Making Further Education fit for the Future?

The Parliamentary Education Committee has set up an enquiry – Making Further Education fit for the Future? https://committees.parliament.uk/call-for-evidence/3576/

Any enquiry into this forgotten sector is to be welcome, but its title is rather a misnomer – it isn’t really a enquiry about FE at all.  As its subtitle and the initial terms of reference for the curriculum makes clear, it’s largely concerned with the 16-19 age group and the quality and status of vocational/technical education at level 3, covering a range of issues from assessment to T-levels.  (It’s expected these will be also be addressed by the more high-profile National Curriculum Review.)

Given this, the Rt Hon Members will not be enquiring about the large numbers of FE students not in this age group (up to million are well over 19) nor following level 3 courses of study: or retaking GCSEs in Math’s and English, also highlighted in the terms of reference.

Neither does the Committee appear to understand that a large proportion of 16 -19-year-olds study in the school sector – this could soon be the majority, as more sixth-form colleges seek ‘academy’ status which at least promises greater funding as well as better pay for staff (over a third of these colleges have already converted).

Asking (as the terms of reference do) whether the additional £300 million made available in Labour’s first budget is ‘sufficient’ would be even more laughable if the enquiry was planning to address the whole of FE sector.  As it stands,  if the entire amount were directed to 16–19 education, it would just about maintain funding per student at current levels in real terms. Meanwhile, total spending on adult skills is around 23 per cent below 2009–10 levels, even after accounting for recent funding increases. Classroom-based adult education has experienced some of the sharpest reductions, with real-terms funding levels over 40 per cent lower than in 2009–10.

Arguably, the intended focus on ‘skills’ translates into a specific desire to improve apprenticeships.  But this only adds to a more general misunderstanding, by equating apprenticeships with FE. The reality is that well over half of ‘off- the-job’ training for level 2 and 3 (levels that 16–19-year-olds are more likely to be found on) is delivered by private providers, not colleges.  

In addition, there’s little awareness of the fact that less than a third of apprenticeships starts are by under 19s or of the rapid growth at Level 5 and 6 (graduate level and above) where the university sector, not FE, is far more likely to be the provider.

It does refer to the need to improve access to education and training, but again the emphasis is on removing barriers that groups of disadvantaged young people encounter when moving on to post-16. More likely it’s a reflection of wider government paranoia about the one million plus NEETs and the implications of ‘economic inactivity’ for low-level labour market shortages and the welfare bill.