Unlock Editor's Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The author chaired a panel looking at post-18 education and funding for the May government
English education was once known worldwide – although more for elite high-flyers than for other people. While our current system has world-class universities, it has long failed those who do not pursue the academic route. Now, finally, a government has put forward a plan to fix this – to improve the existing system without unnecessarily destroying the work of previous governments. This is how government is supposed to work in mature democracies.
And urgent intervention in our qualifications system is urgently needed because, despite some brilliant institutions and dedicated teachers, post-16 education in England is a mess.
There are one million young people in the UK who are not in work, education or training. Part-time and adult education has collapsed. Many secondary and higher educational institutions are making losses. Skills gaps affect productivity.
But last week’s skills white paper has the potential – note the word potential – to provide a lasting solution. The majority of future funding will focus on those aged 16 to 19 who are lagging behind in literacy and numeracy. This is the right starting point as this group is large by international standards. And once you're in, people often get stuck, draining public resources and productivity.
In the upper age range, those school and college graduates who want to continue their education, have the right exam grades, but are unsure where or what to study are offered an alternative to three-year bachelor's degrees. Using lifelong learning legislation passed by the previous government, credit-funded shorter technical and vocational courses at universities and further education institutions will help meet Prime Minister Keir Starmer's new target of two-thirds of young people achieving a degree or higher technical qualification.
But as both higher education and FE colleges point out, nothing works if it is not properly funded. With public finances under pressure, ministers' plan contains a clear statement of the government's financing principles in a single key paragraph. In this, the state takes responsibility for financing general education up to the age of 18. Older people are expected to invest in their own education through student loans (covered and supplemented by the state). Responsibility for adult skills training is placed on employers through the existing levy system – fed by public money and learner contributions.
Short of offering free education for life to all, which is probably unaffordable in the current circumstances, this seems to be the best option available. But other questions remain. Decentralizing the adult skills fund, which has fallen down the priority list, may work, but the devolved regions are still a work in progress. Employers themselves spend less on training. A new competence agency and competence committees for industrial sectors create a complex picture.
Ministers' friendly rhetoric about FE colleges has been reinforced by previously announced capital investment and some valuable staff training and retention initiatives. Universities will have the opportunity to create new revenue streams through modular lifelong learning courses. But the funding rate for adult skills training is dangerously low – and will remain so as government funding declines. This is the shadow over the government's further training strategy. Are warm words really enough?
British universities are rightly being praised for their global reputation and economic contribution, and are being rewarded with a long overdue, future-proof, index-linked increase in tuition fees. The tone is more positive, but the sector is being sent a message that is not significantly different from that of previous governments: government support comes with the expectation of better student outcomes, stronger financial management and more robust governance.
The paper acknowledges that many universities are making losses, but points out that this is partly self-inflicted and due to the prevailing one-size-fits-all model. By encouraging institutions to collaborate and specialize, it creates a subtle vision of a different landscape. Specialization by subject, teaching and research is not an admission of failure. The government is sending a signal. Vice-chancellors would be wise to listen.
Funding gaps and implementation challenges remain. But with its system-wide approach, this strategy is the best I've ever seen. It deserves support.