We’re driving apprenticeships forward and speeding past 60

Back in 2022 at AELP’s national conference, the then skills minister Alex Burghart threw down the gauntlet – he set an ambition for apprenticeship qualification achievement rates (QAR) to hit 67%. At the time, with QARs hovering stubbornly around 50%, that goal seemed, well… let’s say ambitious.

Critics didn’t hold back. They wielded that QAR figure like a stick, beating up the apprenticeship programme – and independent training providers in particular.

But here’s the thing. While the noise continued, the sector did what it always does: people put their heads down and got on with the hard graft.

And now? It’s paying off.

We’re delighted (and let’s be honest, a little bit proud) to welcome the Department for Education’s announcement that apprenticeship QARs have risen to 60.5%. That’s a significant milestone. A symbolic threshold crossed, decisively.

This is not by chance. It’s the result of year-on-year improvement, built through dedication and detailed work at every stage of the learner journey: from engaging employers and line managers more effectively, to setting clearer expectations for learners, to strengthening onboarding and pastoral care, to innovating in teaching, to sharpening up admin across the programme.

Crucially, people haven’t done this alone – we’ve done it together.

We’ve seen collaboration like never before. Providers learning from each other. Peer support and shared practice flourishing, including through the excellent Apprenticeship Workforce Development programme. At AELP, we’re proud to have played a big part in that, though we’re certainly not the only ones.

We’ve worked closely with the government to remove friction from the system – wins like simplifying the apprenticeship funding rules, pushing for better data sharing and improving funding clarity for our members.

We’ve explained to the wider economy how apprenticeships actually work, and how employer groups can be part of the solution. We’ve cultivated a community of providers through special interest groups, sector forums (now relaunched as the AELP Exchange) and our packed calendar of events and conferences.

A great example is this week’s AELP Maths & English Conference. The feedback was the most positive we’ve ever had because it was practical, focused and built around what providers need.

This is all backed up by improvements made in Ofsted inspection outcomes too: 90% of learners are now with good or outstanding providers, up from 86% last year.

So yes, 60.5% is a reason to celebrate. But we’re not stopping here.

We anticipate further increases in the coming year, powered by both the sector’s ongoing commitment to improvement and as the impact of policy changes start to feed through and have an impact (like adjustments to functional skills qualification policy).

AELP’s second mini-commission will soon be identifying the next wave of improvements, especially around how we use data to drive even more sophisticated, learner-focused interventions, and how employers can have greater accountability.

The momentum is real. The ambition is growing. The results are visible.

So, here’s our message to policymakers, particularly those at HM Treasury: don’t waste this moment.

Apprenticeship funding works. These numbers prove it. And the sector is ready to go further if it gets the backing it deserves. Simplifying access, cutting red tape and giving providers the resources and flexibility they need must be a priority.

We also need to ensure that funds raised for apprenticeships are actually spent on apprenticeships. We need to unlock the £800m gap between what’s raised by employers to spend on apprenticeships, and what the Treasury lets them spend.

We’re not just hitting targets anymore. We’re transforming lives, powering growth and reshaping the future of the UK workforce.

Let’s build on this milestone and turn this latest data into a launchpad for even more improvements.

Being an effective ally for the 5%

A recent FE Week report found that only 5 per cent of FE college principals come from culturally diverse backgrounds. This raises a crucial question for leaders: Are you enabling or blocking talent from progressing when it comes to diversity?

This issue extends beyond education; football, for instance, sees diverse talent on the field but not in management, where swift dismissals are common.

In leadership, progress often requires allyship. The rise of female leaders wasn’t accidental; male allies advocated for them, challenged biases, and amplified their voices. Allyship isn’t passive; it demands action. Declaring inclusivity isn’t enough. It must be demonstrated.

I have been in meetings where people claim to be inclusive, yet the room lacks diversity. True allyship means breaking these patterns and ensuring real representation. If you are truly interested in becoming an effective ally, reflect on whether you practice the following:

Seen, but not heard in meetings

In a meeting or conversation, how inclusive are your actions?

  • Do you ensure that everyone has a voice or are some voices ignored?
  • Do you engage in on-the-side conversations that exclude others?
  • Do you invite underrepresented colleagues to key meetings where decisions are made, providing them opportunities to grow or do you leave them out, limiting their ability to contribute?
  • Ask your staff privately whether they feel celebrated or isolated in meetings.

Silence speaks volumes

Silence can be powerful in the right moment, but it is dangerous when it allows discrimination or unfair treatment to go unchallenged. Consider how you respond in critical moments:

  • When people of colour are affected by major events, such as racial injustice protests, do you check in on colleagues to see how they’re feeling or do you remain silent, unsure of what to say?
  • Some argue that they don’t know the right words, but saying nothing can be more harmful. Often, people just want to be heard and know that their colleagues stand against discrimination.

Encouragement and support matters with diversity

In education, there has been a noticeable lack of encouragement for certain individuals. In many cases, subtle discouragement is expressed through phrases like, “I know you want to progress, but…” even when an individual is fully qualified for the role. Conversely, individuals who share similar backgrounds to their leaders are continually encouraged or informally approached to apply for leadership roles.

When expressing interest or applying for senior roles some candidates are met with surprise, indicating they are not considered for progression. Even after applying, feedback following an unsuccessful attempt is often vague and unconstructive, frequently using generic phrases like, “It was close, but the other candidate had the edge” or “You made it a tough decision for us.” This pattern suggests a need for more transparent and equitable processes in leadership progression.

Be aware of ‘disguised compliance’ in diversity

Originally a safeguarding term, disguised compliance also applies to inclusivity in the workplace. Some leaders claim to champion diversity. They highlight their international travels, their diversity-related accreditations, or presenting impressive equality, diversity and inclusion plans—yet their daily actions contradict these claims.

Ask yourself:

  • When providing feedback, do you do so to help someone improve, or are you planting seeds of doubt that will frame them negatively in future discussions?
  • Do you genuinely include underrepresented staff in career advancement opportunities?
  • Are some underrepresented staff hyper-visible when things go wrong, but invisible when things go well?

Be brave and use your privilege to do things differently

`Ask yourself:

  • How actively do you support underrepresented staff in progressing?
  • Have you mentored or sponsored employees from diverse backgrounds?
  • Have you engaged in reverse mentoring to understand their experiences?
  • Do you talk to your staff about their potential, or do you only talk about them negatively in passing to other people?

Leaders should ask themselves whether they are setting up individuals to succeed or to fail through their expectations. All too often unrealistic demands are placed on aspiring managers which lead to fatigue and burnout.

 If you want to drive real change and challenge the status quo, start today. Take intentional steps to support, advocate for, and uplift diverse talent within your team. Because the benefits are clear; your staff will feel valued and motivated, retention will improve, and over time, leadership teams will better reflect the diversity of the student population.

By making these changes, we can move beyond the 5 per cent statistic and ensure that talent from all backgrounds has a fair chance to thrive.

‘Fantastic result’: Apprenticeship achievement rate hits 60.5%

The national apprenticeship achievement rate has jumped up to 60.5 per cent, new figures show.

It means the proportion of apprentices who successfully completed their training and assessment on time rose by 6.2 percentage points last year.

The boost moves the FE sector much closer to the government’s 67 per cent achievement rate target that it hopes to achieve by the end of 2024-25.

Today’s data shows the apprenticeship dropout rate has also noticeably improved. 

In 2023-24, 38.1 per cent of apprentices dropped out before completing their training, compared to 44.1 per cent the year before. The dropout rate on standards hit a concerning 53.4 per cent in 2019-20.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith said the overall achievement rate rise is the “biggest increase since the standards were introduced” and a “fantastic result”.

In a letter to the sector, she said the progress “is testament to our partnership and the hard work” of apprenticeship providers.

The minister pointed out that college achievement rates improved from 57.4 per cent to 62.4 per cent, an increase of 5 percentage points. Meanwhile, independent training providers increased 6.5 percentage points from 51.2 per cent to 57.7 per cent.

Smith said: “Clearly, we have made strong progress, but I don’t want to stop here. We will continue to press on with these improvements; and go further.”

It marks a change in tone from the DfE, which last year warned providers with persistently low achievement rates that they face suspensions on starts and removal from the training market. This was after the achievement rate rose by just 2.9 percentage points.

Ben Rowland, CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “A significant increase in achievement rates is excellent news and a testament to the tireless efforts of learners, employers, and providers across the country. 

“Crucially, the sector hasn’t done this alone—it’s done it together. We’ve seen collaboration like never before. Providers learning from each other. Peer support and shared practice flourishing.”

Rowland added: “We continue to champion the view that skills means growth and this progress underscores the value of investing in the skills sector. As we look ahead to June’s comprehensive spending review, this data will give the Treasury reassurance that apprenticeship funding delivers real, measurable outcomes.” 

FE should brace itself for Austerity 2.0

The Spring Statement is bad news for Further Education. Britain’s economic doom loop just got bigger.

Since the autumn budget, a black hole of £14 billion in the public finances has opened up. It comes on top of the £22 billion deficit Labour says they inherited from the Conservatives. No wonder Mel Stride, shadow chancellor, rose to the dispatch box with such glee to accuse Reeves of being “the architect of her own misfortune”.

Given that the ‘Iron Chancellor’ refuses to budge from her self-imposed fiscal rules of creating a £9.9 billion surplus by the end of this Parliament, significant cuts to non-protected departmental expenditure are on the way.

We won’t know the full details until the Treasury publishes the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. But it doesn’t take an economic genius to work out that with growth slashed by half, taxes at a new record high and debt interest running at more than the cost of the £100 billion a year education budget, the sector desperately needs to develop a credible plan.

For all the political grandstanding of newly minted ministers overseeing another “skills revolution”, in reality, what FE is about to enter is the age of austerity 2.0.

Of course, it won’t be felt evenly across the whole tertiary system. FE providers in areas with big defence contractors and supply chains could potentially see a boom in enrolments and investments. Similarly, those bidding for a share of the government’s £600 million construction skills fund may use it to stave off mass redundancies among staff. The DWP’s get Britain working funds will find their way into the more entrepreneurial parts of the sector.

It will create a dog-eat-dog mentality, including the scramble to be rebadged by the Department for Education as one of ten new technical education colleges.

The challenge for policymakers and sector leaders is that FE has hardly recovered from the last scorched-earth policy of austerity brought in by George Osborne. During that period, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, education spending overall under the Conservatives declined as a share of national income, from about 5.6 per cent when Labour left office in 2010 to 4.4 per cent in 2022-23.

Spending per student declined by 14 per cent in colleges for 16–18-year-olds and by 28 per cent in school sixth forms. College staff have seen their real terms pay fall by 18 per cent since 2010, with a significant pay gap opening up with school teachers and industry professionals.

During last year’s general election campaign, Labour promised to end this doom loop by restoring economic growth.

However, growth has not materialised and even when it does, according to the OBR forecast, the country is looking at increasing living standards at about half the rate it was before the 2008 financial crash.

All this points to an elephant in the room: where is the department’s and the sector’s blueprint to set out how skills reform will improve productivity?

This week in Parliament was a golden opportunity for the phalanx of sector leaders summoned before the education select committee to say how they would improve the system.

Disappointedly, the sessions were light on solutions. Instead, we heard a range of platitudes and special pleading by a sector that runs the danger of being caught fiddling while Rome burns.

Of course, that approach suits the technocrats in SW1, who love nothing more than to tinker here and salami-slice there.

Until FE deploys far more intellectual rigour for how the country could reform its skills model to boost economic growth through a joined-up lobbying blueprint, it will continue to be viewed as a ‘Cinderella service’.

DfE ditches draft apprenticeship funding rules

The Department for Education will not publish a draft version of apprenticeship funding rules this year.

Officials said today that they will release the 2025-26 rules for the first time in May instead of in March.

This approach “allows us to incorporate the latest policy developments before publication”, an update from the DfE said.

During the March to May period, the department will “engage with the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP), the Association of Colleges (AoC) and our expert providers to ensure the rules are as clear as possible”.

Funding and data expert Steve Hewitt said he was “very disappointed with DfE for taking this decision”. 

“Over the years those in the front line of delivering apprenticeships have made vital contributions to improve the clarity of rules presented in draft versions,” he told FE Week.

“My concern is that a smaller ‘focus group’ won’t catch all of the ramifications of changes proposed to the detriment of the whole sector.”

Simon Ashworth, deputy CEO of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “There are lots of moving parts in the apprenticeship system, including important reforms that require legislative change. Understandably, this will mean a shift from the timetable we’ve become used to in recent years for the publication of funding rules.

“The DfE has given the sector an early steer on the areas in scope for change, which will help manage expectations and lay the groundwork for the new rules. We look forward to continuing our work with the department to help turn policy into practice.”

Ashworth added that it is important the rules are published as soon as possible as there “needs to be ample lead time so providers and suppliers can be hit the ground running and be compliant at the start of August”.

The DfE said today that changes for 2025-26 will focus on “several priority areas”, including “operational developments” such as finalising the implementation of new foundation apprenticeships and off-the-job policy.

The rules will introduce updates across: 

•               “active learning policy, with adjustments to support more flexible delivery models and maintain learner engagement

•               “prisoner apprenticeships, clarifying processes and eligibility to expand apprenticeship access for prisoners

•               “changes to end-point assessment (EPA), implementing modifications following announcements made during National Apprenticeship Week

•               “eligibility criteria, updating eligibility guidelines to ensure greater clarity and consistency

•               “English and maths clarifications, providing further guidance on English and maths requirements to support all apprentices”

Apprenticeships starting after August 1, 2025 will follow the new rules.

Spring statement 2025: What the chancellor announced for FE

The chancellor has confirmed a £625 million construction skills package that it hopes will “boost” training with up to 60,000 new workers in the next four years.

Rachel Reeves also endorsed £4.8 billion in welfare budget cuts, which the government hopes will push more young people into work and training, and a target of 15 per cent savings to department administrative budgets.

The spring statement published after the speech offered more detail on how the construction skills funding will be spent, but the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has raised concerns about “significant pressures” on unprotected budgets, which include FE.

Reeves said the new measures will give working people “new opportunities” and “the chance to fulfil their potential”.

Commenting on the cuts to benefits, which will remove the right to universal credit health top ups for under 22-year-olds, she added: “If we do nothing we are writing off an entire generation.

“That cannot be right, it is a waste of their futures, and we will change that.”

Here’s a rundown of what impacts further education:

10,000 foundation apprentices

The statement set a target of 10,000 “additional places” on foundation apprentices for the first time, funded by £40 million, to give young people a “high-quality entry route into a new career”.

According to announcements this weekend, the £40 million will reportedly fund £2,000 incentives for employers who “take on and retain” foundation apprentices. The cash incentives were however absent from today’s spring statement.

10 Technical Excellence Colleges

The technical excellence college initiative confirmed at the weekend, funded by £100 million in “new investment”, will mean ten existing colleges “in every region in England” will be “specialised in construction”.

Around £80 million of this will be for capital investment and the remaining £20 million for revenue, to fund “specialist facilities, equipment, and curriculum for construction courses to directly meet industry needs”.

Details remain limited about a new separate £80 million capital fund “to support employers to deliver bespoke training tailored to their needs”.

35,000 more bootcampers

Up to 35,000 new entrants, “returners” and existing workers will be able to access “construction-focused” skills bootcamps, through about £100 million in funding.

The government is yet to confirm who will oversee commissioning the newly announced funding for construction bootcamps amid the Department for Education’s move to pause national commissioning of bootcamps, instead funding the short courses through ring-fenced grants to mayors and local authorities.

£165m for ‘more construction courses’

About £165 million will also be available to colleges and training providers through a “high value course premium” and free courses for jobs.

The Treasury told FE Week this is “additional” funding that has been “scored at the spring statement”, but a course premium for subject areas including construction is already established policy.

Skills policy expert Tom Bewick said: “Note how [the Treasury] refuses to say whether this is additional investment… instead saying: ‘This is new funding being scored at spring statement’.

“Bureaucratic translation: ‘This is money we’ve recycled within our existing budgets, but Treasury requires an eye-catching announcement for the Spring Statement’.

“We’ll only know for sure when the [spending review] is published in the autumn. That zero-based budgeting exercise will show what different political choices they’ve made.

“But given the fact that real terms day to day spending in non-protected areas is set to fall over the Parliament, I can’t see how this is anything other than Austerity 2.0 for the FE sector.”

Industry exchange to teach in FE

The Treasury also announced plans for a ‘teacher industry exchange’ scheme to “attract experts” to teach in FE.

This appears similar to the ‘workforce industry exchange programme’ announced in the skills for jobs white paper in 2021, which promised to “support providers to engage in a sustainable, two-way exchange with industry”.

FE Week has approached the Department for Education for comment.

DfE budget rise but braced for civil service cuts

The Department for Education’s budget will increase by £4.9 billion from £89.2 billion in 2024-25 to £94.1 billion in 2025-26.

This includes an increase of £1.7 billion in non core-school funding, which will rise from £27.6 billion to £29.3 billion next year, although it is unclear what proportion of this is for 16-19 or adult education budgets.

The DfE is likely to be impacted by a target of reducing its administrative budget by 15 per cent, funded by a £150 million exit payment scheme and cutting-edge “AI exemplars” that will make government operations “more efficient and effective”.

Concern for unprotected budgets

According to the OBR’s forecast of Treasury’s spending, “unprotected” departments will face “significant pressures” in coming years, with day-to-day budgets cut by 0.8 per cent per year in real terms from 2026-27.

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, pointed out that this could mean “another £200 million” in cuts to adult education and skills by the end of the decade.

He added: “We’ll see in the spending review whether this is genuinely extra money, or robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

Benefits savings

Reeves confirmed that the benefits cuts will save £4.8 billion, with £1 billion reinvested into “guaranteed personalised employment support” and £400 million for Jobcentres.

But the OBR said the government shared its analysis of savings to be made from the reforms “very late”, which “hampered” their ability to add these measures to their forecast.

Qualification challenges threaten government’s housing mission

The government’s extremely ambitious house building targets are creating a debate around whether we have the construction workforce to actually deliver 1.5 million homes over the next five years. At the minute the industry has sufficient capacity to build the 200,000 homes a year it is currently delivering. But if the government can create an environment where around 300,000 homes could be built each year, the industry would have to recruit and train tens of thousands of new people across a range of trades. That is a big ‘if’, even with the new funding announced over the weekend.  There are other considerable barriers to increasing supply; while the planning policy changes the government has made are very welcome, there are other market and regulatory costs and delays in the planning process they need to tackle before ‘skills’ even comes into play.

However, the intent is clearly there and regardless of the debate around housing policy, it is key that we put in place the building blocks to enable us to effectively train the workforce of tomorrow.

One vital area that needs to be tackled is vocational qualifications. Currently just 25 per cent of those on FE construction courses go directly to working in the industry, according to a 2020 report from the Construction Industry Training Board – a shocking statistic that from an industry perspective we simply have to address.

The main reason for this is that too many courses today fail to equip learners with the practical skills and qualities that employers’ demand. As a result they struggle to find jobs in construction, often abandoning their career ambitions or having to enrol in additional training to become work-ready.

This means the time before they get into useful productive work, and crucially start to get paid well, is elongated.

We have to find a way to reform vocational courses so they are responding to industry needs and providing a viable route into employment.

Some T levels are now fulfilling this requirement. The design surveying and planning course is providing a real pathway into a quantity surveying degree apprenticeship. And there are some similar BTEC examples. But many trade specific courses are not and fundamental changes are needed to make them a useful option for learners and employers alike.

A starting point must be the structure of the courses. Providing students with just 16 hours a week in total learning, of which only around four hours is practical training, is never going to provide tomorrow’s bricklayers or joiners with the skills they need.

Funding is clearly critical here, and whilst we have the ear of a government that has put increasing housing supply as its number one policy commitment, we’re ensuring that they’re aware of this point. We simply must adequately fund FE colleges to ensure vocational courses are full-time, well-resourced, and properly staffed. This will enable learners to complete their courses with the skills and experience needed to be work-ready and fully employable.

Properly funding FE colleges and improving the courses they offer will provide a section of our young people that currently are not served well enough by the education system, with huge opportunities.

Less than 20 per cent of 25–64-year-olds in the UK hold a vocational qualification, compared to nearly 50 per cent in other European countries like Germany. This discrepancy must have an impact on our productivity and growth as an economic competitor.

 We need to make the case to decision makers and more broadly in schools and to parents, that a good vocational qualification can lead to a rewarding, and very well-paid career.

We are prioritising this through our ‘partner a college’ initiative, which connects member companies with colleges to provide support and shape courses to better meet industry needs. We’re working with the government and stakeholders on improvements to apprenticeships, the development of skills hubs, and our ongoing women into construction programme. If we can get this key route into industry right, it will help ensure we are well positioned to deliver the workforce, houses and growth the government and the country desperately need.

The 50-hour work experience policy: Ambition versus reality

The government’s vision for a Youth Guarantee, outlined in its Get Britain Working white paper, includes an ambitious entitlement to two weeks’ work experience (50 hours) for all school and college students in England as part of its provisions to boost young people’s employability.

One assumption is that work experience will start earlier – perhaps in year seven, rather than the traditional year ten or twelve week-long block – therefore the expectation is that most of the new work experience activity would be carried out by schools rather than colleges.

But what remains less clear to us at EDT is how the policy will be applied for a young person moving from school to college. As the concept does seem to apply across a young person’s educational journey, colleges need to be aware of it. A system where a young person’s entitlement moves with them would be too hard to monitor understand, but colleges should be attempting to build on the work done in schools.

More capacity means increased workload for schools and colleges

Youth Employment UK’s Youth Voice Census found that only 36 per cent of secondary school pupils currently have access to work experience opportunities, and only 38 per cent of those undertook work experience in a job they were interested in. Our analysis suggests that to achieve the 50-hour objective, schools and colleges would need to at least double the amount of work experience they currently offer. This would significantly increase their workload.

Alongside this, the current level of employer participation would also need to be doubled. How could this be achieved? And how could we avoid this becoming a siloed initiative that adds to employer confusion? The government’s goals are indeed challenging, so educators and employers need to be not just supported but incentivised too.

A role for careers hubs?

For such a policy to work as a universal entitlement, schools and colleges would need to be robustly measured on how well they meet their 50-hour target. A mechanism for this could be the Gatsby Benchmark goal concerning good career guidance in schools. Schools and colleges currently self-assess their status against each Gatsby benchmark (using the Compass tool) – but perhaps measurement of this new entitlement should be undertaken externally. Careers hubs (like the one we operate in West London on behalf of the Careers and Enterprise Company and the Greater London Authority) would be ideal for this. They support young people with the guidance, skills and work experience they need to make informed career choices, coordinating the engagement of employers and apprenticeships providers across a local area to avoid duplication and ensure alignment. They also have robust relationships with schools and colleges. Careers hubs could quality assure and broker opportunities (ensuring collaboration between institutions) and locally coordinate the opportunities available nationally.

Good practice exists but funding is needed

There is evidence of good practice for many, if not all, the proposed solutions to ramp up work experience. In particular, the feedback we receive suggests that the most impactful work experience provision incorporates pre-placement preparation and post-placement reflection with students. Only additional funding can ensure this happens at scale. The creation of a national level database or service, to manage universally available work experience opportunities, could be one way of using any new funding – although effective local coordination would still be necessary.

Funding needs to reflect where the needs are: For employers, this would mean focusing on building capacity within the SMEs that comprise 99 per cent of the nation’s employers; for schools and colleges, funding would be required to provide additional support to students with greater needs, such as enhancing work experience activities to support students at risk of being NEET (not in education, employment or training).

Perhaps a kitemark for employers who have effectively engaged with work experience programmes would encourage take-up? If every procuring local authority prioritised the take-up of work experience in their lists of social value options that bidding organisations have to choose from, how much would that move the dial? Perhaps some standardisation of the more universal work experience processes could save local duplication of effort – for example, a standard proforma for risk assessments.

However, the two weeks is currently not yet a mandatory requirement but a policy aspiration; how it might work is not yet detailed. As well as questions about funding, responsibilities and capacity there are questions around what types of activity or duration will have most impact, The CEC’s Equalex model, currently being piloted in some areas, seeks not to have a single two-week block, but a progressive build-up of work experience across a young person’s education, to move from exploration to in-depth experience.

We all must work together to consider and test new approaches and ideas, as the overwhelming benefits of work experience are worth the challenge.

‘New ways of doing FE’ inquiry: Experts give evidence to MPs

Staff pay is “killing” FE and T Levels are not yet a “gold standard” qualification, the education committee heard today as it kicked off a new inquiry into FE.

In the first oral evidence hearing this morning, the committee heard from college representatives, economists and FE policy experts on a range of issues concerning FE including chronic underfunding and GCSE maths and English resits policy.

The inquiry was first opened in January, which sought to explore the current reforms and challenges in further education such as pay gap between school and college teachers, maths and English GCSE resits, students’ mental health.

Here are some of the main takeaways:

‘Alphabet soup’ of FE qualifications 

MPs began the hearing asking panellists what their assessment of the range of post-16 qualifications was and what can be done to improve it.

Principal and CEO of Hartlepool College Darren Hankey said FE has an “alphabet soup of different qualifications” that has been constantly tinkered with over the last few decades.

“I think there is an opportunity there to be a little bit clearer,” he told the committee.

David Robinson, director of post 16 and skills at Education Policy Institute (EPI) added: “There are three times as many qualifications within each subject area for vocational qualifications compared to academic qualifications. I think this complexity works against those who need most support that post-16 transition.”

Alice Gardner, chief executive at Edge Foundation, agreed that the landscape “can look quite confusing to a young person post-16”, adding that “some of that is a responsibility pre-16, so it’s really difficult to look at it in isolation”.

Gardner advised that school settings should be doing more to promote different career paths, which is underpinned by the Baker Clause that states that schools must allow colleges and training providers to tell students about non-academic routes.

“We’ve got quite a narrow curriculum that doesn’t encourage young people to really understand the routes and the pathways that might be available to them later,” she said.

Rob Nitsch, chief executive at Federation of Awarding Bodies, agreed with Gardner.

“I definitely think the Baker Clause is not working, it’s not sufficient,” he said. 

“Where we do see it applied, it seems to work reasonably well. 16 per cent more apprenticeships in college, in school settings that actually push that.”

Parity of ‘input’ not ‘esteem’

When asked about how to achieve parity of esteem between academic and vocational pathways, Robinson said there should be more focus on “parity of inputs”.

“It used to be the case that technical qualifications were funded less than academic qualifications, despite the fact they have higher delivery costs. That has been improved in recent years,” he said.

He added that academic qualifications are more prevalent in school sixth forms where staff pay is higher than further education colleges, which teach more technical vocational pathways, and leads to deeper recruitment issues in FE.

He told the committee: “Vacancy rates in the FE sector around 10 times those that they are in the school sector. So I would rather we focus on parity of inputs. We may get closer to parity of esteem if we address some of those things, but I think parity of esteem on its own, I think can be a distraction.”

Hankey added that he didn’t really understand the issues around parity of esteem as vocational careers such as engineering, healthcare and hairdressing all need good academic knowledge.

“To be successful in a technical area, you need a good academic underpinning anyway. We could probably call all qualifications at level two and level three the same thing, because that would do away with the parity,” he said.

Are T Levels ‘gold standard’?

The committee also heard that T Levels model was “very rigid” and the T Level foundation year programme “was not doing well”.

When asked if T Levels were a gold standard qualification, as labelled by government and backed by the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review last week, Nitsch said it was “dangerous to stigmatise everything”.

“I think any qualification will have advantages and disadvantages. I think T Levels do a particular function. I think our focus should be on how we can make them work better,” he said.

He added: “The model that we’ve applied to T Levels is very rigid at the moment and I think it’s just a leap of faith to expect that to work across the whole of the economy.”

Gardner said that it would be “doing a disservice” to what could be a really useful pathway for young people to “paper over the cracks” of T Levels – the crack being high drop out rates and employer engagement.

“It feels like it’s very much in that guinea pig place and I get worried about young people being guinea pigs. We can’t afford to let any young person go through any qualification without being absolutely clear what the aims and objectives are and what they will get at the end of it.”

Robinson said his concerns with T Levels were over the scalability. 

“Our research showed that retention was an issue for some students with 20 per cent of students with T levels being 20 per cent less likely to complete than students doing similar sized alternative qualifications, particularly disadvantaged students are more likely to drop out of T Levels.”

He added: “I think the transition program is definitely not gold standard, with only around 8 per cent of those on the transition program transitioning into T levels, and of those that do around the quarter drop out in the first year. So there’s clearly a lot of work to be done.”

Meanwhile, on the government’s pause on defunding BTECs to make way for T Levels, the panel agreed that it was important to retain alternatives to T Levels.

“And I think if we give young people a binary choice between T Levels and A-levels on one side, or being pushed down to lower level qualifications, and I think many more young people will end up not achieving a level three, which we know is associated with good outcomes for young people,” Robinson added.

Gardner added that for a “large majority” students that take BTECs and end up at university, retention is “good”.

‘We don’t know how well resits are working’

Regarding GCSE resits in FE, Robinson said there isn’t much evidence on how well the resit policies benefiting young people.

“We know very well that young people who pass at 16 more than progress to have higher levels of education. Fundamentally, I don’t think we know whether the same is true of students who re sit. And for me, that’s a really, really important evidence gap that we should be looking to fill,” he told the committee.

He also recommended a rethink around using the same resit policy for both maths and English.

“It may be that there’s more good practice that can be shared for literacy to improve standards across the board. For numeracy, I think probably the policy needs bit more of a wholesale rethink.”

Nitsch, who is also chair at the City of Portsmouth College, said the resit policy was an “utter nightmare” for his college.

“It has to close three out of its four campuses. It’s got 1,200 students that are due to sit do their resits, takes a whole day out of the programme, and 200 of those who’ve got SEND requirements as well, it destroys the delivery of education broadly across the college for a significant period of time.”

Pay is killing FE

In the second part of the evidence hearing, the committee heard about staff pay issues in the FE sector.

In January, the Department for Education released £50 million from the £300 million award to FE to fund staff pay rises as a one off grant. 

Imran Tahir, research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimated that the grant would translate potentially to a 3 per cent increase in pay relative to what it is today.

But Jo Grady, general secretary of the University and College Union, said that would “barely going to cover any car parking charges if people are even driving to work” nor the pay gap between FE teachers and schoolteachers.

“Staff in FE have really borne the brunt of this neglect,” she said.

She added: “I do not think it is over the top to say that it is killing FE. The quality of what can be delivered in the classroom is dependent on how staff are treated. The working conditions of staff are the learning conditions of students.”

Inflation-adjusted additional funding still results in funding fall

The IFS estimated that FE would need £200 million in real terms of additional funding every year.

Tahir calculated that if the government spends the £8.3 billion on 16 to 19 education, adjusted for inflation, up until 2027-28, it would result in a 4 per cent fall in per pupil funding.

If it spends the same unadjusted amount of £8.3 billion, it would result in a 8 per cent fall in per pupil funding.

David Hughes, chief executive at that Association of Colleges said it was a “really good estimate” but said it was difficult to assess because it doesn’t factor in learner choices.

“It could be that the IFS is underestimating, because they’ll be tending to do more technical courses which cost more, and therefore the average cost per student might be higher. And I think with the labour market getting tighter as well, we might see more young people who are in work coming back into FE colleges, and that could boost that pressure on the budget.

“The spending review has to recognise those numbers, because otherwise the sector is on its knees, it will be cataclysmic.”

Pupil premium for FE ‘would make a massive difference’

The committee was urged to consider the lack of a pupil premium for FE learners, which supports looked-after teenagers and care leavers beyond the age of 16.

Robinson said in the first evidence session that disadvantaged students finish college with lower grades – usually the equivalent of one A-level grade lower – because they started with lower grades.

“We also know that at the age of 16, disadvantaged funding falls by about a third. So those same students who one day at the end of at the end of secondary school were getting a certain amount of support just falls off when they then start their post-16 education.

“We need to think about supporting those students all the way through their education, from early years all the way through to 16 to 19 and beyond,” he said.

Hughes added that there is “no reason” or rationale for no pupil premium beyond the age of 16.

“That would make a massive difference for disadvantaged students.”