Three things Andy Burnham must do for colleges first

Well, here we go again. The country is set for its seventh prime minister in ten years, with Andy Burnham almost certain to take office next month. Understandably, there is widespread speculation about what a Burnham government would mean for education and 101 other issues.

So much to do, so little time. With an election due before 2029, the new administration will have to prioritise the areas it wants to change while also ensuring that change is delivered quickly.

What is that likely to mean for 16 to 19 education? As FE Week summarised last week, Burnham both understands and values the sector. He was also a supporter of the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign and has worked hard to raise the status of post-16 education.

In practical terms, there are three changes a Burnham government could make that would have an immediate and positive impact on 16 to 19 year olds in England.

1. Introduce a real terms, real time, funding guarantee.

The 16 to 19 funding rate should increase by at least the rate of inflation each year. That should not be a controversial ask, but despite the commitment made in October to “maintain real terms per-student funding in the next academic year”, per-student funding will actually increase by just 1.66 per cent in 2026-27 (and the all-important core funding rate by only 0.5 per cent).

Ministers have deployed the unconventional defence of insisting its real terms commitment has been met, because this increase matches the inaccurate forecast of inflation made at the time.

As a country, we must be able to fund the growing number of young people participating in education (by reducing the number not in education, education or training and responding to demographic growth) without impoverishing their experience when they get there.

A real terms funding guarantee (focused on the core rate), combined with a commitment to fund increases in student numbers in real time (early in the same academic year) would end the current trade-off between participation and quality while preserving the financial stability of institutions.

2. Take the time to get V levels right

We welcome the introduction of V levels as a high-status qualification that will sit alongside A levels and T levels at level 3. But it is important to take the time to get them right.

The first three V levels will be rolled out next year. But at the time of writing, content, assessment, grading and UCAS points for these qualifications have still not been confirmed.

Our members are very concerned about the impact such a rushed implementation will have on the first cohort of V level students.

It would be straightforward for a Burnham government to delay the rollout of V Levels and use the time to revisit some of their fundamental features. For example, there is a near-universal view among our members that V Levels should be available in larger sizes.

Research presented at our summer conference based on student data from our members showed that after controlling for prior attainment, the two qualification pathways with the worst retention rates are T levels and three extended certificates (the same size as V Levels). The pathways with the best retention rates are those that will not be available as V Levels: extended diplomas and diplomas plus another qualification.

Removing these larger size vocational qualifications is much more likely to hinder, rather than help, Alan Milburn’s mission to reduce NEET numbers.

The priority here is to make the right changes in a realistic timeframe.

3. Start a devolution revolution

Andy Burnham’s position on devolution is well known. But we are making the case for a different type of devolution – one that sees more autonomy and responsibility being extended to colleges.

Governments love to talk about slashing red tape on business, but the opposite approach has been taken with colleges – new duties and requirements are imposed on a regular basis, with existing duties and requirements rarely removed.

Burnham has created a business-friendly environment in Greater Manchester. Business leaders in the city would be aghast if they saw the environment that colleges operate in. Perhaps one could be persuaded to undertake an independent review of the bureaucratic burden placed on colleges?

The revolution we would like to see involves replacing government micro-management (national or devolved) with a high-trust model of delivery where college leaders have the freedom to tailor their curriculum and resources to meet the individual needs of students.

This is one area where a new administration can achieve a lot more, by doing a lot less.