What does the Spending Review really mean for FE?

The chancellor Rachel Reeves has delivered her much-anticipated spending review – arguably one of the defining moments of this Parliament so far. It sets the overall limits for day-to-day departmental spending through to 2028-29, and in doing so, begins to shape what’s possible for public services in the years ahead.

For DfE, she set out a £7.4 billion cash-terms increase in day-to-day spending between 2025-26 and 2028-29. In real terms, that equates to a 1.3 per cent rise in DfE’s total resource budget by 2029. Much of this uplift is expected to be frontloaded, with new funding likely to be released early in the review period.

What does it mean for overall FE funding?

Within the broader settlement, the government has announced an additional £1.2 billion per year in day-to-day funding for FE by 2028-29, in cash terms. After accounting for inflation, that will see the overall budget rise by just over £400 million (in today’s prices) between 2025-26 and 2028-29, a 3 per cent total real-terms increase over this period. That leaves FE – unusually – with a substantially faster growth rate than the education department as a whole.

The Treasury has not published a detailed breakdown, but this figure appears to cover the main areas of the FE and skills system: 16–19 education, apprenticeships, and adult skills. Together, these areas currently account for around £13.5 billion of public spending each year.

The chart below shows how total skills spending across these areas has changed since the early 2000s.

After a period of sustained growth through the 2000s, the FE and skills system saw sharp real-terms cuts through much of the 2010s. There has been some recovery since 2020, thanks to additional funding allocated by the previous government. But even after these recent increases, total spending remains well below the levels seen in the early 2010s.

The uplift announced yesterday continues the slow but recently steady increase in FE and skills funding. Based on the spending review plans, spending in 2028-29 will be at its highest level since 2014–15, although still well short of its peak in 2010.

How will this additional money be spent?

The spending review offered few details on how the extra funding for FE will be used. Aside from references to accommodating 65,000 more 16-19 year olds and training up to 60,000 skilled construction workers, specifics were in short supply. Further direction is expected in the upcoming post-16 education and skills strategy.

One area that is almost certain to absorb a substantial share of the funding is demographic growth. Since 2018, the 16-18 population in England has risen by 13 per cent – an increase of around 230,000 young people – with a further 5 per cent increase expected by 2028. If participation rates remain steady, that translates into around 65,000 additional students in the system.

Just to maintain existing per-student funding levels in real terms would require an additional £290 million in 2028-29 – roughly 70 per cent of the £400 million real terms increase that year. Any ambition to improve funding per learner, rather than simply preserve the status quo, would require a larger share of the settlement.

Staffing pressures are also likely to draw on the budget. The government has committed to recruiting more teachers into FE, but making that a reality will mean addressing long-standing issues with pay. College teachers now earn around £7,000 less than school teachers on average, and FE pay has fallen significantly in real terms since 2010. If recruitment and retention are to improve, a portion of the new investment will almost certainly need to go towards closing that gap.

What happens next?

At this stage, we still don’t know how the additional funding will be allocated across programmes and priorities. That will be one of the most important questions to watch in the months ahead. Much will depend on the direction set by the post-16 strategy and DfE’s decisions about how best to balance competing pressures.

Still, this is a substantial settlement in the context of the wider education budget. It goes well beyond offering real-terms protection to per-pupil college funding, and should make a meaningful difference to overall spending in the FE and skills system. If used well, it could start to relieve some of the pressures that have built up over more than a decade – particularly around funding levels and staffing.

FE Week 500: Further education doesn’t stand still, and nor will we

Since our first edition landed on doorsteps in September 2011, further education has changed dramatically. Governments have come and gone. Policies have been launched, scrapped, relaunched and rebranded. 

But through it all FE Week has been there week in, week out, to report, investigate, challenge and inform. 

From the earliest stories on 12-week apprenticeships, the rise and fall of training giants, holding 11 ministers to account and uncovering the realities behind the rhetoric, our mission has always been the same: to serve the further education and skills sector with independent, impartial and fearless journalism. 

Edition 1, September 12, 2011

FE deserves great trade press, not just a conveyor belt of press releases. One that understands the sector and the communities it serves and isn’t afraid to speak truth to power.

We are proud to have reported on so many of the defining moments in post-16 education and training over the past 14 years. But our job was never to merely chronicle events. Our investigations have changed policy, injected public scrutiny where there was none before and, at times I’m sure, made decision makers think twice before signing off on something daft. 

We do it because we know what FE done well does for students, and what mismanagement, chaos and confusion does to the providers delivering those opportunities. 

FE is famous in Whitehall for its policy churn. There was no such thing as the apprenticeship levy when we started, 16-18 numbers were going down and the sector was split across two government departments.

Funding cuts and financial challenges prevailed during FE Week’s formative years, requiring tough messages for the sector over spending and accountability. 

Devolution has seen a proliferation of funding rules, procurements and policies that were all managed centrally when we published our first edition. When our classrooms vary from prisons to workshops to lecture theatres to hair salons and church halls, we work extra hard to make sure no stone is left unturned. 

We strive to give voice to those too often excluded from decision-making; students, apprentices, teachers, assessors and professional services staff, and to amplify the expertise of the sector’s many champions. But we recognise, as many of you do, that FE leadership reflected in our pages often fails to reflect the diverse communities it serves.

Trust in journalism matters more than ever. From the largest global news organisations to the local and trade press, dwindling newsroom resources in the face of non-expert, polarised commentary and AI-generated hot takes is a risk for all of us. That’s why your support matters so much. You can become a subscriber here.

So, as we mark our 500th edition, we want to thank our readers, particularly those of you who have been with us from the start. Thanks for your tips, your quotes, your scrutiny and your support.

The job is far from done. If the past 500 editions have taught us anything, it’s that FE never stands still. And nor will we. 

Click here to download your free copy of FE Week edition 500

Bridging the AI advantage gap and why FE must act now

The accelerating integration of AI into our working lives gives the education sector the impetus to adapt. We are tasked with preparing learners for the evolving demands of the workplace and ensuring the benefits of technological advancement are shared by all.

FE excels at building technical skills and AI is the latest powerful tool demanding competence. The Skills Builder Partnership’s latest research, the Essential Skills Tracker 2025, offers compelling evidence that essential skills – those highly transferable skills like creativity, problem solving, and teamwork – aren’t just drivers of income and social mobility now, but are fundamental enablers for individuals and the economy to successfully acquire and apply AI.

The findings are stark: those with higher levels of essential skills have been the first to embrace AI. A nationally representative YouGov sample of 2,114 UK adults’ essential skills (measured using the Universal Framework) shows that higher levels of essential skills are associated with a 30 per cent relative increase in AI usage at work.

Creativity in particular stands out, with frequent AI users demonstrating skill levels 21 per cent higher than their peers. This isn’t just about technical know-how. It’s about the capacity to innovate and adopt new technical tools.

This proficiency translates into economic benefits. The established wage premium for essential skills persists: those with higher levels earn between £3,700 and £6,100 more annually. Layered on top of this, the research reveals an AI wage premium. Individuals who regularly use AI earn, on average, an additional £8,300 per year compared to peers.

Here we see an emerging challenge for the FE sector with the growth of an AI advantage gap. If those already equipped with strong essential skills are the primary beneficiaries of AI adoption and the associated wage premiums, we risk deepening existing inequalities.

We know that individuals from less advantaged backgrounds often have fewer opportunities to build essential skills. Without concerted effort, AI could make the skills gap more entrenched and harder to escape.

The transition to an AI-integrated workplace has a clear human impact. Our research indicates that being required to use AI daily correlates with a 43 per cent increase in anxiety levels.

Yet, here too, essential skills offer a powerful counterbalance. Higher proficiency in adapting, speaking and teamwork skills is linked to reduced anxiety, fostering the resilience and confidence to embrace technological change.

Encouragingly, workers themselves recognise this: 87 per cent agree that essential skills will help them adapt to new technology, and 80 per cent of those considering a job move are influenced by opportunities to build these skills (ranking just behind pay and flexible working).

What does this mean for the FE sector? While systemic change is needed, institutions and educators can act now. We can start by using the common language of the open-source Universal Framework, which breaks essential skills down into sequential steps to make essential skills explicit in learning, workshops, and employer interactions.

Educators can access free tools and resources to explicitly teach specific skill steps and integrate practice across subjects, making learning more tangible and impactful.

Alongside these steps, we need policy action. Based on this and past research, the Department for Education should adopt a consistent and rigorous approach to building and measuring essential skills. The Universal Framework provides the leading model for this.

Investment in CPD and initial training reform is vital. Furthermore, essential skills must be explicitly integrated and assessed within technical qualifications alongside T Levels and apprenticeships, using the framework for coherence.

Finally, accountability must evolve, embedding essential skills within the Ofsted framework and ensuring Skills England prioritises this agenda.

The narrative that AI will replace jobs is pervasive: 72 per cent of workers believe it will impact others, although only 19 per cent see it affecting their own role. This disconnect highlights a need for honest conversations and proactive preparation, which the FE sector is uniquely positioned to facilitate.

The AI revolution is not a distant prospect; it’s unfolding now. For FE, this is a moment to lead.

No cuts but no cure: FE’s funding dilemma post spending review

The chancellor today set out the hard ‘Labour choices’ she was making which will frame the government’s actions for the next four years in the spending review. In doing so, there was some good news for colleges coupled with areas where more information is required for the FE sector. A mixed picture like this is not unusual at fiscal events, but what feels new is the absence of any funding cuts or negatives which the sector has unfortunately been subject to many times over the last 15 years.

On the very positive side, we heard about significant investment in young people, with an increase of £1.2 billion to the 16-18 budget by 2028-29, funding 65,000 more students. And it would seem there are inflation increases in the funding rate. It is pretty close to what we asked for in our submission earlier this year, and builds on the above inflation funding rate increase for 2025-26. We have not had that sort of position in the recent past and it will offer a good deal of stability to many colleges with large cohorts of young people.

With 16-18 budgets making up a little over half the income of the college sector, that announcement is very welcome. The ‘but’ comes now though because we did not see similarly positive announcements on adult funding or apprenticeships to match. We did not hear much either on capital funding, or investment in priority sectors to match the £625m announced for construction in March. Nor how skills support for unemployed young people and adults will be delivered. On all of those we will probably have to wait for publication of the industrial strategy, the infrastructure plan and the post-16 education and skills white Paper. Ministers will want to have their own opportunities to announce funding alongside those strategies and plans.

College leaders will be relieved that there are no more obvious cuts to adult spending after those already announced for next year, and with the adult budget still a pale imitation of what it was when Labour was last in power. For colleges with larger adult funding, there is once again nothing to ease the challenge of increasing costs and a wider fear that there is simply not enough support for learning that does not directly and immediately deliver against the government’s priorities. We will do more work on this over the summer, to set out the positive impact adult education delivers and why it should be a higher priority for government. And how taking a slightly longer term view can show the return on investment in human, community and economic terms.

There will also be some disappointment that the biggest challenge facing colleges – of low pay for their staff – will not be helped by these announcements. College pay lags a long way behind schools and industry, hampering colleges from being able to deliver on the government’s missions. Even the increased investment in 16-18 funding will only plug those gaps, rather than closing them.

So it is a mixed picture, with more announcements to come, one big positive boost to investment and no big funding cuts. Given what colleges have had to endure in the last 15 years, that feels like a win. And with increasing understanding across Whitehall that investment in skills through colleges is central to achieving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity as well as delivering across the government’s missions, I am feeling optimistic and hopeful about the next few years.

Spending review marks yet another failure for adult skills

The lead-up to this spending review started with hope. For once, it seemed we had won the argument. It was fantastic to see that the importance of adult reskilling was recognised across government.

Strategies like the industry strategy, the Department for Work and Pension’s connect to work, migration plan and initiatives from departments responsible for health and defence, all highlighted skills as key to their goals.

However, this recognition hasn’t translated into investment from the Department for Education or in the spending review itself.

Despite a modest 2.3 per cent real-terms increase in departmental budgets and £1.3 billion pledged for young people and apprenticeships, this still leaves the DfE short.

Children’s services are the clear winners, and while few would argue against investing in children, adult skills have once again been left behind.

This is not just short-sighted, it is reckless. At a time when skills are vital for economic recovery, growth, and national resilience, neglecting adult learners means ignoring those who will help deliver national renewal.

The DfE still has no adult skills strategy. How could chancellor Rachel Reeves agree on new investment without one?

Although the funding to DWP for employment support is welcomed, the spending review settlement is likely to continue weakening a fragile adult skills system. The UK faces pressing shortages in sectors such as construction, health, digital, and green energy, yet instead of preparing the workforce, current policy choices risk long-term damage.

Once the adult education infrastructure is dismantled and staff made redundant, it’s slow, costly and often impossible to rebuild.

Instead of fixing failing schemes or learning from what works, the DfE continues to back underperforming legacy programmes. Short-term politics are being prioritised over long-term reform. This leaves behind 30 per cent of adults with low qualifications, nine million people lacking basic literacy and numeracy, and many who are economically inactive but ready to re-engage if only they had the support.

The result is a fragmented, exclusionary system. It benefits those already doing well and neglects those in greatest need. Adults with low skills are offered piecemeal, bolt-on training that provides little chance for real progression, while young people access structured pathways to meaningful qualifications. A two-tier system is emerging – one that risks widening inequality.

Case for investment

To return adult learning participation to 2010 levels, at least £5 billion additional investment is needed. This still wouldn’t close the full gap identified by Skills England.

Instead, funding is being channelled into costly legacy technical programmes that do not meet the outcomes they promised. These are often rigid, costly and poor at helping adults progress into sustained employment.

What works is flexible, local, community-based learning that meets adults where they are both geographically and in terms of their life circumstances.

This kind of provision is accessible, responsive and rooted in trust. It helps people who have been excluded from the education system, those with low prior attainment, caring responsibilities, insecure work or health challenges to re-engage, build confidence and gain the skills needed to progress. It supports social inclusion, wellbeing and economic participation.

Yet despite strong evidence of its impact, resources are instead being diverted to more rigid, centralised schemes that often fail to reach those most in need. This risks widening the gap between the education system and the communities it should serve.

Reframing adult education

This spending review misses the bigger picture. Instead of positioning adult skills as a driver of growth and opportunity, it reduces skills to short-term programmes scattered across different government departments which fail to build long-term capability, stronger communities or individual self-reliance.

We must reframe adult education as a long-term investment in people – the people who will build homes, deliver green jobs, and reduce NHS backlogs.

Sweden, Singapore and China are all increasing their investment in adult learning because they know it drives both national progress and individual hope.

The statement promises further details of government plans in a strategy for post-16 education and skills later this year.

Let’s hope this is a bold adult skills strategy with clear roles for employers, the state and individuals. This isn’t a luxury, it is an economic necessity.

If the UK wants to build 1.5 million homes, decarbonise the economy and reduce waiting lists, it must start with the adults who will do the work.

‘Reckless and ridiculous’: Ofsted’s report card plan delay slammed

Union leaders have blasted a “reckless” move by Ofsted to delay revealing its report card plan until September – leaving schools, colleges and training providers facing a “nonsensical” timeline for the roll-out of new inspections. 

Ofsted had planned to publish its response to the consultation to reform inspections in the summer, before introducing the new inspections in November.

But the watchdog said today it will not be ready to publish its response until “early September”. 

Ofsted had mulled delaying inspections, but has confirmed it will stick to its plan to roll out new report card inspections in November – leaving education settings with potentially just weeks to prepare.

‘Leaders need comprehensive understanding’

Education secretary Bridget Phillipson told Ofsted chief Sir Martyn Oliver in a letter the delay was “disappointing”.

She warned Oliver he must also “give education providers a comprehensive understanding of the new arrangements before they are introduced”, and ensure “in depth” training of the Ofsted workforce.

You can read Martyn Oliver’s full letter to Bridget Phillipson here. Phillipson’s letter in response is available in full here.

But Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, said the delay will place “immense” pressure on education providers. The announcement was “symptomatic of an organisation and a process in disarray”.

“This decision is bordering on reckless and could do real damage to the health and wellbeing of staff,” he added.

Pepe D’Iasio, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, added: “The introduction of a nonsensical inspection framework is now compounded by a nonsensical timetable.

“The idea that schools and colleges can prepare for a complete change in the inspection system on this scale in two months is, frankly, ridiculous.”

In its consultation document, Ofsted said its original timeline would ensure “a notice period equivalent to one term between the publication of our post-consultation response and inspection materials and the start of education inspections”.

This would allow the inspectorate to “ensure that providers and inspectors feel well prepared for the new inspections”.

Timeframe ‘cut in half’

But D’Iasio said the delay means the “already ambitious timeframe has now been cut in half”.

He said it would “make far more sense” to postpone the introduction of the new inspection system, and “even better” to start from scratch and create a new framework.

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union urged Ofsted to delay inspection reforms until September 2026 and to carry out a “proper consultation” to “get change right”.

“Martyn Oliver needs to slow down and be transparent about what the consultation has shown,” he added.

“Imposing a new model on the profession and failing to offer adequate time to digest what is now required, is simply unfair. With teacher and leader retention still at such challenging levels, this is reckless.”

Delays ‘disappointing’, says Phillipson

Oliver informed Phillipson of the delay in a letter today.

He said Ofsted “fully intend to make improvements” to its proposed inspection framework, but they “need a little more time to complete our analysis of the responses we have received”.

The online consultation questionnaire received over 6,500 responses from parents, education professionals and representative bodies. 

He described the delay as “regrettable” but said he believes it will “result in a better and more effective inspection regime”.

After publishing its response in September, Ofsted said it will begin “a comprehensive training programme for inspectors and an extensive programme of engagement and preparation for those we inspect. This will allow us to introduce the revised framework in November as planned.”

But Phillipson was displeased, adding it was “important that Ofsted delivers to the expected timescales, to build confidence in the inspectorate and avoid additional challenges for headteachers and leaders”. 

She noted Oliver’s “absolute commitment” to introduce the revised framework in November as planned.

New chair to bring ‘strong challenge’

Phillipson also used her letter to announce the appointment of former chief inspector Dame Christine Gilbert as the new Chair of Ofsted, as first revealed this morning by FE Week’s sister title Schools Week.

The education secretary said Gilbert will help ensure the “successful delivery of these reforms by bringing the strong challenge and support that all organisations need”.

Spending review 2025: What the chancellor announced for FE and skills

The chancellor has promised an additional £1.2 billion “record investment” for skills a year by the end of this parliament – but most of it has already been announced. 

Rachel Reeves delivered her spending review today and said this investment would in part support “over a million young people into training and apprenticeships”.

She told MPs that it “cannot be right that too often” the ambitions and potential of young people are “stifled” when those who want training find courses that are “oversubscribed and are turned away at the door”.

“We’ve seen growing businesses eager to recruit, to look elsewhere. Potential wasted and enterprise frustrated,” Reeves added.

“So today I am providing record investment for training and upskilling – £1.2 billion a year by the end of the spending review to support over a million young people into training and apprenticeships so that their potential, their drive and their ambition is frustrated no longer.”

Spending review documents go on to clarify that the government is “providing £1.2 billion of additional investment per year by 2028-29”.

This includes “funding to support over 1.3 million 16 to 19 year olds to access high-quality training, supporting 65,000 additional learners per year by 2028-29”.

It will also deliver £625 million between 2025-26 and 2028-29 to train up to 60,000 skilled construction workers, as announced at spring statement.

FE Week has approached the Treasury for further detail.

There was no mention of adult education funding in the spending review documents, but the government did say it will set out further detail “on its plans in a strategy for post-16 education and skills later in the year”.

Reforms to the SEND system will be set out in a schools white paper in the autumn.

Further education providers in England include 220 colleges and 1,300 independent training providers which currently receive over £12 billion from the government each year to support around 1.9 million learners. 

While predicted school pupil numbers are forecast to fall over the next four years, the number of 16 to 19 year olds is set to rise by 118,000. 

David Hughes, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, warned the extra funding for more 16 to 19 places “may not” be enough.

He said: “It is positive that Treasury has recognised the growing numbers of young people we estimate will be in post-16 education over the next few years with an increase to the 16 to 19 budget.

“However, the 65,000 extra 16 to 19 places will only just keep up with population growth, so the budget may not be sufficient if the improving participation we have seen in recent years continues.”

DfE efficiencies

The DfE’s overall budget, including capital, will increase by an average 0.8 per cent a year in real terms by the end of the spending review period, from £100.9 billion in 2025-26 to £109.2 billion in 2028-29.

Ofsted will get a £20 million funding boost to help staff inspections under its new report card plans.

But elsewhere in the spending review documents, the Treasury stated that the Department for Education has committed to delivering at least 5 per cent savings and efficiencies. 

This includes savings identified through the first zero-based review (ZBR) in 18 years, which includes defunding level 7 apprenticeships for those aged 22 and over.

Documents state that the DfE will work with the FE sector to “improve the value for money of government spend”, by providing FE Commissioner support to colleges and “other relevant providers, seeking opportunities for economies of scale arising from more 16 to 19 year olds moving into post-16 education and training, simplifying processes and reducing data collection burdens, providing greater certainty of capital funding to enable colleges with estate planning, and exploring commercial efficiencies”.

DfE also has worked with the Office for Value for Money to “identify £248 million of technical efficiencies”. These will be a combination of “non-frontline efficiencies” and “corporate initiatives”.

Documents state that DfE will become “smaller and more agile over the spending review period through a strategic workforce plan to improve its capability and operations”.

“This will include moving to more flexible resourcing, greater use of AI and digital tools, conversion of managed services in its digital, data and technology function to permanent civil servants, and reviewing all non-staff expenditure to identify areas for efficiencies”.

Hughes said college leaders will be “relieved” that there are “no more obvious cuts to adult spending“, but will be “disappointed that their biggest challenge of low pay for college staff will not be helped by these announcements”.

Integrated settlements

More mayors will receive funding through integrated settlements in 2026. These are budgets that combine funding sources from different government departments, including adult skills, into one pot, giving mayors more freedom to fund priority projects.

The spending review confirmed that the Greater London Authority and mayoral strategic authorities in West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East and Liverpool City Region will receive integrated settlements from 2026-27.

Combining budgets in this way was part of the government’s devolution white paper, which announced the mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands would be the first “trailblazers” to get the integrated settlements for 2025-26.

Turing Scheme funding cut by 29%, DfE reveals

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allocation changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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