Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer chaired a panel reviewing post-18 education and funding for the May government
An English education was once globally renowned — albeit more for elite high flyers than for other people. Our current system, while containing world-class universities, has long failed those who do not take the academic route. Now, and at last, a government has laid out a plan to put this right — improving the existing system without needlessly ripping up the work of prior administrations. This is how government is meant to work in mature democracies.
And urgent intervention in our skills system is much needed because, despite some brilliant institutions and committed teachers, post-16 education in England is a mess.
There are a million young people not in employment, education or training in the UK. Part time and adult education has collapsed. Many further and higher education institutions are loss making. Skills gaps hamper productivity.
But last week’s skills white paper has the potential — note the word potential — to provide a lasting solution. The bulk of future funding will focus on those aged 16-19 who have been left behind in literacy and numeracy. It’s the right place to start since this group is large by international standards. And, once in it, people tend to get stuck, draining public resources and 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.
