ESFA set to rule on calls for a subcontracting management fee cap

The Education and Skills Funding Agency will imminently publish its first ever policy for management fees in subcontracting – but it is unlikely to enforce a hard cap, FE Week understands.

The announcement, which could come as soon as this afternoon, will be the outcome of the agency’s review into top-slicing which got underway in April.

Rather than introducing a strict cap on the percentage that can be claimed by a prime provider as a management fee, it is likely that guidance will be offered.

It will undoubtedly please the college sector, who has been lobbying hard against the introduction of a hard cap, but at the same time disappoint the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which wants fees to be restricted to 20 per cent.

The announcement is expected to align with what skills minister Anne Milton told the education select committee last month, where she stated she was “hesitant” to introduce a limit.

“I hesitate, because how would you assess what that limit should be and for what?” she said.

“You would have to categorise all the different work that the prime contractor did and put a price on that, which would not be that easy because the sector is so variable.”

She added that one alternative would be that “all subcontracted contracts are looked at— i.e. look at what percentage the management fee should be and have a level above which you might investigate further”.

FE Week has exposed many situations where primes levy excessive management fees of up to 40 per cent.

We revealed last month that more than 10 providers charged an average of over 30 per cent last year, while Learndirect took a £4.7 million (40 per cent) top-slice a deal involving £11.9 million of the adult education budget.

When presented with our findings, the Department for Education surprisingly said it had “no concerns” about the subcontracting fees.

But Ms Milton backtracked during her education committee appearance when quizzed on this.

“I most certainly did not say that,” she said. “It is not a line I approved.

“I do share your concerns.”

Lead providers often claim management fees are needed to cover administrative costs, but many in the sector, including MPs on the education committee led by chair and former skills minister Robert Halfon, believe that too much money is being diverted from frontline learning.

The AELP, Holex, and provider group Collab signed-up in March to new best-practice guidance on relationships between primes and subcontractors.

These state that management fees should not be more than 20 per cent of the programme funding.

However, it was quickly undermined when the AoC confirmed it would not commit to any recommended limit.

It claimed it was developing other guidance “properly” with the ESFA and University Vocational Awards Council.

AEB devolution plan to link job outcomes with funding will require more robust learner destination data

Sadiq Khan is demanding London’s training providers collect more robust learner destination data as he ploughs ahead with plans to switch their adult education funding model to payment by results.

But in recognising this action could impact on the resources available in colleges and other providers, the mayor is looking at establishing an “outcomes development fund” to offset the costs.

It would be a pot of cash that providers can bid into to help them develop the systems to collect data “more effectively”.

City Hall will not rush into introducing payment by results models

Mr Khan (pictured) revealed the plan in the “Skills for Londoners Framework” that was put out for consultation two weeks ago, which supplements his skills strategy unveiled in June ahead of the takeover of the AEB for the capital in 2019/20.

It confirmed that London will eventually shift its AEB payment model away towards wider outcomes such as progression into work – something that the Greater London Authority has been researching since as far back as 2014.

But the move is likely to be controversial amongst training providers that for decades have simply been paid for delivering qualifications.

The Association for Colleges certainly isn’t a fan of the “clumsy” system, warning that it “generally requires more data collection, delays payment for training and can result in less money being spent on those furthest away from the labour market”.

“There are other interesting models like Outcome Agreements and Sector Skill Deals that might be more effective in delivering outcome-focused solutions than clumsy payment by results systems for which there is little evidence of successful large scale implementation,” said Mary Vine-Morris, the AoC’s area director for London.

“National adult education funding rates haven’t increased for nine years and we cannot afford for bureaucratic or burdensome systems to be introduced.”

Mary Vine-Morris

City Hall recognises that destinations data collected by training providers is often “incomplete”, so it will look to improve this.

“Ideally, this would include drawing upon HMRC Real Time Information as used by the Department for Work and Pensions within the work and health Programme,” GLA’s framework said, before admitting access to this data is “unlikely” to be made available in the short term.

In the meantime, the authority will request that providers collect destinations data “more completely, and managers will work with providers who are unable to provide sufficient data,” it said.

The framework recognised that the resources required to collect destination data “could have an impact on the resources available for delivery”, so an “outcomes development fund” is being considered for providers to bid into to help them develop data collection systems.

Ms Vine-Morris said it is “good that the GLA paper recognises the need to first improve data collection and access to national data like HMRC”.

The GLA notes that without appropriate data on which to base payments by results models, there is a “significant risk they could damage provision through a range of unintended consequences”.

For example, if the payment model is “not generous enough for a certain type of training, it could lead to less investment in that training, or heavy investment in provision where the payment model is relatively more generous.

“Moreover, there are risks around some providers ‘cherry picking’ learners who they think are likely to achieve outcomes, and neglecting the most disadvantaged who may struggle to achieve them”.

Given this, City Hall said it will not “rush” the introduction of an outcomes-based funding model.

We cannot afford for bureaucratic or burdensome systems to be introduced

It will only be introduced when there is “confidence that there is sufficient data to allow robust payment models to be developed”.

This is likely to be possible only after City Hall gains access to Longitudinal Educational Outcomes data from the Department for Education or after running “robust, smaller scale trials”.

In the short term from 2019, the mayor expects to continue paying providers on a similar basis as that laid out in the current AEB funding rules.

The move to outcome-based funding will also look to include a focus on “social” outcomes.

GLA doesn’t yet know the full detail of how this will be measured, so consultants will be commissioned to work with providers to develop a “set of metrics”.

Ms Vine-Morris said the AoC “welcomes” the GLA’s “acknowledgment that outcomes are not just about supporting learners into work but include progression and the wider social benefits of adult education”.

She added: “We are pleased the GLA is taking a consultative and considered approach and will continue to encourage them to trial any of the changes they propose.”

The consultation closes on August 15.

Ofsted watch: A ‘reasonable’ week for new apprenticeship providers

It’s been a ‘reasonable’ week for FE and skills, as two ‘new’ apprenticeship providers have been given the thumbs up following monitoring visits.

Employer provider Flight Centre (UK) Limited was found to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in all areas under review in a report published August 3 and based on a visit in mid-July.

The company is new to delivering apprenticeships, and has been running level three travel consultancy programmes for its own apprentices since May last year.

Leaders and managers “share a vision and ambition to provide high-quality apprenticeship training for the travel sector” and “have a good understanding of the requirements of the apprenticeship programme”.

Apprentices are “highly motivated”, develop their “knowledge, skills and confidence” and “benefit from regular reviews with their coaches”.

As a result “apprentices make good progress towards achieving their qualification”.

However, leaders and managers were found to have failed to implement a “sufficiently rigorous system to monitor the quality of the apprenticeship programme”, and consequently “do not have a comprehensive enough overview” of its strengths and weaknesses and how to improve it.

Buttercups Training Limited, an independent training provider specialising in health (pharmacy services) apprenticeships, was also found to be making ‘reasonable progress’ in all themes.

It isn’t new to delivering apprenticeships, having previously subcontracted for a number of FE colleges over several years.

Its programmes, at levels two and three, were found to “meet in full the requirements of apprenticeships”.

Leaders and managers “enjoy very strong relationships with employers and representative bodies in the pharmacy sector”, and staff at the provider have “extensive specialist expertise in this vocational area”.

“All apprentices develop substantial new knowledge, skills and understanding,” and receive a “good standard of on- and off-the-job training”, inspectors noted.

Thanks to “very thorough” and “appropriately detailed and helpful” feedback from assessors, apprentices have a “clear understanding of what further improvements they must make and by when”.

Just two other FE and skills inspection reports have been published this week.

Independent providers EXG Limited and BL Training Limited both held onto their grade two ratings following short inspections.

Independent Learning Providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Buttercups Training Limited 04/07/2018 01/08/2018 M M

 

Employer providers Inspected Published Grade Previous grade
Flight Centre (UK) Limited 11/07/2018 03/08/2018 M M

 

Short inspections (remains grade 2) Inspected Published
EXG Limited 04/07/2018 31/07/2018
BL Training Limited 26/06/2018 31/07/2018

Ofsted: more cash needed before campus-level inspections become reality

Ofsted is keen to introduce campus-level inspections but would need more cash from the Department for Education before they could become a reality, FE Week can reveal.

On Wednesday the DfE confirmed it would introduce campus-level performance reporting from next year, following a consultation earlier this year.

Ofsted’s response to the consultation, seen exclusively by FE Week, backed the DfE’s proposals to introduce performance reporting at both college level, within groups, and site level within mega-colleges.

“The availability of more granulated performance data could enable Ofsted to inspect in more detail at a ‘sub-corporation’ level, while still holding the overarching corporation to account for the quality of provision at all colleges/delivery sites,” it said.

The inspectorate has been in discussion with the DfE for “some time” about the possibility of campus-level inspections, and has “made clear that the availability of performance data at the level of inspection is an important prerequisite for us carrying out such inspections”.

“Equally, Ofsted would need to seek extra resources from the DfE for additional costs incurred through ‘campus-level’ inspections,” it said.

The DfE’s response to the consultation would be “taken into account” in “consulting on and determining” inspection arrangements in the revised education inspection framework from September 2019, Ofsted said.

Even if the inspectorate didn’t go ahead with campus-level inspections, the data would mean Ofsted would “be able to identify what value is being added by the college being part of the group”.

Its response made clear that it “will play no part” in deciding what “is or is not subject to separate inspection”, and it would be up to the DfE and the Education and Skills Funding Agency to define “which actual units are delivery sites/ campuses”.

The prospect of campus-level inspections at mega-colleges with multiple sites was first raised during an FE Week interview with Ofsted boss Amanda Spielman in March last year, who said they were under “active” consideration with the DfE.

But the consultation response reveals that discussions on the subject began as far back as 2016, at which point “draft criteria were drawn up”.

The area reviews of post-16 education and training, which ended in March last year, led to the creation of a number of mega-colleges and groups through mergers – prompting questions about Ofsted’s ability to accurately grade provision across multiple sites.

Joe Docherty, boss of England’s largest college group, NCG, told FE Week in February he had been lobbying Ofsted for more than two years to introduce individual grades for each of the group’s eight members.

The group recently saw its rating fall from ‘good’ to ‘requires improvement’, a drop that was blamed in part on the time spent on due diligence for its two most recent mergers, with Carlisle College and Lewisham Southwark College.

The ‘transformational bridge’ of continued adult education

Everyone, from business people to politicians agree that infrastructure makes a huge difference to economic performance.

Digital, transport links and R & D are all considered as central to the future of British business and all have powerful and visible lobby groups to make their case to government for both regional and national investment. One critical part of our natural infrastructure which lacks such support and is often less tended to is our people strategy, particularly in the areas of vocational education and lifelong learning.

The skills base of our population will be one of the key determinants of our post-Brexit future. An ageing population coupled with an increased rate of change within job markets and accelerated technological advancement means adult education is increasingly critical to supporting sustainable growth at an individual, community and national level.

The good news is that further education has a long heritage of supporting adults and lifelong learning. Colleges and independent training providers are as passionate about the differences they make to the lives of adults as they are about their positive impact on the life chances of young people; creating access, progression and transformative experiences. Our challenge as a sector will be how we deliver access and influence against a backdrop of changing work patterns, technology change and pressure on funding.

The world of work is undergoing a massive shift. Entire occupations and industries are simultaneously expanding and contracting, and the skills needed to keep updated in most industries are constantly changing: Average human knowledge is doubling every 13 months, and IBM predicts that in the next couple of years, global knowledge will double every 11 hours. The emergence of the “gig” economy is reshaping the traditional employer-employee relationship as more contractors fill roles once reserved for full-time workers. 

Added to this, it seems that with the advent of Brexit our access to both skilled and unskilled labour from abroad will also change – even if exactly how remains unclear.

Continued adult education is the transformational bridge to span the gap between the skills required by the ageing, increasingly automated post-Brexit economy and those that currently exist in the workforce. 

Employers and workers alike are demanding “plug and play” platforms that enable access to smaller bites of just-in-time education throughout their careers. Such opportunities enable adult learners to incorporate learning, anytime, anywhere, alongside other commitments such as work and family. Similarly, adults can use bite-sized learning to sample subject content and applicable learning before committing to something more substantial.

That’s why Pearson has developed a new, short, “taster and refresher” provision, alongside our existing modular approach to qualifications.  These short courses support adult learners seeking to switch career paths or to refresh their knowledge in existing or sectors of interest. These are delivered using digital solutions and blended learning to support access and progression for learners.

Using localised labour market information, we are working with colleges to map our new and existing provision against local training needs and skills shortages.  In addition, we are creating career progression maps that can be used by colleges to provide information to learners on opportunities within a sector which are matched to job roles and pathways. 

The political and economic landscape requires us to constantly update, retool, rethink, and relearn. Learning, like life itself is a mountain bike ride, uncertain and requiring flexibility and a constant reassessment of the plan and the route.  Adult learning opportunities serve as guides, enabling us to continue on that journey. It’s a crucial journey not just for the individual involved but for the whole country – supporting improved productivity, economic growth and social well-being.

Ofsted criticised for allowing college mergers to be excuse for turning a blind eye to failure

The chair of the influential education select committee has called on Ofsted to “learn the lessons” from Learndirect, after an FE Week investigation found failing colleges that still hadn’t been visited by the education watchdog a year after they merged.

Mid-Cheshire College, rated ‘inadequate’ for the second time in a row in May 2017, merged with grade three Warrington Collegiate in August, to form Warrington and Vale Royal College.

But the college has yet to receive even a follow-up monitoring visit, thanks to Ofsted’s policy of giving newly merged colleges up to three years before they’re inspected.

The revelation prompted Robert Halfon (pictured above) to demand the inspectorate “monitor all failing providers” regardless of their merger status.

“It’s absolutely critical that Ofsted learn the lessons from the Learndirect debacle and subsequent National Audit Office enquiry and Public Accounts Committee recommendations around oversight,” he urged.

The PAC’s inquiry into the monitoring, inspection and funding of Learndirect – rated ‘inadequate’ last year and subsequently given special treatment by the government – “rightly criticised Ofsted for delaying an inspection due to potential ownership change”, Mr Halfon said.

“It seems the same is happening with college mergers.”

“No failing college should be able to put off or avoid regular monitoring visits and inspection simply because they’ve merged,” he said.

Ofsted’s normal policy is to visit providers rated ‘inadequate’ on at least three occasions and publish monitoring reports prior to a re-inspection within 15 months of the last full inspection report.

But following the area reviews of post-16 education and training, which ended in March last year, newly-merged colleges are now given up to three years before they receive a full inspection.

An Ofsted spokesperson said it “can of course inspect sooner if our risk assessment throws up any concerns”, but wouldn’t say why it hadn’t monitored Warrington and Vale Royal College.

“Ofsted regional directors have the power to inspect at any time, whether a college is newly merged or not. But it would be inappropriate to comment on the timing of any inspections or monitoring visits, since they are carried out at short notice,” he added.

The college itself cited the Ofsted policy to explain why it hadn’t been visited following last year’s merger – although it did say it expected a visit “imminently”.

In a recent expert piece for FE Week, the education watchdog’s deputy director for FE, Paul Joyce, insisted that “merging with another college is certainly not a route to avoiding inspection” and that “we are monitoring colleges that merge very closely”.

The PAC’s report on Learndirect, published in March, criticised Ofsted for delaying its inspection of the nation’s biggest FE provider after it claimed it was negotiating the sale of its apprenticeship business.

That policy “risks putting providers’ business interests ahead of learners’ interests”, the report said, and recommended the inspectorate introduce a new “specific deferral policy for commercial providers, to ensure that learners’ interests always take priority over the pursuit of profit”.

 

Education secretary ‘welcomes’ awarding bodies decision to withdraw T-levels legal challenge

Damian Hinds has “welcomed” the Federation of Awarding Bodies decision to drop its legal challenge against the government’s implementation of T-levels.

In his reaction to the news that was revealed by FE Week this morning, the education secretary promised to “continue to have constructive discussions” with exam boards to make technical education “better for the sake of the next generation”.

The FAB withdrew its threat of a judicial review today after the government watered down its rules in the procurement process for T-levels and offered to “reset the relationship” with the awarding sector.

Mr Hinds (pictured) labelled the legal action, which questioned whether the government has acted lawfully in its plans for introducing the new technical qualifications, as “deeply disappointing” and “unnecessary” when it was first announced last month.

Speaking today following FAB’s U-turn, he said: “I welcome this decision and commitment from the Federation of Awarding Bodies to support T-levels and work with the government on their development.

“Awarding bodies will be key to upholding the quality of our reforms to technical qualifications.

“With a rapidly changing world and a big productivity challenge, we have a pressing need to raise our game on technical education.

“I’ve been clear that it needs to be a shared endeavour across the world of education, government and business, and we will continue to have constructive discussions with the awarding body sector to make technical education better for the sake of the next generation.”

Legal action from FAB posed a huge threat to Mr Hinds’ plans for a rollout of T-levels, and would have almost certainly delayed their 2020 launch.

The federation said today that after weighing up the “continued value” of pursuing a judicial review, the “board does not believe that issuing a claim in the High Court at this time is the most optimal way of settling our concerns”.

“Instead, we have decided to take up the Department for Education’s offer to sit down with officials and, in due course, re-set the relationship between the government and the awarding industry,” the letter from FAB chair, Paul Eeles, added.

It also appeared that the federation’s members didn’t have the appetite for the cost of a legal challenge, after a survey revealed only 40 per cent of them were prepared to contribute to a legal ‘fighting fund’.

Awarding bodies first warned of a legal challenge last month following two market engagement events about the procurement process which left organisations enraged at the commercial terms they’d have to agree.

Its judicial review was going to be based on three grounds: irrational (timescales), unreasonable (lack of proper engagement on the single-provider model) and unfair (has a disproportionate impact on the awarding sector).

But the government then partly conceded to the demands of awarding organisations by easing up on a number of rules in the T-levels procurement process.

These include allowing them to co-brand student and employer facing materials, something the department said was impossible at the market engagement events.

Concluding the decision to drop the legal challenge, Mr Eeles wrote: “The robust action we took has resulted in the prospect of a different and better kind of relationship developing between government and the awarding industry in future.”

The T-levels row follows a rare ministerial direction from the education secretary in May, when Mr Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021.

Many fear the tight timescale for delivery will negatively impact learners in the first wave.

Exclusive: T-level legal challenge dropped after DfE offer to ‘re-set the relationship’ with awarding bodies

The Federation of Awarding Bodies has dropped its legal challenge against the government’s T-level implementation plans – paving the way for the planned rollout in 2020, FE Week can reveal.

The decision, which came about after the Department for Education offered to “re-set the relationship” with awarding bodies, was revealed in a letter sent to the organisation’s members this morning.

It said that after receiving the government’s response to its pre-action letter, the watering down of a number of rules in the upcoming procurement process, and weighing up the “continued value” of pursuing a judicial review, the “FAB board does not believe that issuing a claim in the High Court at this time is the most optimal way of settling our concerns”.

FAB does not believe that issuing a claim in the High Court at this time is the most optimal way of settling concerns

“Instead, we have decided to take up the Department for Education’s offer to sit down with officials and, in due course, re-set the relationship between the government and the awarding industry,” the letter from FAB chair, Paul Eeles, added.

It also appeared that the federation’s members didn’t have the appetite for the cost of a legal challenge, after a survey revealed only 40 per cent of them were prepared to contribute to a legal ‘fighting fund’.

The news will be music to the ears of education secretary Damian Hinds as it means the government can now plough on with the planned rollout of 2020 for the new technical qualifications without fears of inevitable delays.

The FAB first warned of a legal challenge last month following two market engagement events about the procurement process which left awarding organisations enraged at the commercial terms they’d have to agree.

The membership body then wrote to the DfE and Institute for Apprenticeships on July 17, outlining the grounds upon which it intends to launch a judicial review.

These included: irrational (timescales), unreasonable (lack of proper engagement on the single-provider model) and unfair (has a disproportionate impact on the awarding sector).

Since this time the federation has been in close informal touch with DfE officials before receiving a formal response to its threat of legal action – the contents of which are not able to be shared yet.

The FAB’s letter to members said there are still a “number of specific concerns” it will be continuing to work through with the DfE, including “how we minimise any potentially detrimental impact on learners of a qualification that is rushed”.

“Similarly, we need to work through the issue of consortia arrangements as this is one obvious way to mitigate the risks of a single provider model/ single point of failure model in the longer term,” it added.

“We will be in a clearer position to evaluate the progress of this position after recess. Of course, we will be keeping you regularly informed.”

The FAB carried out a members survey last month in which 90 per cent of the 39 respondents supported the approach that its board had taken to date.

READ MORE: Damian Hinds hits back at FAB’s T-levels legal challenge

Concluding the decision to drop the legal challenge, Mr Eeles wrote: “The robust action we took has resulted in the prospect of a different and better kind of relationship developing between government and the awarding industry in future.

“We are striving for a genuine partnership with government that reflects and respects the vast expertise and diversity of the awarding sector; a productive relationship that ensures government works with us on the basis that we are part of the long-term solution to improved technical education and skills in our country.”

Mr Hinds quickly hit back at the FAB’s threat of legal action last month, labelling it as “deeply disappointing” and “unnecessary” before vowing to press ahead with planned rollout of T-levels.

But the government did partly concede to the demands of awarding organisations by watering down a number of rules in its procurement process.

These include allowing awarding organisations to co-brand student and employer facing materials, something the department said was impossible at the market engagement events.

Development fees are also now allowed to be paid in installments rather than one lump sum, as well as indexation of fees being permitted.

Mr Hinds has welcomed the news. You can read his full reaction here.

The T-levels row follows a rare ministerial direction from the education secretary in May, when Mr Hinds refused his own permanent secretary’s request to delay the initial rollout of T-levels until 2021.

We must tell the chancellor FE needs more, not less funding

Further education is being asked to find more cuts, despite already being under-funded. Let’s fight back by insisting on fair funding for 16–18 education, retorts James Kewin

To paraphrase the former Labour prime minister Harold Wilson, a day is a long time in politics.

On Tuesday, Damian Hinds used a speech at the Resolution Foundation to set out his vision for social mobility. Although much of the speech focused on early years, the secretary of state had a lot to say about the issues facing what he described as “young people right on the cusp of adulthood”.

T-levels, the progression of disadvantaged students to university and the attainment gap between the independent and state sectors were all mentioned. It was particularly pleasing to hear him emphasise the importance of extra-curricular activities, and few in further education would disagree with his assertion that “you won’t crack social mobility by only focusing on exam results”.

But today, FE Week reported on a story in the Times that the chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond has told ministries without protected budgets – including further education – to identify areas for budget cuts over the summer.

It would be easy to dismiss this as a silly season story

It would be easy to dismiss this as a silly season story, and it is unclear why further education was singled out alongside public health, local government and transport. But taken together, Tuesday’s speech and Wednesday’s story actually provide a good indicator of what lies ahead on the road to next year’s spending review.

Let’s start with a positive – there are few in the Department for Education who would agree that more savings can be found in the further education budget, and this has not always been the case. Anne Milton has acknowledged the funding gap with other sectors, and earlier this year agreed to calls from the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign (which was supported by FE Week, alongside a range of school and college associations) to conduct a review of 16-18 funding. The IFS has shown that without further investment, spending for this age group will be the same in real terms in 2020 as it was in 1990.

The DfE will need to be hard-headed to realise its ambitions for social mobility

However, the Treasury will be looking for a “something for something” deal in the spending review. This is an unwelcome phrase, as it ignores the funding cuts and cost increases that institutions have already had to contend with and the negative impact this has had on the education of students. But with the Treasury’s austerity mind-set still firmly in place, the DfE will need to be equally hard-headed to realise its ambitions for social mobility.

For example, Hinds said on Tuesday that he plans to say more about the importance of character and resilience, and the benefits of “taking part in extra-curricular activities from sport, to music, to volunteering, to work experience itself”. The Social Mobility Commission has been charged with taking forward a research project to identify how these activities influence social mobility.

All worthy stuff, but with a spending review looming, any new research should be used to strengthen the DfE’s submission for more funding. Our most recent funding impact survey showed that 67 per cent of schools and colleges have actually reduced student support services or extra-curricular activities – with significant cuts to mental health support, employability skills and careers advice. In this context, a research report that confirms what we already know – that what happens outside the classroom is vital to social mobility – is unlikely to have much of an impact.

What happens outside the classroom is vital

Chancellor Hammond is the man we should be collectively trying to influence. It is unclear if he shares Hinds’ undoubted commitment to social mobility, but we must ensure he understands that the ongoing underinvestment in 16–18 education is having a negative impact on the education of students, the financial health of institutions and the ability of government to achieve its ambitions for the economy (as well as social mobility).   

The preference of HM Treasury for “something for something” deals has recently led to some small, targeted increases in 16–18 funding linked to particular qualifications or subjects. What we actually need is a significant increase in the 16–18 funding rate – that is the only way to ensure funding is sufficient and made available in a way that colleges and schools can tailor to the individual needs of their students.

How do we convince the Treasury to agree to this in the spending review? By working together.

Next term, the coalition of organisations behind the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign will unveil plans for the final stage of our shared funding campaign backed by targeted new research. This cannot simply be a college or FE campaign. We may feel the impact more acutely, but the reality is that everyone – from small rural school sixth forms to large grammar schools – is under financial pressure, and we must put aside our sector differences to secure a result next year. Students, staff, parents, governors and others across all sectors will have a vital role to play.

This is a high-stakes spending review – defeat would mean that the 16-18 funding rate would be the same in 2023 as is was in 2013. This is hard to contemplate, particularly as the needs of students, demands from government and costs of delivery continue to grow. As Harold Wilson also famously said – he who rejects change is the architect of decay. We must speak with one, powerful voice to ensure that the Chancellor heeds that advice next year.