Across the world, vocational education systems wrestle with the same fundamental question: how can we build a tertiary system that genuinely serves learners, employers, and communities while avoiding the fragmentation that too often characterises post-16 education?
I’ve worked in both the UK and in Australasia. And I’ve seen first-hand the value of models that seek to unify further and higher education rather than separate them into competing silos. The UK’s FE sector has much to be proud of, but also much it could learn from international practice – particularly in New Zealand and in the state of Victoria, Australia.
New Zealand: Systemic coherence, with cautionary lessons
New Zealand’s reform of its vocational education system over the past five years has been bold. Polytechnics and industry training organisations were brought together under one umbrella, Te Pūkenga. It aimed to avoid duplication, ensure learners could move seamlessly between on- and off-job training and place industry voice at the heart of provision.
At the time of consulting on the establishment of Te Pūkenga, as chief executive of Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NMIT) I was directly engaged in workshops with ministers and senior advisors on how the new system might evolve. Our message as sector leaders was clear: if this reform was to succeed, it must be planned carefully and not driven by bureaucratic deadlines. We weren’t saying “don’t do it”. We were saying “if we are to do it, let’s do it properly”.
Unfortunately, the pressure of deadlines and egos won the day. Implementation was beset by challenges that could have been avoided with more considered planning. Penny Simmonds, who was then chief executive of Southern Institute of Technology (SIT) and is now vocational education minister, is currently defending her decision to break up Te Pūkenga.
The lesson for the UK is an important one: systemic reform can create clarity and coherence, but only if designed with patience, partnership and a willingness to listen to practitioners on the ground.
Victoria, Australia: The pursuit of a unified tertiary system
In Victoria, I worked within a dual-sector university – Federation University Australia, the country’s first cooperative university. This unique model, similar to the designated institution status we hold with the University of Greater Manchester, deliberately blurred the lines between vocational and higher education, offering students flexible pathways that respond to individual needs and regional workforce demands.
At Federation, learners could start in a vocational diploma, progress into a degree, and move in and out of study and work without stigma or structural barriers. This integration didn’t just benefit learners; it also helped employers, who saw skills pathways that were transparent and responsive to industry needs. Importantly, it challenged the hierarchy that so often places higher education above FE. In Victoria, vocational learning is not seen as a “second best” option but as an equally respected part of the tertiary system.
Lessons for the UK
The UK FE sector is often constrained by fragmentation – between schools, colleges, universities, and training providers. We talk about parity of esteem between vocational and academic routes, but too often our structures reinforce division rather than connection
From New Zealand, we can take inspiration on coherence – but also a cautionary note about reform done in haste.
From Victoria, we can learn how dual-sector approaches can break down artificial barriers between vocational and academic education, allowing true lifelong learning and mobility. In some areas this already happening; Greater Manchester Colleges is already well underway taking positive action with local universities to collaborate more effectively as a tertiary education network.
A call for boldness and care
Of course, no international model is perfect. Both New Zealand and Victoria face challenges around funding, quality assurance and public perception. But they share a willingness to attempt systemic solutions rather than piecemeal fixes
Our FE sector needs the same boldness, but also the humility to plan reforms carefully with genuine sector engagement. Rather than tinkering with qualifications or funding rules in isolation, we should ask: what would a genuinely unified tertiary system look like here? And how might we design it to serve learners, communities, and the economy for the long term?
We can either remain in our silos, managing complexity and division, or we can learn from our colleagues abroad – daring to imagine a joined-up system, but ensuring that if we do it, we do it properly.
Your thoughts