6th Report - Further Education and Skills

Given the primacy of the Government’s economic growth mission, and the emphasis the Government has placed on a high-functioning and forward- looking skills system to deliver that mission, the comparison between the status of Skills England on the one hand and organisations such as the Met Office and the DVLA on the other is a weak one. Skills England has been given the crucial role of transforming skills opportunities and driving growth and it is vital that it is able to work impartially and, if necessary, challenge Government policy. We were concerned, therefore, by the reluctance of the Chairs and CEOs of Skills England to comment on the adequacy of funding for the FE sector when they gave oral evidence. Furthermore, without a statutory foundation, Skills England may be altered or abolished by this or any future Government and without the consent of Parliament. (Conclusion, Paragraph 17)

As an Executive Agency, Skills England is accountable to the Department for Education and therefore answerable to Parliament through this Committee. We will hold Skills England to account through annual accountability sessions and urge subsequent Education Committees to continue this practice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 18)

We recommend that the Department for Education commits to an independent review of Skills England within two years of it becoming fully operational—by June 2027—with a commitment to legislate further to ensure full independence if necessary. (Recommendation, Paragraph 19)

We have heard serious concerns that the role of Chief Executive Officer at Skills England is too junior within the civil service hierarchy. The director- level status given to the holders of that position may limit their ability to influence those working across Government and undermine the authority they need to perform their duties effectively. Whilst the joint CEOs said the role aligns with equivalent positions in similar agencies, we believe that the Chief Executive Officers’ strategic leadership and the responsibility they have been given to oversee the Government’s national skills policies demand greater seniority. (Conclusion, Paragraph 24) 90

We recommend that the Department for Education reviews the status of Skills England’s Chief Executive Officers in June 2026—twelve months after Skills England became fully operational—to ensure they have been given the right level of seniority and that they have been able to perform their cross-departmental duties freely and effectively. The CEO position must be regraded if it is clear that seniority issues have prevented them from performing their duties constructively. (Recommendation, Paragraph 25)

Skills England has been broadly welcomed by the further education and skills sectors. We agree with the Government’s priorities for Skills England, including identifying national and local skills needs, simplifying access to training, and collaborating with employers and training providers to develop mutually beneficial solutions. However, Skills England must address the issues our evidence has raised, including a lack of data collection and information sharing, a complex levy system that disadvantages SMEs, and a lack of urgency and clear communication over the training programmes to be funded by the Growth and Skills Levy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)

To meet its priorities, Skills England must within a year of becoming fully operational—by June 2026—enhance data collection and sharing through a centralised platform that tracks skills gaps and training outcomes. Within two years—by June 2027—Skills England should deliver reform of the complex levy system to ensure SMEs can access funding, with simplified processes and tailored support. Skills England must also provide clear communication about Growth and Skills Levy-funded programmes for employers and learners. (Recommendation, Paragraph 31) Devolution

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)

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)

The Government should consider utilising the trailblazer model to pilot a more comprehensive skills devolution programme and report back to the Committee. (Recommendation, Paragraph 43)

Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs) have been effective in aligning employer needs with education and training provision, and in utilising and developing local partnerships. LSIPs are a relatively new initiative and will need time to become fully established. However, those most closely involved in their production and facilitation have already identified some potential challenges which the Government should address. It can be difficult for employers and providers to navigate LSIPs in a crowded landscape of overlapping initiatives and there is a perception that local partnerships are not always balanced. (Conclusion, Paragraph 50)

We recommend that the Department for Education conducts a policy audit to identify overlaps between LSIPs and other skills initiatives in order to streamline LSIPs and make them more coherent and easier to navigate. We also recommend that the Department for Education considers how local partnerships between Employer Representative Bodies, FE providers, local authorities, Skills England and others can be rationalised and strengthened. The Department must set out within a year how it will ensure that there are formal criteria for each of these groups to follow when contributing towards their Local Skills Improvement Plans and that transparent decision-making processes are in place. (Recommendation, Paragraph 51)

The number of young people currently not in education, employment or training (NEET) in England is unacceptable both for the life chances of young people and for economic growth. The Government’s Youth Guarantee goes some way to support 18–21-year-olds to access education, training and employment opportunities. However, it will only benefit those in the narrow 18–21 age group, excluding young people aged 16–17 and 22–24. (Conclusion, Paragraph 56)

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)

Funding for adult education programmes has largely been devolved over the last decade which has provided local areas with more control, but it has also led to a disparate and uneven adult skills landscape. Some authorities have more powers than others, co-ordination between areas is not always smooth, and employers can find it difficult to get 92 involved. On top of this, differences in funding rules and course approvals make it difficult for providers to run consistent, scalable programmes. (Conclusion, Paragraph 63)

We recommend that the Department for Education and Skills England create a Skills Co-ordination Board by April 2026. Local areas must be given the flexibility to develop and implement their own tailor-made strategies on adult education and training; the purpose of the Skills Co- ordination Board therefore would be to oversee and co-ordinate regional strategies with national sector needs across the increasingly devolved skills landscape. The Skills Co-ordination Board would be responsible for driving quality of skills services in each region and ensuring there is consistency of effectiveness across local areas and no area is left behind. (Recommendation, Paragraph 64) Post-16 qualifications and pathways

There is a stark disparity between how post-16 technical and vocational education and training pathways are presented to pupils and how academic pathways are presented, and fundamental differences in the levels of support and guidance that students receive about each. The Baker Clause and the provider access legislation are meant to ensure that school pupils are introduced to a diverse range of post-16 options, yet compliance with these statutory requirements is inconsistent. The support and intervention measures that already exist to ensure compliance with these provisions should be strengthened if levels of compliance do not improve. (Conclusion, Paragraph 73)

We recommend that Department for Education publishes an annual report on the number and proportion of schools that are complying with the Baker Clause and provider access legislation, and assesses the reasons for non-compliance. The proposed work to be carried out by the Careers and Enterprise Company to map compliance should be comprehensive, transparent, it must consider pupils’ experiences, and it should be published. The Department should report annually on the action that has been taken to intervene to ensure compliance with the Baker Clause and provider access legislation, and should consider whether the threshold for intervention should be lowered. (Recommendation, Paragraph 74)

Information about post-16 pathways can be fragmented, with no single platform covering both academic and vocational options. Apprenticeship applications are particularly complex due to the absence of a national framework and regional inconsistencies. Additionally, vocational application timelines are misaligned with university admissions, making it difficult for 93 young people to consider all options equally. These issues contribute to a lack of parity of esteem, with academic routes appearing more accessible and structured than vocational alternatives. (Conclusion, Paragraph 75)

We recommend that the remit of UCAS be expanded to offer a single source of information for all routes, including academic and vocational pathways. Application timelines for vocational courses, including apprenticeships, should better align with those for university admissions. Apprenticeship applications can be complex, and the availability of vacancies is not standardised. To address this, the Government should consider developing regional portals that integrate with the national admissions service. This would enable students to consider and compare their options simultaneously, rather than being influenced by staggered deadlines. (Recommendation, Paragraph 76)

T Levels are a relatively new programme of study, and they should be given adequate time to develop and gain traction. However, if T Levels are to become the “gold-standard technical qualification” the Government must urgently address a number of challenges. T Level programmes have low retention rates compared to A Level and Applied General Qualification courses; the ineffectiveness of the T Level transition programmes; responses to student surveys suggest there can be poor levels of student satisfaction; there is limited understanding and awareness of the purpose and value of T Levels among students, parents and employers. (Conclusion, Paragraph 89)

We recommend that the Department for Education launches a national awareness campaign for T Levels, targeting students, parents and employers. The purpose and benefits of T Levels should be set out clearly from secondary school stage onwards. Parity of esteem between A Levels and T Levels should run through all communications, guidance and advice to schools, teachers, parents and students. The Department for Education should consider overhauling the T Level transition programme. (Recommendation, Paragraph 90)

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)

There remains uncertainty for both students and colleges around the long- term availability of level 3 qualifications that had previously been earmarked for defunding. Despite a temporary extension of funding until 2027, the sector remains in limbo, without the clarity it needs to plan ahead. Level 3 qualifications which provide an alternative to A Levels and T Levels are 94 essential. The Government’s review into level 3 qualifications reform lacked transparency and an appropriate level of consultation with stakeholders. (Conclusion, Paragraph 99)

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)

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)

The Department for Education must improve the way in which it communicates with the FE sector about any future reform of qualifications, for example by ensuring that the terms of reference are published and that there is open and transparent engagement. Timescales for any future reforms should be set specifically to avoid uncertainty and disruption for providers and students. The Government should evaluate the impact its review into level 3 qualifications reform had on students and colleges and be more transparent in the way it conducts such reviews in future. (Recommendation, Paragraph 102)

The current requirement for all post-16 students who have not achieved a grade 4 or above in GCSE English and maths to continue to study those subjects alongside their other studies is not working for the majority of post- 16 students and the Government must change it. Despite a modest rise in overall attainment over the past ten years, the progression rate from age 16 to 19 remains low, with over 80% of those who did not achieve grade 4 at 16 still not achieving that grade by 19. This policy can be demoralising for students and puts a huge strain on colleges and their staff. Whilst ensuring that students continue to make progress in literacy and numeracy is important, an alternative approach is needed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 112)

We recommend the introduction of a three-route model for those who have not attained grade 4 GCSE in maths and/or English based on their level of attainment at age 16 and their chosen post-16 qualification or employment pathway: 95 • Route A: Students who, based on their GCSE results at age 16 and prior attainment, have a realistic prospect of achieving grade 4 in maths and/or English, should be supported to work towards those qualifications. • Route B: Vocational courses of study, for which the maths and English content required can be easily identified, should have that content built into the curriculum. Students taking courses with embedded maths and English content, which have been rigorously quality assured, may then be considered for exemption from the requirement to resit maths and English GCSE. • Route C: Students who, based on prior attainment, are very unlikely to attain grade 4 in maths and/or English despite multiple resits and who would benefit from pursuing a functional skills qualification in maths and/or English—for example, focused on financial literacy, debt and interest, and household budgeting—should be supported to achieve a pass in that form of qualification. (Recommendation, Paragraph 113)

The Department for Education must take action to address the resit problem at source by ensuring that more children leave school with sufficient levels of numeracy and literacy. As part of its response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, the Department must examine the reasons for the low pass rates in GCSE maths and English at age 16 and take steps to improve them. (Recommendation, Paragraph 114) Apprenticeships

We welcome the Government’s reforms of the apprenticeship system and the introduction of the Growth and Skills Levy. The former apprenticeship levy was seen by some organisations—particularly small and medium- sized businesses—as being part of an overly complex and inflexible apprenticeship system. However, for many prospective apprentices and employers, the pathway to an apprenticeship remains unclear, bureaucratic and discouraging. The process must be simplified if the Government is to boost enrolment in apprenticeships and promote higher-paid jobs in key sectors. (Conclusion, Paragraph 124)

We recommend that the Department for Education simplifies the apprenticeship system for employers and prospective apprentices in order to increase participation. By April 2026, it must create a streamlined application and reporting process tailored for businesses, and provide dedicated support and guidance to help Small and Medium-sized 96 Enterprises (SMEs) navigate the system. This support and guidance should include information on how to create a good experience for apprentices. (Recommendation, Paragraph 125)

Foundation apprenticeships have been welcomed by the sector. However, whilst these shorter apprenticeships rightly aim to help young people enter critical sectors, there are concerns about the Government’s decision not to target “everyday sectors”, such as the hospitality, retail and care sectors, when they were rolled out in August 2025; these sectors are major employers of young people and often serve as entry points into the workforce. Instead, the focus of foundation apprenticeships is on the eight growth-driving sectors identified by the Government in its industrial strategy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 130)

We recommend that the Department for Education expands the foundation apprenticeship scheme to include the hospitality, retail and care sectors— as well as other high-demand sectors for young people—by April 2026. The purpose of foundation and other shorter apprenticeships must be made clear to prospective apprentices and employers, including routes to further progression. Clear communication and guidance must be provided and maintained by the Department for Education and Skills England. (Recommendation, Paragraph 131)

The current apprenticeship system faces inconsistencies as a result of recent changes to maths and English requirements for those aged 19 and over. Whilst removing the requirement for adult apprentices to attain grade 4 maths and English before completing their apprenticeships may increase participation, it also risks widening existing literacy and numeracy gaps, and creating age-based inequalities. Changes to the maths and English requirements based on age increases the likelihood that employers take on adult apprentices, who now have fewer requirements, than apprentices aged 16 to 18. Adult apprentices without a good foundation in literacy and numeracy may also face barriers to their progression. (Conclusion, Paragraph 138)

We recommend the introduction of a three-route model for all apprentices who have not attained grade 4 GCSE in maths and/or English based on their level of attainment at age 16 and their chosen apprenticeship: • Route A: Apprentices who, based on their GCSE results at age 16 and prior attainment, have a realistic prospect of achieving grade 4 in maths and/or English should be supported to work towards those qualifications. 97 • Route B: Apprenticeships, for which the maths and English content required can be easily identified, should have that content built into the apprenticeship programme. Apprentices working towards a qualification with embedded maths and English content, which have been rigorously quality assured, may then be considered for exemption from the requirement to resit maths and English GCSE. • Route C: Apprentices who, based on prior attainment, are very unlikely to attain grade 4 in maths and/or English despite multiple resits and who would benefit from pursuing a functional skills qualification in maths and/or English should be supported to achieve a pass in that form of qualification. (Recommendation, Paragraph 139)

The evidence received by the Committee is overwhelmingly opposed to the Government’s decision not to fund level 7 apprenticeships for those aged 22 and over through the Growth and Skills Levy. The defunding of these apprenticeships will reduce uptake—particularly in key sectors such as healthcare—widen existing skills shortages, and limit career progression for many. (Conclusion, Paragraph 148)

We recommend that the Department for Education re-introduces levy funding for level 7 apprenticeships for all ages within the eight growth- driving sectors and for regulated professions, such as healthcare. (Recommendation, Paragraph 149)

The Department must monitor the impact of defunding all other level 7 apprenticeships for those aged 22 and over and be willing to reintroduce levy funding where necessary. (Recommendation, Paragraph 150) Supporting further education students

Poor mental health is a growing crisis for young people, with rising rates of anxiety, depression and eating disorders—particularly for those aged 17 to 19. The Government has pledged specialist mental health support in all schools and colleges, but the rollout of Mental Health Support Teams (MHSTs) has been slow—only 41% of post-16 students are currently covered. There is an urgent need for increased investment, faster implementation of MHSTs, and earlier intervention and personalised support. (Conclusion, Paragraph 159)

The Government’s pledge of 100% MHST coverage by 2029–30 must be met and must include all post-16 students and trainees. We recommend that Government accelerates the rollout of Mental Health Support Teams with a particular focus on expanding coverage for post-16 settings, which has not kept pace with coverage for primary and secondary schools. In addition to 98 publishing the number and proportion of schools and post-16 settings with access to MHSTs, the Government must monitor, evaluate and publish the impact of this roll out. (Recommendation, Paragraph 160)

The Government must improve access to Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and adult mental health services for those children and young people with more severe mental health conditions and whose education is often interrupted for months or years at a time by the long waits for services and treatment. (Recommendation, Paragraph 161)

On average, economically disadvantaged students aged 16–19 do not perform as well as their peers or achieve the same educational outcomes. Per-pupil funding drops sharply after the age of 16, creating a cliff edge that limits support for disadvantaged students. Existing bursaries for disadvantaged students aged 16–19 are insufficient and inconsistently distributed. There is compelling evidence for the introduction of a student premium to match secondary school funding levels. Without targeted investment, disadvantaged learners risk falling further behind academically and professionally. (Conclusion, Paragraph 169)

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)

We also recommend that the Department utilises local authority-level data to identify and address the unique barriers in areas in which attainment across qualification pathways (including A Levels, T Levels, AGQs) is below the national average. (Recommendation, Paragraph 171)

SEND policy is currently overseen by the Minister for School Standards whilst further education policy lies with the Minister for Skills. This split in ministerial responsibility has led to the neglect of FE SEND policy, as well as inefficiencies, limited accountability and policy fragmentation. Specialist further education should have its own ministerial brief and be included in the Minister for Skills’ portfolio. (Conclusion, Paragraph 175)

We recommend that the Department for Education consolidates FE SEND policy under the Minister for Skills’ portfolio. (Recommendation, Paragraph 176)

Local authorities in England are not legally required to provide free transport for the majority post-16 students with SEND, leading to inconsistent and often inadequate support. Financial pressures have 99 caused many councils to restrict eligibility and reduce services, making access to education more difficult for affected students. Families face complex application processes and increasing financial burdens. We have also heard about the benefits of offering young people travel training, including building independent life skills and saving costs of home to school transport. (Conclusion, Paragraph 185)

We recommend that the Department for Education considers extending the statutory duty on local authorities to provide home-to-college transport for further education students with SEND from the age of 16 to

The Department must mandate that all local authorities provide travel training programmes for young people in this age group, for whom such training is appropriate, to promote independence and safe travel. The Department for Education must work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport as they prepare to introduce a bespoke formula to recognise home to school transport costs. We support the recommendation of the Transport Select Committee with regard to the provision of bus passes for under 22-year- olds. (Recommendation, Paragraph 187)

Care leavers face significant challenges transitioning into further education, employment or training. Care leavers aged 19–21 are three times more likely not to be in education, employment or training than their peers. There is insufficient support for those transitioning into further education or training. There is also a lack of official data on post-16 education pathways, attainment and outcomes for those with care experience. (Conclusion, Paragraph 195)

As set out in our Children’s Social Care report, the Department for Education must develop a National Care Offer to harmonise the postcode lottery in entitlements and ensure that care leavers receive a minimum level of support, wherever they live. The Department for Education must also develop a strategy to support all those with care experience as they transition from secondary school level to further education or training. The Department should create a transition programme for students including mentoring and orientation for care leavers entering further education, building on existing best practice. (Recommendation, Paragraph 196)

The Department must record data on post-16 pathways and attainment for those with care experience—including detailed data on qualifications, course types and completion rates. The Department should also monitor long-term outcomes—employment quality, income levels, and 100 higher education progression for those with care experience—and take steps to address existing disparities through the National Care Offer. (Recommendation, Paragraph 197) Funding

The further education sector faces significant funding challenges due to prolonged real-terms cuts since 2010, with per-student funding still below 2009–10 levels. A rise in the number of 16–18-year-olds over the coming years will continue to increase pressure on colleges and other providers, yet per-student funding has not kept pace with the consequences of this population bulge. Although the Chancellor promised additional investment in the 2025 Spending Review, this is only a modest increase after adjustment for inflation, and details about how the extra money will be allocated are unclear. Without substantial investment, per-student funding will fall further, undermining the Government’s reliance on the further education sector to achieve its national missions. (Conclusion, Paragraph 204)

It is crucial that the Government increases per-student funding across all post-16 funding streams, based on a detailed assessment of need. We welcome the Chancellor’s pledge of £1.2 billion a year for the further education sector, which will see the overall budget rise by £400 million (in today’s prices) between 2025–26 and 2028–29. However, the Government must ensure this extra funding is sufficient to meet the needs of this crucial sector which has suffered long-term underfunding. Increased funding should be adjusted annually for inflation and for the rise in FE student numbers. (Recommendation, Paragraph 205)

Colleges face significant challenges due to limited and short-term capital funding. Whilst recent allocations have addressed urgent maintenance needs, the lack of sustained capital investment prevents long-term improvements. The £300 million allocated for 2025–26 is insufficient given the scale of need across thousands of college buildings. Furthermore, access to capital funding is inequitable, with specialist colleges and sixth form colleges often being excluded from capital funding streams. Without ongoing and increased investment across the sector, colleges and other providers risk falling behind in providing modern, industry-aligned facilities which are essential for skills development and for delivering the ambitions of the Government’s Industrial Strategy. (Conclusion, Paragraph 211)

We recommend that the Department for Education increases capital funding significantly to support further education providers with modernisation and expansion. The increase in post-16 student numbers will be temporary, however, and therefore in some cases funding should be allocated to allow for a temporary expansion to the college estate to avoid 101 ‘white elephant’ buildings as the impact of the fall in the birth rate comes through to the FE sector. The Department must also expand eligibility for capital funding programmes—including FE Capital Transformation and the Post-16 Capacity Fund—to specialist colleges and sixth form colleges. (Recommendation, Paragraph 212)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

College teacher retention rates are significantly lower than in schools, with less than a quarter of college teachers remaining in the profession after ten years. Pay disparities, excessive workloads, limited professional development and job insecurity are causing burnout and undermining teachers’ confidence and contentment in their jobs. Whilst the Government offers targeted retention payments for those in the first five years of their careers and teaching select subjects, more experienced college teachers and specialist colleges are excluded. (Conclusion, Paragraph 235)

The Department for Education must address the underlying and unresolved reasons for the recruitment and retention crisis amongst school and college teachers, which include pay disparities, excessive workloads, limited professional development and job insecurity. In so doing, it must develop incentives for all post-16 teaching staff to remain in the profession. It must include specialist colleges within the targeted retention incentive payments scheme and consider alternatives to that scheme for mid- and late-career teachers. (Recommendation, Paragraph 236)

We recommend that the Department for Education develops and publishes a strategy for working with employers to secure a pipeline from skilled trades into vocational teaching, including staff who are retiring and secondments from larger organisations. (Recommendation, Paragraph 237)

Funding for adult education and skills has declined sharply since the early 2000s, particularly in classroom-based learning. The Government’s reduction in adult education funding for 2025–26 will further undermine efforts to upskill the existing workforce and to support those who are out of work or struggling to progress. Reduced investment in adult education threatens the Government’s broader social and economic goals on employment, health and digital inclusion. (Conclusion, Paragraph 243)

Funding for adult education and skills must increase to meet demand and to ensure that those over the age of 19 are able to participate in, and benefit from, the Government’s national missions. The Government must assess demand for adult education and increase funding over the period of the current Comprehensive Spending Review to align with the Government’s missions. We expect Skills England to set out a clear articulation of the resources that are needed and to advocate within Government for increased funding. (Recommendation, Paragraph 244)

As adult education policy and funding transitions to the Department for Work and Pensions, the Government must ensure that learning and training opportunities remain accessible to anyone seeking to enhance their skills, broaden their knowledge, or take incremental steps toward personal development. Adult learning must not be narrowly framed as a pathway to employment alone—it also serves as a vital tool for social inclusion, personal fulfilment, and lifelong learning. Adult education 103 and skills policy should reflect the diverse motivations of adult learners and safeguard opportunities for education at every stage of life. (Recommendation, Paragraph 245) 104