Recommendations & Conclusions
12 items
8
Conclusion
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
We welcome the Government’s plans to deepen and widen the devolution of skills and employment support in England. Devolving further powers to Strategic Authorities will help to drive growth, encourage the co- ordinated delivery of education and training services across the country, and meet the unique needs of local communities. …
Read more
We welcome the Government’s plans to deepen and widen the devolution of skills and employment support in England. Devolving further powers to Strategic Authorities will help to drive growth, encourage the co- ordinated delivery of education and training services across the country, and meet the unique needs of local communities. It is disappointing, however, that the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, as introduced, limits the devolution of skills and employment support to those aged 19 and over and does not make provision for the devolution of 16–19 education and training. Furthermore, it is important to ensure that every part of the country benefits from further devolution and that no area is left behind, regardless of its status within the devolution process. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the implicit suggestion to devolve 16-19 education funding, stating it is important to maintain a national, consistently high-quality offer to promote social mobility. It confirms Mayors will continue to feed priorities into DfE's strategic conversations and LSIPs for 16-19 year olds.
Read full response →
Department for Education
9
Recommendation
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
The Government should broaden its commitment to “devolution by default” by devolving appropriate 16–19 education and training, skills programmes and funding streams to each Strategic Authority. We recommend that the 91 Government amends the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to make provision for the devolution of 16–19 education and …
Read more
The Government should broaden its commitment to “devolution by default” by devolving appropriate 16–19 education and training, skills programmes and funding streams to each Strategic Authority. We recommend that the 91 Government amends the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill to make provision for the devolution of 16–19 education and training. (Recommendation, Paragraph 42)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to devolve 16-19 education and training, stating it is important to maintain a consistent national offer to promote social mobility, but commits to working with Mayoral Strategic Authorities on aligning priorities.
Read full response →
Department for Education
14
Recommendation
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
We recommend that the Government expands eligibility for the Youth Guarantee to include all 16–24-year-olds so that all young people are given the same opportunities to re-enter education or access employment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 57)
Government response AI summary
The government outlines the existing Youth Guarantee for 18-21 year olds and highlights various current support mechanisms for 16-24 year olds, thereby not committing to expanding the Youth Guarantee itself to include all 16-24 year olds.
Read full response →
Department for Education
23
Recommendation
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
We recommend the introduction of modular or smaller-sized T Level qualifications (e.g. equivalent to one A Level) to enable students to study a blend of academic and technical qualifications and allow more flexible entry and exit points. Employers should be involved more closely at the curriculum-design stage of these modular …
Read more
We recommend the introduction of modular or smaller-sized T Level qualifications (e.g. equivalent to one A Level) to enable students to study a blend of academic and technical qualifications and allow more flexible entry and exit points. Employers should be involved more closely at the curriculum-design stage of these modular qualifications to ensure T Level programmes align with industry needs. (Recommendation, Paragraph 91)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it will introduce V Levels, a new vocational pathway, alongside A Levels and T Levels, which will allow students to explore sectors and combine applied learning with practical assessment. This differs from the recommended modular T Level qualifications.
Read full response →
Department for Education
25
Recommendation
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
Level 3 qualifications—including Applied General Qualifications—which provide students with a popular and respected alternative to both A Levels and T Levels must remain an option for all young people. The Government must publicly commit to the long-term retention of these qualifications and to providing sustained funding for them. We hope …
Read more
Level 3 qualifications—including Applied General Qualifications—which provide students with a popular and respected alternative to both A Levels and T Levels must remain an option for all young people. The Government must publicly commit to the long-term retention of these qualifications and to providing sustained funding for them. We hope this will go some way to address the extreme instability the sector has endured during the recent reviews by the current and previous Government. (Recommendation, Paragraph 100)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government proposes introducing V Levels as a new vocational pathway alongside A levels and T Levels, as outlined in its Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper. A consultation on post-16 Level 3 and below pathways is currently underway, with a response expected later in …
Read full response →
Department for Education
26
Conclusion
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
The Department for Education should ensure that post-16 students are able to pursue a mixture of A Levels, Applied General Qualifications and T Levels in order to support more tailored and inclusive educational pathways. Providing students with the flexibility to combine different forms of post-16 qualifications would better reflect individual …
Read more
The Department for Education should ensure that post-16 students are able to pursue a mixture of A Levels, Applied General Qualifications and T Levels in order to support more tailored and inclusive educational pathways. Providing students with the flexibility to combine different forms of post-16 qualifications would better reflect individual learner needs and open up a wider range of future pathways. (Recommendation, Paragraph 101)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government's Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper proposes a new V Level pathway alongside A Levels and T Levels. It also notes an ongoing consultation on post-16 Level 3 and below pathways, with a government response expected in 2026, indicating a different strategy for …
Read full response →
Department for Education
44
Recommendation
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
We recommend that the Department for Education introduces a 16–19 student premium for disadvantaged post-16 students. This funding should be pegged to the Pupil Premium and would be a targeted investment for post-16 students who have been eligible for the Pupil Premium in the last six years. The Department should …
Read more
We recommend that the Department for Education introduces a 16–19 student premium for disadvantaged post-16 students. This funding should be pegged to the Pupil Premium and would be a targeted investment for post-16 students who have been eligible for the Pupil Premium in the last six years. The Department should monitor the effectiveness of this premium on education outcomes and publish its findings. (Recommendation, Paragraph 170)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the introduction of a new 16-19 student premium, stating it already funds existing financial support programmes for 16-19 year olds, including the Bursary Fund and other support mechanisms.
Read full response →
Department for Education
58
Conclusion
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
We also recommend that the Department for Education provides a one-off capital grant for specialist SEND colleges to address serious and urgent concerns around the condition of buildings and facilities. Furthermore, the Department must create a ring-fenced High Needs Fund for specialist SEND colleges at the national level to reduce …
Read more
We also recommend that the Department for Education provides a one-off capital grant for specialist SEND colleges to address serious and urgent concerns around the condition of buildings and facilities. Furthermore, the Department must create a ring-fenced High Needs Fund for specialist SEND colleges at the national level to reduce reliance on local authority discretion, which currently leads to additional administrative costs, duplication and waste. (Recommendation, Paragraph 213)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states existing annual funding mechanisms apply to special post-16 institutions but explicitly rejects creating a ring-fenced national High Needs Fund for specialist SEND colleges, stating local authorities determine priorities for un-ringfenced capital funding.
Read full response →
Department for Education
59
Recommendation
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
Whilst academies and schools with sixth forms do not have to pay VAT, FE colleges and standalone sixth form colleges are not eligible for refunds in the VAT they incur on their expenditure. As colleges were reclassified as public bodies in 2022, this arrangement is unjustifiable and FE colleges and …
Read more
Whilst academies and schools with sixth forms do not have to pay VAT, FE colleges and standalone sixth form colleges are not eligible for refunds in the VAT they incur on their expenditure. As colleges were reclassified as public bodies in 2022, this arrangement is unjustifiable and FE colleges and sixth form colleges should now benefit from a VAT exemption, which would align them with other post-16 education providers. (Conclusion, Paragraph 219)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation for VAT exemption for FE colleges, explaining that while education services are exempt, many public bodies cannot recover VAT on their expenditure, and any changes would need to be considered within broader public finances.
Read full response →
Department for Education
60
Conclusion
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
The Department for Education must make the case to the Treasury that all FE providers—including FE colleges and sixth form colleges—be exempt from paying VAT on expenditure. The Department must update this Committee in writing on the outcome of these discussions by April 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 220)
Read more
The Department for Education must make the case to the Treasury that all FE providers—including FE colleges and sixth form colleges—be exempt from paying VAT on expenditure. The Department must update this Committee in writing on the outcome of these discussions by April 2026. (Recommendation, Paragraph 220)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states the recommendation is 'NOT TAKEN FORWARD,' explaining that while education services are exempt, colleges cannot recover VAT on expenditure like many public bodies, and any tax system changes require broader public finance considerations.
Read full response →
Department for Education
61
Conclusion
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
There is a growing pay disparity between school and college teachers in England, with college staff earning significantly less—on average college teachers earn 15% less. This issue has led to staff dissatisfaction and has contributed to the recruitment and retention crisis. Whilst school-teacher pay is centrally reviewed and funded, college …
Read more
There is a growing pay disparity between school and college teachers in England, with college staff earning significantly less—on average college teachers earn 15% less. This issue has led to staff dissatisfaction and has contributed to the recruitment and retention crisis. Whilst school-teacher pay is centrally reviewed and funded, college teacher pay decisions can be fragmented and underfunded, leading to inconsistent and often inadequate pay increases. Although recent Government funding has been welcomed, it has been described as a temporary fix rather than a structural solution to the long-standing inequity in pay. (Conclusion, Paragraph 227)
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly states it has "no plans to establish a dedicated pay review body" for further education, asserting colleges are responsible for setting pay. It highlights recent and planned investment to support colleges in addressing staffing challenges.
Read full response →
Department for Education
62
Recommendation
6th Report - Further Education and Skil…
Rejected
We recommend that the Department for Education establishes a statutory pay review body for colleges comparable to the School Teachers’ Review Body. This body should provide independent, evidence-based pay recommendations for teachers and staff and help to ensure equity of pay across the post-16 education sector. The Department for Education …
Read more
We recommend that the Department for Education establishes a statutory pay review body for colleges comparable to the School Teachers’ Review Body. This body should provide independent, evidence-based pay recommendations for teachers and staff and help to ensure equity of pay across the post-16 education sector. The Department for Education must commit to closing the gap in pay between college teachers and their school counterparts within the current Comprehensive Spending Review period. The Department must keep the Committee regularly updated on its progress in meeting this commitment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 228) 102
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects establishing a statutory pay review body and committing to close the pay gap, asserting that FE colleges are responsible for setting pay, though it outlines other support for recruitment and retention.
Read full response →
Department for Education