would send a clear message that what matters most is the quality of training, learning and assessment for those who complete. Achievement rate, retention, progression and destinations should obviously still be tracked, but we must stop pretending that a single composite number can capture the full story of apprenticeship quality.

Apprenticeships are about opportunity, transformation and the belief that skills training can change lives and strengthen industries. If we continue to judge providers primarily on achievement rate, we risk punishing those who serve the apprentices and employers who need us most.

Pass rate is not perfect, but it is the clearest, fairest and most direct measure of what apprenticeship providers do best, which is enabling apprentices to succeed when given the chance. We know what great delivery looks like; now let’s make sure the measure matches the mission.

It is time to put quality front and centre, and for Ofsted to lead that change.

Skills policy just moved house, and the neighbourhood matters

It is conventional to think three things about machinery of government changes.

Firstly, that they represent seismic shifts because they bring in at least some new ministers and facilitate new policy linkages that were harder to make cross-Whitehall. Secondly, and contradictorily, that they are superficial, because the same civil servants remain in post and anyone who has watched Yes, Minister knows where the real power lies. And thirdly, that they cause disruption. Even if the officials stay the same, they are busy navigating new intranet homepages, attending departmental values workshops and figuring out where their new desk is.

All these things will be at play this time to some extent. The art lies in working out whether this is a desk-shuffling change or a more fundamental one.

One way to do that is to look at a fourth, under-appreciated aspect: the difference in culture between departments. They are not all operating in the same way.

They all have different policymaking instincts, analytical heuristics and delivery experiences which subtly but meaningfully shape a policy area; the spirit that makes a department what it is. Over time that can have more influence than individual ministers or officials.

So, what does the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) policy culture mean for adult skills?

We’ve seen (some of) this movie before

Skills policy has long been nomadic, passed between departments, from education to business, science and innovation, and now employment. Each change brought a subtle shift in policy approach.

For example, post-Richard apprenticeship reforms were conceived in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), in an employer-focused environment, but then delivered by the Department for Education (DfE), where instincts were for more traditionally regulated education programmes. Over time, this cultural mismatch led to a drift away from Doug Richard’s original reforms, for example in recent changes to assessment.

Will it be the same this time round?

“Yes, but…” Yes, there will be some small but perceptible shifts, informed by the DWP way of thinking:

The DWP will be used to thinking at a system or individual level – the overall labour market or the individual jobseeker – but less comfortable at the level of the institution (college, provider, awarding organisation).
It will be used to a system where delivery sits with civil servants all the way down to the jobcentre adviser or is outsourced through significant welfare-to-work schemes, rather than a front line of tutors and assessors they do not employ.
It will have a different approach to arm’s length bodies. How will the DWP understand Skills England and its cross-Whitehall remit; and how will it manage what will be the department’s only executive agency?

But… there is also a macro-change in how the government thinks about skills here. It is obvious that a shift to the DWP means increased focus on employment and growth; and a strengthening of the link between skills and jobs.

That is healthy and positive. But anyone who has spent time working on skills policy this millennium will have spent time debating with the DWP over whether people just need to get a job, any job; or whether it is beneficial to provide training so they can get, stay and progress in a better job.

Played out between departments, that debate never really comes to a head: government interventions continue to deliver a little from column A, a little from column B. But that policy contest is likely now to resolve in favour of a jobs-first approach.

Does that mean more shorter, work-focused training? What does it mean for foundation apprenticeships? Will the welfare-to-work juggernauts consume everything in their path?

That is the significant change here. This shift in ethos will transcend ministerial churn and civil service personnel and probably mean more in delivery terms than a recalibrating of what employers “being in the driving seat” of apprenticeship reform means.

None of these changes will happen overnight. Officials need time to adjust, not just to new desks, but to a new policymaking and delivery culture. And over time that culture will change skills policy in lots of small ways, as it has at previous transition points.

But I think this could go bigger than that. By rehousing adult skills and employment in the same department, this could be one of the most consequential and interesting changes in the machinery of government since 1997.

AI isn’t just for coders, it’s the new digital literacy every learner needs

AI has become impossible to ignore. From lesson planning to client communications, it is reshaping how we work and live.

Yet in FE, many staff and students are still unsure how to approach it. Some worry that it is too technical, others fear it will take away jobs.

My experience at Barnsley College has shown me the opposite – AI can boost confidence, free up time and prepare learners for the world of work.

The demand for AI knowledge is growing rapidly. A recent survey of UK technology leaders found that more than half now face an AI skills shortage. At the same time, government research shows that millions of adults still lack the basic digital skills needed for work. If we fail to address both gaps, our learners will lose.

This is why we created an “Introduction to AI” course, a programme that makes AI accessible to people without a computing background. Our message was clear: AI is not just for coders, it’s for everyone!

We used Gateway Qualifications’ Level 2 Digital and IT Skills Certificate as the foundation and created a 12-week programme that balanced theory with practice. Learners worked through an “explore, experiment, explain, apply” model.

The learners’ project brief was simple: imagine you are the administrator of a new company, and you must create a suite of documents which the business will use daily. Using AI, learners produced job description templates, payroll spreadsheets and client communications. They refined these drafts, logged their process and presented the results.

What mattered was not the AI output but the learning journey.

To build confidence we introduced two models of prompt engineering; the PREP method (prepare, role, example, parameters) which helped with simple prompts, and the CREATE method (character, request, example, additions, type of output, extras) which supported more advanced tasks. These frameworks gave learners a way to communicate effectively with AI rather than treating it like a search engine.

AI impact on learners and staff

Last year we delivered four cohorts with more than 40 completers. The outcomes are encouraging.

One parent set up a GCSE maths tutor for her son using AI, which he now uses weekly for revision.
A business development colleague halved the time needed to prepare presentations for clients.
ESOL learners used AI for translation and to improve their CVs.
Many described AI as “like having a personal assistant for smaller tasks once it is set up”.

The wider lesson is that AI can support both technical and soft skills. Learners leave with a tangible portfolio and, just as importantly, with confidence in their ability to use digital tools.

We have learned several lessons that may be useful to other colleges.

First, flexibility is essential. We used Gateway Qualifications’ project-based units, which meant we could adapt the course to each group’s needs and local employer demand.

Second, learning had to be hands-on. AI cannot be taught through lectures alone. Learners need to experiment, fail, and try again.

Third, quality assurance requires a focus on process. We do not mark AI outputs directly, instead we assess the evidence of how learners planned, tested and reflected. This keeps standards rigorous and avoids the trap of students simply submitting machine-generated work.

Finally, misconceptions have to be addressed directly. AI is not going away, and it is not a threat to every job. But somebody with AI skills on their CV will always be more competitive than somebody without them.

Where next?

Barnsley College is expanding AI provision to more levels and age groups. We will continue to monitor how learners apply their new skills in work and further study. Most importantly, we want to share our practice with other providers so that no one has to start from scratch.

AI should be treated as a new frontier of digital literacy. Just as colleges once had to ensure that learners could use word processing or spreadsheets, we now need to ensure that they can use AI responsibly and effectively.

My advice to other FE providers is to start small – but start soon. The sooner we normalise AI as a tool, the better prepared our learners will be for the future of work.

We need to rethink careers guidance for a changing generation

Across the UK, the careers system is under pressure. Almost a million young people are currently not in education, employment or training (NEET). At the same time, employers continue to warn of shortages in key skills, particularly in growth industries.

The gap between opportunity and aspiration is widening and it risks leaving too many young people without a clear route into work and a career.

One reason for this gap is the way careers information reaches young people. We have known for a long time that the traditional model of a one-off guidance session or careers “lessons” pigeon-holed into the timetable is not fit for purpose.

Many students still struggle to name a career they want to pursue and, when they can, choices often cluster around a small set of familiar roles. The wide variety of jobs available in the modern economy, from emerging digital roles to careers in sport, physical activity and wellbeing, can remain largely hidden.

Recent research by Ravensbourne University London highlights the scale of the problem. It found that only a small proportion of 16 to 21-year-olds see traditional careers guidance – such as careers events or a careers advisor at their school or college – as their primary source of advice. Instead, many are turning to family or social media, which may feel more accessible but rarely shows the full picture of available opportunities.

The same report highlighted that traditional careers guidance is currently a confusing experience for young people as they do not feel equipped with enough information to make informed decisions about their career; less than a third (31 per cent) of respondents felt they had received helpful careers guidance through traditional methods, while 58 per cent said they did not understand the route from education into industry using careers information, advice and guidance (CIAG).

What young people say they value most are experiences that feel authentic: work placements, internships, employer encounters that show them what a job actually looks like.

Mentoring and visible role models are equally important. If young people cannot see people like themselves succeeding in a particular role, it becomes much harder to imagine that career as a realistic option.

In sectors such as sport and physical activity, which has a higher proportion of young people as part of its workforce than most, new initiatives are helping to bridge this divide. CIMSPA has developed a careers hub which maps out the range of jobs available and the professional standards that underpin them.

By working with the Department for Work and Pensions, young people and jobseekers are also supported to access placements and employer connections that reduce the risk of becoming NEET. These approaches show what can be achieved when careers information is joined up with real-world opportunity.

Social media will continue to play a role in how young people think about the world of work, but it cannot be the only influence. Behind the figure of a popular influencer lies a network of roles, from videographers to marketers and data analysts, just as behind the visible fitness instructor lies a whole ecosystem of careers in leadership, health, community engagement and facility management. Helping young people to understand these wider opportunities is crucial if we are to broaden their aspirations.

The crisis in the number of NEETs should be a wake-up call. It signals that too many young people are missing the guidance, experiences and encouragement that connect potential with opportunity.

If careers support can evolve to provide clearer information, more workplace encounters and stronger role models, then young people will be better placed to build futures that are not only sustainable for them, but vital for the health of our economy and society.

Rethinking PD: How colleges can build learning cultures

A skilled and motivated workforce matters in every profession. But in education, professional development (PD) is not just about career progression or boosting organisational performance.

When it is well designed and delivered, PD is one of the most powerful tools we have with which to address a major challenge facing our system: giving every learner the best possible chance to succeed.

At the EEF, our work is all about encouraging evidence-informed approaches to teaching and learning, and tackling the education inequalities that persist across England. We have worked with schools for over a decade and are now strengthening our focus on the 16-19 education sector so that every learner – at every stage of education – has the opportunity to thrive.

This includes initiatives such as our new Evidence Partnership, which will support colleges to embed evidence use across the sector, and our guidance on effective PD.

For those working in 16-19 education settings, the stakes can feel especially high: teachers are working with students to secure the qualifications that open doors to their futures. High-quality PD is not a “nice to have” – it is essential.

Building a culture, not just a programme

Delivering PD which makes a difference is about much more than putting on training sessions. It is about building a culture where teachers feel engaged, valued and supported to keep improving.

That means creating space for collaboration, making PD relevant to the day-to-day realities of teaching, and continually adapting based on reflection and feedback.

But, in the busy reality of FE and sixth-form life, balancing timetables, accountability and multiple priorities, PD risks being sidelined. So how do we keep it strategic and impactful?

A case study from Cornwall

Truro and Penwith College is one of the founding members of the EEF’s new Evidence Partnership for the 16-19 sector.

leaders at the college recognised that their traditional, top-down approach to PD was not landing. Among wider challenges around teacher retention and workload, there was a pressing need to rebuild trust and make PD more collaborative and inclusive within the college.

Their response was to create “education exchange” forums: voluntary spaces for reflective discussion, feedback and staff-led input into PD priorities. Decisions about what to focus on are now shaped not only by learner outcomes, lesson observations and research evidence, but also by what teachers themselves identify as most useful.

The college also shifted away from lecture-style training towards smaller, discussion-based sessions that encourage peer learning, while also encouraging clear progression towards their targeted outcomes. Representatives from across the college also now help to translate PD into everyday practice within teams.

Staff reported feeling re-energised and more invested in professional learning. The process is still evolving – effective PD always is – but the culture is shifting. A shared mission to improve teaching and give learners the best chance in life is uniting the community.

Engagement with teachers – and how this informs responses to professional development – will naturally vary across individual settings. Truro and Penwith College provides one example of how this can be achieved but, for other settings, this may be different based on their unique context.

How to improve your setting’s PD offer

For leaders wondering how to strengthen their own PD offer, there is now free tailored guidance to help. We have published a new resource specifically for FE and sixth form colleges, school-based sixth forms and other 16-19 providers.

Our Effective Professional Development in 16-19 settings guide and a range of other helpful resources can be found on our 16-19 education hub: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/16-19

Based on a review of sector practice led by a team from Sheffield Hallam University and hundreds of research studies, the guidance offers clear, practical steps to make PD more effective, whether you are just starting out or refining what is already in place. It is organised around three recommendations:

Build a culture of continuous professional development.
Use the KEEP framework to plan, design and deliver professional development (Knowledge, Engagement, Execution, Practice).
Carefully consider evidence-informed content.

It is designed to be a genuine support in making PD a lever for real change.

Pat’s skills nightmare: The kitchen is on fire

Watching Gordon Ramsey’s Kitchen Nightmares always left me with one clear lesson: simplicity wins. He would rip out the bloated menus, ditch the overpriced ingredients and focus on what mattered – good food, done well.

Then came the other basics: enough customers through the door, the right number of chefs, and front-of-house staff who actually knew what they were doing. He always had a simple checklist.

Even large restaurant chains have failed by expanding too quickly, adding layers of bureaucracy and overcomplicating things. At the same time, online meal kits have flourished by offering simple, affordable, flexible solutions.

In the world of skills, are we living Gordon’s worst kitchen nightmare?

The funding mess

Skills funding has been slashed to the bone. And let us remember that education funding is based on cohort sizes. One chef cooking for the room, not one chef per customer. That is the model we are all funded by.

Funding generally supports delivery for learners who self-select and enrol. But it rarely covers the spiralling costs of targeting small, discrete groups with very specific characteristics.

Instead of a restaurant with vegetarian options and a pensioner discount, we are running a niche café that only serves vegetarian over-65s and wondering why the money does not add up.

The challenge of devolution

I have no quarrel with devolution. But let’s call it what it is: 50 versions of the same system, each with its own bureaucracy, rules and flavour. It is like franchising a chain of restaurants but giving each one permission to ignore the recipe.

Every extra bureaucratic layer is money taken straight out of colleges and providers – and, ultimately, the learner’s pocket.

Complexity v commonality

I don’t object to the skills system being complex; simplification makes sense up to 16. But beyond that, forget it. The real problem is that, instead of building around a common core, with optional modules to tailor to different needs, every course is unique. We saw this with the development of apprenticeship standards.

Think about it: 10 types of noodles and rice, paired with 10 different sauces, gives you 100 meal options from 20 core elements. That is far more efficient than designing 100 entirely separate dishes.

Champagne demands, beer money budgets

Here is the kicker: While the funding collapses, expectations skyrocket. More assessments. More guidance. Fully personalised programmes. Oh – and don’t just train learners, get them jobs too.

We are being paid for the main course, while being told to provide the starter, dessert, wine list and liqueurs on the house. That is not sustainable.

So, who is our Gordon Ramsey?

Now McFadden at the Department for Work and Pensions has been handed the ball. And our plea is simple: get the recipe right.

Who is going to kick down the door and scream: “This is a disaster!” McFadden? Jacqui Smith? Maybe Skills England? Skills has been a political football kicked between departments: business, education, employment. Each one wanting their own flavour.

Time to get real

Skills is not one thing. It is a whole banquet – upskilling, reskilling, employed, unemployed, entry-level, higher education. Learning in work. Learning to get into work.

Is it skills training? Is it employability? If it is both, then fund both. Stop pretending that we can throw everything into the pot and expect it to taste good without paying for the ingredients.

The recipe for change

Here is what we need:

A common core curriculum with optional units – or better yet, a fully unitised system.
Programmes open to all, with incentives for learners or regions that need extra support.
Proper funding when programmes go beyond skills and stray into employability or social support.

And above all: stop making everything bespoke. Higher levels of commonality mean resources and staff can be shared, scaled and improved.

In today’s online world, we could have brilliant national resources for learners and teachers available to every provider, with each adding their local flavour on top. That is how you get efficiency and quality.

Because right now? We have got a kitchen full of chefs, no clear menu, no proper funding – and diners walking out hungry.

The skills kitchen is on fire. Someone needs to walk in, rip up the menu and start shouting.

Engineering’s skills crunch can be solved with our plan

Our latest forecasts show that 40,000 additional workers could be needed for major projects in engineering construction by 2030. Our new strategy – Leading Industry Learning – outlines how we will find those people and support growth.

The ECITB is moving from a three-year to a five-year plan with the aim of developing the skills needed for the delivery of critical infrastructure projects, energy security and net zero ambitions over the longer term.

Shaped by insights from employers, training providers, asset owners, the government, trade unions and other industry bodies, our plan reflects the real needs and evolving priorities of the engineering construction industry (ECI).

These major projects span a range of sectors, including nuclear new-build and decommissioning, renewables, oil and gas, water treatment and food and drink. They also include hydrogen and carbon capture projects linked to the decarbonisation of industrial cluster areas at the heart of the country’s net zero plans.

Here are 10 ways our 2026-30 strategy will help industry to meet workforce volume challenges, prepare for a boom in project activity and transform skills provision:

Drive new entrants into industry

This includes scaling up ECITB new entrant programmes targeting the most in-need occupations; building on our successful Work Ready and Scholarship programmes with support for entrants from lower socio-economic backgrounds and under-represented groups; supporting the recruitment of more apprentices, including steps to grow mentoring capacity; and strengthening graduate training.

Respond to sector skills needs

We will expand delivery of courses for net zero and priority sectors under the industrial strategy including nuclear, carbon capture, hydrogen and wind; and support upskilling and reskilling for workers to move between industries, including through bolt-on training.

Grow competence assurance

Working with industry and governments, we will drive forward standardised approaches to competence assurance, while embedding and optimising the role of the Connected Competence testing programme and reforming the Assuring Competence in Engineering (ACE) scheme.

Bolster workforce progression and retention

To support workforce progression and retention, we will create ECITB-approved career pathways, with associated training and assessment interventions. We will invest in leadership, management and mentoring training to support employee engagement and retention.

Encourage attraction and inclusion

As well as engaging in activities to attract and inspire under-16s into ECI careers and promote the varied, diverse routes into industry, we will help industry to create inclusive workplaces through partnerships, standard setting and training.

Develop a strategic skills ecosystem

By harnessing our Regional Skills Hubs model, we can help to build a strategic skills ecosystem underpinned by centres of excellence in key industrial cluster areas. Setting up a strategic innovation fund will accelerate skills investment and tackle systemic workforce challenges. We will also develop innovative interventions to increase trainer and assessor capacity, broaden the talent pool ahead of project need and broker the transition of the at-risk workforce from traditional into green industries.

Drive technology adoption

We will future-proof the skills base by gathering and acting on intelligence and industry trends; and develop and roll out training interventions and products that enable industry to harness new technologies, including AI and robotics, at scale.

Expand blended learning and modular training

This includes building on bootcamp partnerships to develop and deliver short courses, drawing on external funding; and developing and delivering a suite of modular and just-in-time training.

Foster impactful partnerships

The ECITB will partner with the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB) to drive skills for infrastructure, and leverage the skills offers from the UK and devolved governments in Wales and Scotland to maximise impact. We will drive industry to adopt collaborative contracting strategies to enhance strategic skills planning and delivery.

Widen commercial offer and scope

Alongside exploring options to grow our product and service offering, we will expand commercial partnerships to enhance skills development.

In summary, moving from a three-year to a five-year strategy cycle reflects our determination to drive long-term outcomes. We will do this through significant interventions that will deliver lasting impact in addressing the systemic and structural challenges facing the engineering construction industry.

We need the same rigour of teaching in colleges as in schools

Britain’s economy is anaemic, teetering on the edge of a ‘debt death spiral’. FE colleges should be the engine room of growth through raising national skill levels, but the system isn’t delivering.

In 2025, fewer than 11,000 students in England passed a T Level – the much-heralded technical alternative to A-Levels. Four times as many students sat A Level Sociology than passed every single T Level combined. Apprenticeship enrolments are high, yet four in ten students drop out.

The contrast with schools is striking. Schools were transformed by Gove and Gibb’s standards revolution, which propelled England up the international league tables. Reform embedded rigour into curriculum and qualifications, spread evidence-informed teaching practices, and built an accountability system capable of identifying and correcting failure.

Funding plays a role – FE has always been the poorer sibling. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows per-student funding in colleges fell by 14 per cent in real terms between 2009-10 and 2019-20, compared with a 9 per cent fall in schools. Even after recent uplifts, college funding per student in 2025 is still projected to be 11 per cent below 2010 levels.

But it would be wrong to say FE’s challenges are only about money. School reform succeeded in a tight fiscal climate. The deeper issue is that policymakers have ignored the most powerful lever for improving outcomes: highly skilled teachers teaching ambitious curricula.

The frameworks underpinning teacher training illustrate the point. The Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework for schoolteachers is 16 pages of tightly curated knowledge and practice, grounded in cognitive science, that all new teachers are expected to master. The FE initial teacher education framework, by contrast, is a hodge podge of topics like “getting to know your learners” or adopting a “person-centred approach”.

We’re asking FE teachers to do one of the toughest jobs in education without giving them the support to succeed.

Given a third of FE students come from the 20 per cent most deprived areas of England, nothing less than a skills standards revolution will do. The bizarre decision to shift half of the skills brief into the Department for Work and Pensions only makes this harder. But it is not too late for the government to pick up the mantle.

Five-point plan for change

End the artificial divide between school and college teachers. These are overlapping workforces with high mobility between them, yet recruitment, retention and training policy is siloed. We need to build a single teaching profession across phases and settings, starting with robust workforce data.
Give every college teacher access to a ‘golden thread’ of professional development, rooted firmly in evidence. Much of what works in schoolteacher training is transferable, whether a teacher teaches maths or hairdressing. Let’s stimulate new entrants to the training market – organisations that combine cognitive science, technical expertise and a moral mission to serve the most disadvantaged.
Finish the job on qualifications reform. Improve T Levels and protect their Level 3 status, but accept they won’t suit every student. New Alternative Academic Qualifications need to be based on the same employer-based standards, even if they lack the practical elements of T Levels. Develop a better offer for those not ready for Level 3 study – the most underserved students in our system – learning from organisations like Get Further. Prune the niche apprenticeship standards which have created courses that are unviable or overly narrow.
Mobilise Oak National Academy to develop exemplar curricula for every T Level, working with top colleges and Institutes of Technology. Curriculum is the foundation of education, and teachers get better when they can see excellence.
Let’s pilot our strongest school trusts to run struggling colleges. Our fragmented education system creates weak curriculum coherence and poor transitions between phases. Giving leading trust CEOs responsibility for colleges would raise standards and create a more seamless journey from 4 to 19.

These reforms promise a stronger teaching profession and better outcomes for the young people who need them most. The government should publish a skills standards white paper urgently, and the Prime Minister should commit Baroness Smith to stay in post for the remainder of the Parliament as ‘Minister for Skills Standards’ to deliver it.

A government serious about economic growth must prioritise FE. The revolution is overdue.

FE to get ‘extra £800m’ next year as Starmer ‘scraps’ 50% uni target

Sir Keir Starmer has “scrapped” Labour’s target of getting 50 per cent of young adults into higher education and set a new goal that includes FE and apprenticeships.

The government will also pump “nearly £800 million” extra into 16 to 19 education next year from the existing spending review settlement, including the creation of 14 new technical excellence colleges.

Officials have also revealed colleges will be held to account by new “regional improvement teams” and gain new awarding powers, with details expected to be fleshed out in the post-16 white paper due this autumn.

‘I don’t think that’s right for our times’

Prime minister Sir Keir Starmer told his party conference today he will make it a “defining mission of this Labour government” to no longer ignore further education.

He said the target of getting half of young adults into higher education, symbolically set by Tony Blair in 1999, was not “right for our time”.

Instead, the country should be aiming for two-thirds of young people to get higher-level skills, either through university, further education, or a “gold standard” apprenticeship by age 25.

Starmer said: “While you will never hear me denigrate the aspiration to go to university, I don’t think the way we currently measure success in education – that ambition to get 50 per cent of kids to uni – I don’t think that’s right for our times.

“Because if you are a kid or a parent of a kid who chooses an apprenticeship, what does it say to you? Do we genuinely, as a country, afford them the same respect?

“Today I can announce, we will scrap that target and we will replace it with a new ambition that two-thirds of our children should go either to university or take on a gold standard apprenticeship.”

Downing Street said this target will include “at least 10 per cent of young people pursuing higher technical education or apprenticeships that the economy needs by 2040, a near doubling of today’s figure”.

‘Young people backed. The glass ceiling smashed’

The prime minister also singled out the value of further education, stating it has long been seen as the “Cinderella” sector, before giving a nod to yesterday’s youth guarantee announcement from chancellor Rachel Reeves.

He told conference: “I can also announce, that further education, so long the Cinderella service, ignored because politicians kids don’t do it, we will make it a defining mission of this Labour government, with higher standards in every college, the quality of teaching raised, more apprenticeships, more technical colleges, technical excellence colleges, qualifications linked to jobs rooted in their communities.

“And as Rachel announced yesterday, a new guarantee of training, work support or an apprenticeship for every young person struggling to find work.

“That’s young people backed. The glass ceiling smashed. The grafters finally included in our country’s highest aspiration. That’s a Britain built for all.”

White paper reforms

There will be 14 new technical excellence colleges, focused on “high-growth sectors such as advanced manufacturing, clean energy, and digital”, Downing Street announced after the prime minister’s speech.

This builds on the 10 technical excellence colleges already announced for construction and five for defence.

A spokesperson said that to support these reforms, the government will also invest “nearly £800 million extra into funding for 16- to- 19-year-olds next year (2026-27).

“Coming from the existing spending review settlement, this funding will support an additional 20,000 students and make our FE system world-class.”

Officials have also given an insight into what will come in the post-16 white paper for FE and HE, including new awarding powers for colleges.

“The reforms pave the way for a joined-up post-18 education system, with a unified regulator and funding model for level 4+ courses,” a government spokesperson said.

“FE colleges will gain new awarding powers, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement will ensure parity in student finance across higher level study FE and HE – opening up opportunities for more learners, including through modular courses tailored to priority skills.”

The government said it will hold the sector to account through the new Ofsted framework, as well as new “regional improvement teams” in FE to “support college improvement”.

Regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) teams already exist for schools under direction from the Department for Education.

The advisers are educational experts and identify areas for improvement, typically in situations where a school receives a poor Ofsted report.

Also on the cards in the post-16 white paper is new “structured professional development from initial teacher training through to leadership” for FE teachers.