Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The author led a panel assessing post-18 education and funding under the May administration.

Once hailed globally, the English education system was historically more celebrated for its elite institutions than for its inclusivity. While it boasts some of the world’s top universities, the system has often neglected those pursuing non-academic paths. However, a new government initiative aims to address these shortcomings, enhancing the current framework without dismantling previous efforts. This approach exemplifies the expected operation of governments in established democracies.

The necessity for urgent reform in our skills education is evident, as England’s post-16 system is in disarray, despite the existence of exceptional institutions and dedicated educators.

In the UK, approximately one million young individuals are not engaged in employment, education, or training. Part-time and adult education programs have dwindled, and many further and higher education institutions are financially struggling. Skills shortages continue to impede productivity.

The recently unveiled skills white paper holds the promise — emphasis on promise — of offering a sustainable solution. The primary focus of future funding will be on 16 to 19-year-olds who have been left behind in basic literacy and numeracy skills. Targeting this demographic is crucial, as it is notably large compared to international standards. Without intervention, this group often remains stagnant, consuming public resources and affecting overall productivity.

Higher up the age range, those school and college leavers wishing to continue their education, with the right exam grades but unsure where or what to study, will be offered an alternative to three-year undergraduate degrees. Using life-long learning legislation passed by the previous government, loan-funded shorter technical and vocational courses at universities and further education colleges will contribute to the new target set by Prime Minister Keir Starmer — two-thirds of young people achieving a degree or higher technical qualification.

But, as both higher education institutions and FE colleges point out, nothing works unless it is properly funded. With public finances under pressure, the plan from ministers gives a clear statement of the government’s funding principles in a single important paragraph. In it, the state accepts responsibility for funding universal education up to the age of 18. Older individuals are expected to invest in their own education through student loans (underwritten and supplemented by the state). The onus for adult skills training is placed on employers through the existing levy system — juiced with public money and learners’ contributions.

Short of offering free lifetime education for all, which is probably unaffordable in current circumstances, this looks like the best available option. But other questions remain. Devolving the adult skills fund, which has dropped down the priority list, may work, but the devolved regions are a work in progress. Employers themselves are spending less on training. A new skills agency, along with skills bodies for industry sectors, makes for a complex picture. 

Friendly rhetoric from ministers about FE colleges has been reinforced by previously announced capital investment and some valuable training and retention initiatives for staff. Colleges will have the opportunity to build new revenue streams from modular life-long learning courses. But the funding rate for adult skills training is perilously low — and with diminishing state funding it will remain so. This is the cloud hanging over the government’s further education strategy. Are warm words really going to be enough?

British universities are rightly praised for their global standing and economic contribution and will be rewarded with a long overdue, future-proof, index-linked tuition fee increase. The tone is more positive but the sector is being given a message not much different from that of previous governments: state support comes with expectations of better student outcomes, stronger financial management and more robust governance.

The paper acknowledges that many universities are loss making but implies that this is partly self-inflicted through the prevailing one-size-fits-all model. By encouraging institutions to collaborate and specialise, it lays out a subtle vision of a different landscape. Specialisation by subject, teaching and research is not an admission of failure. The government is sending a signal. Vice-chancellors would be well advised to listen.

Funding gaps and implementation challenges remain. But with its system wide approach, this strategy is the best I have seen. It deserves support.