Latest news from FE Week

DfE unable to show whether £270m Multiply programme improved maths

An evaluation of Rishi Sunak’s £270 million Multiply programme found it successfully engaged thousands of adults who were anxious about maths – but was unable to determine whether their numeracy skills improved.

The adult numeracy scheme, launched in 2022, funded maths courses across England that aimed to boost adults’ numeracy skills and earnings prospects.

An evaluation published yesterday suggested Multiply was successful at helping 210,000 learners – many new to adult education – overcome their “anxiety about numeracy”.

However, the report also admitted that researchers were “unable” to assess how much learners’ numeracy skills improved due to a mid-programme “change in focus” from delivering qualifications to unaccredited learning.

It revealed that officials scrapped plans to test some learners before and after courses due to “very low buy-in” from training providers and participating adults.

Over the three years the programme ran, the Department for Education (DfE) spent £1.3 million on the evaluation carried out by Verian and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).

It spent a further £5.7 million on a set of six randomised control trials that piloted approaches to adult numeracy teaching, some of which related to Multiply-style courses.

Only one of these, aimed at parents with primary school-age children, found a “statistically significant” impact.

The evaluation findings came more than a year after the three-year numeracy programme was scrapped by the Labour government in March 2025.

DfE officials produced four “internal” interim reports on the programme since 2023, but have refused to share copies with FE Week.

The evaluations also come in the same week as the launch of a national adult numeracy campaign by the Richmond Project, a charity set up by Sunak and his wife, Akshata Murty.

Positive self-reporting

Evaluators found that of the 290,000 total enrolments from the 210,000 learners, 85 per cent would not have happened without the programme.

Surveyed learners said they were attracted to the “flexible nature” of the courses, which included embedded numeracy into topics relevant to learners’ work or daily lives such as cooking.

Most reported benefits for their confidence, well-being, and employment prospects.

A third of learners also reported going on to take another numeracy course and a further 25 per cent a non-numeracy course, with 83 per cent of learners saying their Multiply experience “positively influenced” their decision to continue studying.

However, researchers admitted that a “limitation” of their evaluation was the “lack of objective measure” of whether maths skills improved.

Objectives changed mid-programme

Evaluators blamed the lack of direct evidence of learners getting better at maths on the “change of focus” from qualifications up to level 2 to “short, informal and unintimidating” courses that helped address anxiety about numeracy.

This was a “deliberate decision” based on feedback from providers about what was needed to engage new learners.

The evaluation was originally supposed to collect data on learners’ progress through short numeracy assessments at the start and end of their course.

But these tests reportedly had “very low” buy-in from providers and learners due to the “negative impact” on delivery.

Evaluators tried to offer learners incentives directly but decided that the “administrative and monetary cost” of trying to collect this data was not “value for money”.

‘Change people’s lives’

Announcing the programme while chancellor in 2021, Sunak claimed it would “change people’s lives” by addressing what he called “poor” adult maths skills.

He allocated £560 million for the UK-wide programme, with £270 million reserved for England.

However, its launch suffered a six-month delay to the release of funding in the first year, contributing to a 16 per cent, or £44 million, underspend over the three years.

The £94 million website that was supposed to promote the programme, offer learner “diagnostic” and tuition was scrapped, with less than £300,000 spent.

Lack of clarity

The evaluation also found that employers were “difficult to engage” with the programme.

Local areas were positive about the shift towards informal training and tended to feel that the programme was “good value for money” that complemented existing adult education budget provision.

However, areas including the Greater London Authority and North East Combined Authority complained about an “absence” of a national communications campaign to promote the programme.

Most authorities involved also had major concerns about a “lack of clarity” around funding beyond March 2025, which impacted planning and staff retention.

“There was a strong consensus that demand for community-based numeracy support remains high, and that future funding should build on Multiply’s successes rather than allow them to dissipate,” evaluators concluded.

Former civil servant Andrew Otty, who worked on the early design of Multiply, said: “Multiply’s goals were to improve adult progression towards level 2 maths achievement, to establish an online platform as an unparalleled resource to engage and support adults with numeracy, and to run a series of randomised controlled trials to test whether the local pockets of existing good practice in adult maths delivery as of 2021 could have been scaled up and replicated nationally.

“This evaluation has been published years after the decision was already taken to scrap Multiply and half a decade after the necessary baselining should have taken place.

“It consequently sidesteps the most important question around the impact on maths achievement, glosses over the gross failure of civil servants around the online platform, and – along with DfE – misunderstands the original purpose of the RCTs.

“It is fantastic to see that local areas and colleges innovated successfully to engage learners and build confidence in maths, but they did so in spite of DfE blockers, and this evaluation provides nothing in the way of transparency and accountability.”

The DfE and Rishi Sunak were approached for comment.

UCU Congress: Pooled votes backed for next teacher strike

FE lecturers have backed a national strike ballot strategy that could help the University and College Union stage more walkouts across England’s colleges.

Delegates at its annual congress in Harrogate voted today to pursue an aggregated ballot, which would pool votes across England rather than require each college branch to clear the legal turnout threshold separately.

The move marks a shift in strategy for the union after members rejected an aggregated ballot at a special FE conference in 2024, choosing instead to pursue local pay claims.

But delegates stopped short of calling for coordinated strike action before the end of October after a last-minute amendment failed.

UCU has demanded a 10 per cent or £3,000 pay rise for college teachers alongside workload cuts and binding national bargaining through its new deal for FE campaign.

Pay will continue to be a priority for the campaign after motions by Leeds City College and Bolton College to put national bargaining ahead of annual pay uplifts failed.

Seven motions related to the new deal for FE campaign were debated in a closed private session, which journalists were barred from observing. UCU refused to confirm the outcomes when asked by FE Week.

FE Week understands a motion from South Devon College UCU for an aggregated ballot for industrial action was approved.

On aggregate

Union branches are required to attract a 50 per cent turnout for a majority vote to pass.

UCU members in 32 of 68 colleges passed the turnout threshold and backed strike action last year.

But teachers at 17 colleges ultimately walked out in January, following a swathe of settled pay deals between union branches and college employers.

The move saw pay rises for teachers above the Association of Colleges’ 4 per cent pay recommendation.

The aim of an aggregated ballot is to increase the number of colleges taking part in industrial action by pooling votes nationally.

Paul Bridge, head of further education at UCU, told congress FE has a “charade” of national bargaining when the five trade unions negotiate at the National Joint Forum on pay with the Association of Colleges.

“It doesn’t deliver anything other than a recommendation that’s not fully funded,” he said.

Bridge added that UCU must “concentrate” on demanding ringfenced funding for FE pay.

“Part of what our campaign is about is establishing the flaws in the absence of a sector. It doesn’t have national bargaining, it doesn’t have national T’s and C’s. We have to create that.”

Workload demands

All five motions demanding stronger national efforts to reduce workload were approved.

Delegates called for more serious recognition of teacher stress and a campaign to define preparation for Ofsted visits as workload.

A motion launched by Novus on rebuilding prison education branches after the new prison education service contract was passed unanimously.

Bridge estimated around 300 prison educators have been made redundant since the new prison education service came into force in October.

Novus educator Maria Walker said remaining teachers were experiencing untenable workloads servicing the contract.

“It’s not about educators anymore. We have lost so much knowledge,” she said.

“We are there to fulfil the contract for the Ministry of Justice.”

Paid my dues

Members also debated UCU membership fees.

UCU’s proposed budget for 2026-27 proposes a “limited increase” in membership fees, described elsewhere in documents as a “progressive movement”.

Membership currently costs teachers up to £31.54 per month, with lower fees for lower earners.

The proposals, seen by FE Week, would increase subscriptions incrementally the more a member earns.

Those on salaries of £60,000 or more would pay 3 per cent more in monthly subscriptions, while members earning under £30,000 would see their dues cut by up to 3 per cent.

Durham University argued that “regressive” subscriptions, where higher-paid members pay a lower percentage of their salary in union subscriptions than lower-paid members, should be abolished.

But UCU Cymru demanded a standard annual membership fee reduction of at least 15 per cent to make the union more “competitively priced”.

The Durham motion passed, causing UCU Cymru’s to fall.

Internal strike

The annual congress took place against the backdrop of a continuing unresolved industrial dispute between UCU and its own staff.

Unite members who work at the teachers’ union staged an 11-day walkout in February over allegations of trade union victimisation, which UCU claimed were “categorically untrue”.

Goldsmiths University submitted a motion expressing solidarity with Unite UCU members, calling on the union to donate £20,000 to their strike fund.

Members argued to put the vote back in the order of business after it had previously been removed because of a likely breach of congress rules, which cited risks to the union’s liabilities as an employer.

Defunding Access to HE will shut out the students who need it most

Access to HE diplomas were quietly added last week to the list of 16-19 qualifications ministers intend to defund from August 2027. There was no warning, no consultation and no explanation.

The decision will affect around 20 per cent of the current funded Access to HE learner base.

Participation among younger learners has been rising. Colleges have seen more 18-year-olds turning to Access to HE diplomas, many of them having already tried A Levels or other programmes that did not work for them.

Most of them had not given up on university; they had just not found a route that worked until this one.

Access to HE diplomas have never competed with A Levels or the incoming V Levels, and the policy case for defunding them rests on a misunderstanding of what they actually do. V Levels are designed to prepare learners for skilled employment, which is a worthwhile goal but an entirely different one.

Access diplomas have a singular purpose: preparing learners for academic study at university.

A prospective nurse, social worker or teacher enrols knowing exactly where they want to go.

The diploma gives them one focused year building the subject knowledge, research skills and academic habits that will carry them through a degree. Treating these as overlapping qualifications is not correct.

There is a widening participation argument here that the DfE appears to have given little weight. Access diplomas have long served learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, those with disrupted education, and those for whom a conventional sixth form was never a realistic option.

When 16-19 learners are removed from these programmes, the consequences go further than those students alone. Mixed-age cohorts are common across Access to HE provision, and in many colleges, it is that mix that keeps a course running at all.

Lose the younger students, and a good number of those programmes close entirely, taking adult learners down with them.

Access diplomas feed into the professions facing the most acute shortages: nursing, healthcare, teaching, and social care. Learners who complete them often return to work in the communities they came from.

The consequences of cutting this route reach well beyond the individual and into the public services that cannot recruit enough people.

The government has stated it wants to raise higher education participation and narrow the social mobility gap. Access diplomas are one of the most direct means the sector has of doing exactly that. They are short, well-regulated by the QAA, recognised by Russell Group universities and carry UCAS points.

For many learners, the Advanced Learner Loan used to fund them is written off once they complete a degree, so public money spent here tends to come back many times over.

What makes this harder to accept is that the DfE’s own guidance contradicts the decision. The qualification funding approval manual lists Access to HE as protected under exemption type 1 of the qualification reforms moratorium, because it serves a distinct function.

The department cannot protect a qualification in one policy document and defund it in another without explaining why. No such explanation has been offered.

Alongside the other access validating agencies, I am calling on the Department for Education to reconsider.

Gateway Qualifications validates a number of these diplomas, and I make no attempt to hide that. The case for reconsideration is about the learners who rely on this route and deserve better than being swept aside by a process that was never designed with their circumstances in mind.

Access to HE is one of the few parts of the 16-19 offer built around the students the rest of the system has consistently got wrong. Removing it without consultation, without evidence and without anything credible in its place closes a door that many of these learners have only recently found the courage to open.

Mayors hand £5.5m in capital grants to independent training providers

Mayors have handed out at least £5.5 million in capital funding to independent training providers over the last decade, data obtained by FE Week shows.

According to freedom of information (FOI) request responses from ten mayoral combined authorities (MCAs) with devolved adult skills fund responsibilities, more than £300 million has been invested into 160 education-related projects at further education colleges, local authorities, universities and independent training providers.

This included at least £5.5 million granted to 30 ITPs, including privately owned businesses, non-profits, and charities.

It suggests mayors are more willing to take risks by investing capital funding in independent training businesses than the Department for Education, which reserves most grants for colleges.

The largest amounts of grant funding for ITPs came from Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA) and the Greater London Authority (GLA), which invested in new facilities and equipment for construction, digital and creative skills.

However, the FOI responses to FE Week also show that the investment has only come from four MCAs, with six confirming that they have not provided capital grants to any ITPs.

The six were: Greater Manchester, West Midlands, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire and West of England.

As recently as this year, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough mayor Paul Bristow signed off £550,000 in grants to two private training businesses to help fund training facilities that would fill in local FE “cold spots”.

Last year, Tees Valley Combined Authority also handed £114,750 to a local training provider for a specialist welding training facility that aligns with the needs of a local employer.

Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “We are pleased to see the forward-thinking approach taken by local commissioners regarding the distribution of capital funds to non-grant-funded providers, including ITPs.

“However, there are still instances of capital provided to local areas with too many restrictions where the funds must be directed to, particularly around 16-19.

“This goes against the grain of devolution and local choice, and where ITPs have a small, but growing influence, which aligns significantly with the government’s core mission on tackling the NEET crisis.”

‘Second-class’ complaints

The Department for Education and some mayoral authorities have faced criticism for treating ITPs like “second-class citizens” by excluding them from access to capital funding.

This includes post-16 capacity funding devolved to mayoral combined authorities, which the government has decreed can only be directed at “statutory providers” of 16 to 19 education: FE colleges, sixth form colleges, and 16-19 academies.

Some ITP leaders argue their agility and responsiveness mean they are well-placed to use public capital funding to help address post-16 capacity constraints and rising youth NEET numbers.

But rare cases where the DfE has approved funding to ITPs have ended badly, such as a £3 million grant to the north east’s NA College via the Institute of Technology programme.

NA College was a privately-owned business that fell into insolvency in 2024 – with its publicly funded specialist equipment sold at auction.

Mayors’ risky investments

While many of the ITPs that received capital grants in London and Liverpool continue to operate, FE Week has identified two providers that collapsed after securing mayoral funding for buildings, equipment and training facilities.

One of the recipients, St Helens Chamber, received a £93,000 capital grant from LCRCA in 2019 for “digital equipment”.

The chamber entered insolvency last year after the Education and Skills Funding Agency pursued a £550,000 clawback linked to apprenticeship funding claims.

LCRCA invested in St Helens Chamber through an approved £16 million capital grant programme, £4.3 million of which went to ITPs.

Most of these ITPs were local charities such as a local youth association, group training association and community trust.

A spokesperson for the authority said it carries out due diligence, financial health checks and regular reviews before and after investments.

Most grant funding capital agreements include conditions that money could be clawed back if pre-agreed outcomes were not achieved. They are also handed out on the basis that each capital project has a natural lifecycle that expires after an agreed timeframe.

It is not clear, however, what level of protection or guarantee public bodies receive to recoup capital grants, buildings or equipment when a private provider goes bust.

LRCA’s spokesperson said: “Capital investments, whether through ITPs or grant-funded, have a natural life where it is realistic to expect ongoing impacts and benefits to learners, typically around five years, and this is agreed with the training provider at the outset to ensure they are committed to delivering skills provision for this time period.”

Divad Training Ltd, a London apprenticeship provider, was awarded £40,000 from the Greater London Authority’s emergency Covid capital fund in 2020.

The company collapsed three years later with unpaid debts. Its owner, David Obodoechina-Joseph, was later disqualified from acting as a company director for six years.

In total, the GLA said it invested £2 million in 16 ITPs, including a £677,000 grant to The Clink Charity, which trains prisoners in catering skills, to set up an events arm.

It also handed grants of up to £350,000 to privately-owned ITPs delivering construction training, railway safety and IT skills.

A GLA spokesperson said Divad Training was accepted for its £40,000 grant in 2020 after a “full application process”, including questions about its registration on the apprenticeship provider register and Ofsted performance.

The terms of the grant agreement allowed for the funding to be clawed back if agreed “outcomes” were not achieved, including insolvency, according to the spokesperson.

No further details were provided about the supposed protections the GLA has in the case where a private provider goes bust.

The GLA did not confirm whether the authority recovered any funding from Divad Training after it went insolvent.

Hina Bokhari, a Liberal Democrat member of the London Assembly, said the cases show there must be a “high” threshold for due diligence before public money is awarded to private providers.

“That means thorough financial checks, robust monitoring and clear safeguards so public funds can be recovered if providers fail,” she added.

Tees Valley cancels skills tender after legal challenge

A mayoral authority has officially scrapped a £21 million adult education procurement after a training provider launched legal action against it.

Tees Valley Combined Authority (TVCA) began a tender for adult skills funding in January, with contracts due to begin this August and run for three years.

But the procurement was paused last month without explanation, two days after Learning Curve Group and two subsidiaries filed a legal claim against the authority at the Technology and Construction Court, which handles public procurement disputes.

FE Week has now seen a message sent to bidders today confirming the procurement has been formally withdrawn. It will now review the tender’s specification to better reflect skills shortages in the area.

In the message, a TVCA procurement officer said: “Due to a material change in circumstances, the combined authority has taken the decision to withdraw this procurement opportunity.

“Following finalisation of the grant funded provider delivery plans and development of the local skills improvement plan 2026-2029, the combined authority considers it necessary to review the specification to ensure that the adult skills fund appropriately reflects identified skills shortages and gaps.

“The procurement is therefore being withdrawn at this stage to allow for that review.”

The authority added that “a further opportunity is expected to be published in the coming weeks”.

Although Learning Curve Group is understood to have submitted a bid for the TVCA contract, it remains unclear whether the procurement withdrawal is linked to the legal claim.

Tees Valley Combined Authority and Learning Curve Group were approached for comment.

The legal action came a year after Learning Curve, based in County Durham, reached a confidential financial settlement with the Department for Education following a dispute over losing out on a national adult education budget contract in 2023.

V Levels: getting the foundations right for students, staff and the sector

At Cambridge OCR, we believe the long‑term success of V Levels will depend less on their ambition on paper and more on how effectively they are implemented. Qualifications earn trust gradually – through clarity, consistency and support in real classrooms. If V Levels are to establish themselves as a credible and valued pathway, getting the early foundations right matters enormously.

This is not simply a question of qualification design. It is about timing, communication, assessment approaches, workforce readiness and the extent to which educators are treated as partners in reform, rather than recipients of it.

More information on what exactly V Levels are, and what we know about their development so far, can be found on Cambridge OCR’s dedicated page. If you’d like help with your transition plan, check out our free, practical transition toolkit. And teachers who want to get involved in our development of V Levels can join the Cambridge OCR teacher panel.

Learning from previous reform cycles

The post‑16 sector has considerable experience of implementing qualification reform, from which we’ve learned some valuable lessons.

One of the most consistent is this: the first years of delivery disproportionately shape a qualification’s reputation. If early cohorts experience uncertainty, rushed preparation or inconsistent assessment, confidence can be undermined for years to come.

This uncertainty can mean increased workload and stress for teachers, or recruitment and retention headaches for leaders. At a national policy level, it can weaken trust in reform itself.

This is why timelines, piloting and early support matter as much as policy design.

Educators as co‑creators, not end‑users

High‑quality vocational qualifications depend on the experience and expertise of those who deliver them. Teachers and curriculum leaders understand how students engage with content and how assessment influences teaching behaviours, so it’s essential teachers are involved in the creation of the new qualifications.

Involving teachers and educators early and meaningfully in the development of V Levels brings tangible benefits:

assessment models are more likely to reflect real workplace application
specifications are clearer and more teachable
support materials are better aligned to classroom need

Treating teachers and educators as co‑creators rather than final‑stage implementers increases the likelihood that qualifications are both rigorous and deliverable at scale.

At Cambridge OCR we’ve called for this educator involvement at a policy level. But we are also putting it into practice ourselves: teachers who want to get involved in the development of Cambridge OCR V Levels can join the Cambridge OCR teacher panel.

Supporting teachers through change

Introducing new qualifications inevitably brings additional demands on teachers, particularly when reforms coincide with wider pressures on workload and recruitment. Successful reform will require meaningful support for teachers, schools and colleges.

Effective support during qualification reform includes:

classroom‑ready teaching materials
clear assessment guidance, model work at different levels, and real student exemplars
access to expertise from experienced Subject Advisors who really understand the challenges of vocational delivery.

What this means for senior leaders

For senior teams in colleges and schools, the introduction of V Levels is more than a curriculum issue. It has strategic implications for staffing, finance and risk management.

Leaders need early clarity to plan effectively:

what specialist expertise will be required
how staff will be supported through professional development
how V Levels will fit alongside existing A Level and T Level offers

Clear transition arrangements are essential to protect students and maintain institutional stability.

Managing transition responsibly

For V Levels, changes will be introduced in phases over several years. This means many existing Level 3 qualifications will continue in some subjects, while V Levels are introduced in others, resulting in mixed programmes during the transition period.

The government announced in March the first three V level subject areas for first teach September 2027: digital, finance and accounting, and education & early years. More recently, an updated timeline has been released as part of the government’s post-16 implementation plan, including subject areas to be taught from 2028.

Managing this responsibly requires unambiguous guidance.

From a leadership perspective, this includes:

certainty that students will complete funded programmes
consistency in external accountability expectations
clear messaging to parents, students and employers

The smoother the transition, the more confidence leaders can have in adopting new qualifications without exposing students or staff to unnecessary risk.

All post‑16 providers are required to produce and submit a transition plan to the Department for Education (DfE). Cambridge OCR has created a free practical Transition Toolkit to help schools and colleges plan clearly and save time in meeting DfE expectations.

Progression must be visible and credible

For students, the ultimate question is simple: where can this qualification take me?

V Levels must quickly establish clear and credible progression routes, including:

clarity about higher education pathways where appropriate
recognition by apprenticeship routes
progression to employment in relevant sectors

Successful qualifications rely on confidence: students need confidence that vocational choices keep doors open. Teachers and leaders need clear guidance to support informed advice.

Making assessment straightforward

As we work with the DfE and the regulator to develop the new qualifications, we will actively champion our commitment to making assessment straightforward. Overly complex terminology can obscure purpose and deter confidence.

If V Levels are to succeed, their role in the post‑16 system needs to be easy to explain:

what they are designed for
how they differ from other pathways
who they best serve

What policymakers should bear in mind

For policymakers, the success of V Levels will rest not only on structural coherence, but on whether providers feel confident and supported as change is implemented over time.

Key considerations include:

allowing sufficient time for development, testing and preparation before first teaching
recognising the cumulative impact of reform on provider capacity and confidence
using sector feedback early to inform guidance, support and adjustment

Experience shows that tightly phased reforms succeed best when providers are not left to navigate complexity alone. Clear communication, practical support and responsive collaboration will be critical.

Cambridge OCR is committed to working alongside the sector throughout transition, helping providers plan, adapt and maintain confidence as V Levels are introduced.

Looking ahead

At Cambridge OCR, our experience across both academic and vocational qualifications reinforces a simple truth: trust is built through consistency, transparency and partnership. Reform works best when it is done with the sector, not to it.

V Levels represent a genuine opportunity to reset how vocational education is understood and valued. They have the potential to bring clarity to a complex landscape and to give students stronger, more confident choices at level 3.

But the sector has learned, sometimes painfully, that good intentions are not enough. When qualifications are introduced too quickly, without sufficient testing, training or clarity, the cost is borne by teachers, leaders and students alike. Reputations are hard to build and even harder to recover.

If V Levels are to succeed, they must be implemented with realism as well as ambition.

Find out more at Cambridge OCR and check out our FAQs section.

About the author

Cambridge OCR is the UK awarding organisation of Cambridge University Press & Assessment. We work with schools, colleges and policymakers to develop qualifications that are rigorous, fair and support positive outcomes for students.

Pay colleges for ‘outcomes not headcounts’, Milburn suggests

Colleges should be funded based on whether students move into jobs or further training rather than simply how many enrol, Alan Milburn has suggested in a landmark review of Britain’s growing NEET crisis.

The former Labour health secretary said the post-16 system rewards “headcounts not outcomes”, incentivising colleges to prioritise recruitment and retention over sustained progression into work.

His interim review, commissioned by ministers to investigate why one million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET), argued the institutions designed to support young people into adulthood are “no longer fit for that purpose” and called for a “whole system reset”.

The report estimated the annual economic cost of around one million NEET young people at £125 billion, which is more than Britain spends on education each year. Around one in eight 16 to 24 year olds are now classed as NEET. Only Romania records a worse youth NEET rate in Europe.

Today’s publication from Milburn is an interim diagnostic report, with final recommendations expected later this year.

Qualifications no longer enough

Milburn said the evidence does not point to a single cause of the NEET crisis, but to a wider failure of the state to support young people into work.

He argued that schools, colleges, the NHS, welfare agencies and employers operate in silos with no shared accountability for whether young people successfully make the transition into work.

Four in ten NEET young people now hold qualifications at A Level standard or above, while 15 per cent have degrees. More than one in five hold a level 3 qualification.

But employers are still “not absorbing them” into the labour market.

“The first rungs on the old career ladder have weakened,” Milburn wrote, describing a jobs market in which entry-level work has become scarcer, recruitment less human and more automated, and employers increasingly reluctant to take risks on inexperienced applicants.

He said the apprenticeship system, which “ought to be one of the main routes” to bring young people into work, has drifted away from young people “who need them most” – with starts for dropping by over 40 per cent after the apprenticeship levy was “captured” by employers upskilling existing workers rather than bringing in new ones.

Six in ten NEET young people have never had a job, up from four in ten in 2005. The report also found that almost 60 per cent are now economically inactive, meaning they are not actively seeking work.

Milburn rejected suggestions that younger generations are unwilling to work. Survey work conducted for the review found that 84 per cent of NEET young people wanted a job, education or training opportunity.

‘Post-16 cliff edge’

The review paints a bleak picture of an education system that “produces qualifications but does not guarantee transitions”.

It described the post-16 skills landscape as not just “underfunded”, but “confused, fragmented and designed around institutional convenience rather than the needs of the young people navigating it”.

Milburn identified a sharp “post-16 cliff edge” after the age of 18, when local authority tracking responsibilities through the raising the participation age policy largely fall away and no institution has responsibility for young people who disappear from education and work.

“The system loses young people not because they vanish but because no one is looking,” the report said.

The review also warned that further education has been “hollowed out” by a decade of real-terms cuts, while employer investment in training has declined and repeated policy changes have fragmented the skills system.

Careers guidance is described as “a statutory duty without enforcement”, while work experience remains “haphazard”.

Make colleges accountable for outcomes

Milburn said colleges are operating within a funding system that actively discourages growth.

College funding for 16 to 19 education is largely based on the previous year’s recruitment, meaning providers must often fund growth themselves before allocations catch up in later years.

Funding is also reduced when students fail to complete courses, making learners at higher risk of dropping out “financially risky” for colleges seeking to expand provision.

The report said these rules limit colleges’ ability to offer flexible, roll-on provision for young people who become NEET during the year.

Milburn contrasted this with higher education, where student numbers are uncapped and funding follows demand.

Labour market participation must be a “core objective” in both the school and college system, he argued.

“Schools are measured by exam results, not by whether young people end up in work. Colleges are funded for enrolment, not for sustained destinations,” he wrote.

“The education system knows who will struggle. It knows at age five. It knows again at age 11 and then at age 16 too. It has the data, the evidence and the research. It has had them for decades.

“What it does not have is the architecture, the funding or the accountability to act on what it knows.”

The report concluded that the education and skills system is “designed to produce qualifications rather than working adults”.

“Until colleges are funded for outcomes not headcounts, until the post-16 cliff edge is bridged and the young people the system loses are the young people it works hardest to hold, the tail of failure will persist,” Milburn wrote.

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said colleges already help “thousands of young people into jobs” despite not being measured on employment outcomes.

He added that colleges could do “even more” if funding allowed them to continue supporting students after they entered work.

However, Hughes warned that using job outcomes as a funding metric was “fraught with difficulties” because labour markets vary significantly across the country.

A spokesperson for the Sixth Form Colleges Association said the priority should instead be “getting the fundamentals right”.

“That means raising the rate, providing more certainty on funding, slashing bureaucracy and providing colleges and schools with the autonomy they need to ensure that students receive the right level of support,” they said.

Milburn: Funding outcomes is entirely possible

Milburn launched his report at a London press conference today, where he told FE Week an outcomes-based funding system for colleges is both necessary and achievable despite major regional differences in labour markets.

The former social mobility adviser acknowledged reforming education’s incentives, inspection and accountability framework would represent “quite a big change” – but argued it is overdue.

“This is one of the things we really need to think about as we move into the next phase of this review,” he said.

Milburn said members of his review team are “actively talking to mayors and local authorities” because “labour markets are local”, arguing decisions about skills provision must be shaped by those who understand local economic demand.

“We know where the shortages are, where the deficits are, and unfortunately over recent years the funding and support simply hasn’t been there,” he said.

He argued the current system places too little emphasis on destinations and long-term outcomes.

“You get your five good GCSEs, the school gets a tick-in-the-box and passes Ofsted. But if 30 per cent of those young people end up NEET, is that really a good result? I’d say it’s a bad result.

“We’ve got to change the incentive system, the inspection system and what schools and colleges are accountable for.”

Milburn added: “We’ve got to find new mechanisms to put this right, I believe that’s entirely possible.”

Colleges can do more to tackle the NEET challenge – if we let them

Alan Milburn’s diagnostic report on England’s persistent NEET problem makes a compelling case that the systems meant to support young people are no longer designed for the lives they lead or the labour market they are entering.

Colleges already support hundreds of thousands of young people as they take their first steps into work and adult life. Every day, they help students build confidence, gain skills and find direction.

But with the right investment and policies, colleges could do far more: for pupils under 16 who are already at risk of disengaging, for 16-year-olds who need a supportive place to learn, and for 18-year-olds entering adult life without the education or training they need to secure good jobs.

The labour market has changed dramatically over the past 20 or 30 years. There are fewer entry-level vacancies and apprenticeships, and a persistent mismatch between the qualifications young people gain in school and the skills employers need.

Employers are clear that too many young people leave education not ready for work. They want more emphasis on communication, problem-solving, teamwork and analytical skills.

That mismatch helps explain why NEET numbers remain stubbornly high. Too many young people are being let down by a system that has not kept pace with change.

Colleges are ready to scale up support and focus more strongly on progression into good jobs, as well as qualifications that mean something to employers. But this requires more than small adjustments. It means doing some things differently, nationally and locally, with investment that delivers both a moral and economic return.

There are four practical steps government should take: two in post-16 education and training, and two before young people reach 16.

Fund colleges properly

Colleges are constrained by funding systems that effectively cap the number of students they can enrol.

For about half of 18 or 19-year-olds with the required advanced-level qualifications, the system works well. They can access higher education, and the funding follows them.

Their peers with lower-level qualifications have far fewer options. They cannot access maintenance support while they learn, have fewer choices of full-time education and training, and with apprenticeship vacancies like hen’s teeth, that route is closed to many too.

The result is that too many young people are pushed into the labour market before they are ready, without the skills employers want.

A simple solution would be to guarantee funding for every 16 to 24-year-old a college enrols, as we already do in higher education. Opportunity should not be rationed.

International evidence points the way. The Resolution Foundation’s Lost in transition report found that in 2024, just 22 per cent of 18 to 21-year-olds in the UK were on vocational courses. In the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, all countries with significantly lower NEET levels, the figure is 35 per cent.

More time in training helps young people access better jobs, earn more and pay more tax.

Build a coherent local system

Milburn rightly describes a fragmented system, lacking coherence and clear leadership.

Responsibility for supporting young people is split between schools, colleges, local authorities, the NHS, employment services and mayoral offices. Their roles and targets are not aligned. Too often, no single organisation is responsible for bringing partners together.

Young people slip through the gaps, and public money is wasted because it is not joined up.

We need stronger local coordination, backed by a clear national strategy. Each area should have a lead organisation able to convene partners, align priorities and drive a shared approach to prevention and re-engagement.

In some places, colleges can lead that effort. In others, local or strategic authorities may be better placed. The key is flexibility locally, with clear accountability nationally.

Let GCSE pupils spend time in college

Alongside post-16 reform, we should act earlier to prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place.

The first step is to expand opportunities for Key Stage 4 pupils to spend part of their week in college studying technical subjects alongside their core GCSEs.

Evidence shows this can improve attendance, engagement and progression. It taps into what motivates many young people: a visible route to a job.

For some pupils, GCSEs alone do not provide that. Time in college studying priority subjects such as engineering, construction, hospitality or digital can inspire them and strengthen their commitment to the core qualifications they still need.

Identify risk earlier

The second step is better data sharing between key partners.

Schools already use a risk-of-NEET indicator, but that intelligence is not shared consistently enough. Earlier identification, followed by faster and more coordinated support, could reduce the number of young people who disengage.

None of these ideas are complicated. All could be implemented quickly. And there will be similar practical proposals from health, local government and the third sector that deserve attention too.

Taken together, they would make a profound difference to a system that clearly needs to change.

Nearly one million 16 to 24-year-olds are currently NEET. That should shame us all. We should do everything possible to ensure every young person can access the education and support they need to succeed.

Colleges are ready to play their part. They just need a system that lets them.

Young people are ready for work. The system isn’t

The Milburn report should not surprise anyone who has been listening to young people.

Young people are clear: they want to work, contribute and build a future.

We hear that through our youth voice census, youth ambassadors, employer network and local partnerships. What frustrates them is not a lack of ambition, but a system that is too often fragmented, underfunded and too late.

That is the challenge now. Not whether we agree with the diagnosis, but whether government, local areas, FE, employers and funders are prepared to build the participation system young people need.

Our youth voice census gives us one of the clearest annual pictures of how young people experience education, employment, wellbeing and local opportunity. In 2025, more than 8,000 young people shared their views with us. Their message is consistent: aspiration is not the problem. Access is.

Young people tell us they value work experience, careers education, supportive adults and clear pathways. They know that skills, confidence and experience matter. But too many cannot access the opportunities that help them build those things.

The first rung of the ladder has not disappeared, but it has become harder to reach.

Further education has a vital role in changing that. Colleges are anchor institutions in their communities. I see that clearly through my role as a governor of Bedford College Group. Colleges sit close to young people, employers, families and local labour markets. They are often where young people find a second chance, a vocational identity, a trusted adult, or the confidence to believe work is possible.

But FE cannot be the whole answer. Youth employment is everyone’s business.

Colleges cannot keep being asked to absorb the consequences of problems that began much earlier: poor careers education, school absence, unmet SEND needs, mental health pressures, poverty, transport barriers, digital exclusion and weak local labour markets. Nor can they build pathways into work without employers, councils, schools, health services, Jobcentres, youth organisations and funders working around shared outcomes.

Colleges are doing extraordinary work. But goodwill is not a funding model, and isolated effort is not a system.

Time to deliver

It is welcome to see youth voice census evidence reflected in the national conversation.

But evidence alone is not enough. We now need delivery.

Our work with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority is a strong example of what that can look like. We are supporting CPCA to design a ten-year youth employment strategy rooted in youth voice, local need, employer engagement and system change.

It is not another short-term project. It asks what a local youth guarantee should actually do: who is at risk, where the gaps are, how employers are mobilised, how FE and providers connect around transitions, and how funding can be aligned to prevention rather than crisis response.

That is the work we now need to see everywhere.

Every local area should be asking: do we know which young people are at risk of becoming NEET? Do we know who is missing from the data? Are colleges, schools, employers, councils, youth services, health services and Jobcentres working around shared outcomes? Are young people able to access work experience, mentoring, employability support and real opportunities close to where they live?

And crucially: how are we going to fund it?

We cannot keep announcing national ambitions while asking local areas to stitch together delivery from short-term and unstable funding pots. If youth employment is central to growth, productivity and reducing welfare dependency, it has to be funded as economic infrastructure.

That is why Youth Employment UK is exploring funding gaps in the current system, including how levers such as section 106, social value and ESG can be used more strategically.

Fund long-term

Where major developments, regeneration schemes or public procurement create economic value in a place, they should also create pathways for young people in that place.

There will always be voices who argue that organisations in the youth employment space have failed because the problem has not gone away.

That misunderstands the scale of the challenge. Charities, colleges, employers and local partnerships have often been holding together a system that is too fragmented, too short-term and too thinly funded.

Milburn gives us a national moment. We should use it well.

At Youth Employment UK, we look forward to supporting the next phase of the review and helping the Milburn team draw out recommendations grounded in evidence, youth voice and practice.

The diagnosis is clear. Young people have been clear. FE is ready to play its part. Employers have a role to play. Local areas need the tools and funding to act.

Now we need to build the system young people have been asking for, and fund it for the long term.