A post-compulsory education system which works for all

Chris Husbands is a Director of Higher Futures and was formerly Vice-Chancellor at Sheffield Hallam University. David Hughes is Chief Executive of the Association of Colleges.

This blog is adapted from FE-HE collaboration to support a place, written by the same authors originally for the Kerslake Collection, a series of essays collated by the UPP Foundation on the theme of the Civic University.

It’s always tempting to overreact to the latest news. But some big events require a response. We are writing this blog soon after the 2024 United States Presidential Election returned to power a convicted felon determined to bring about fundamental change, not just in the United States, but in global economics and politics. Donald Trump’s first term was chaotic; his second is likely to be equally turbulent. Turbulent times of uncertainty do not make for the inclusive economic growth that many of us want to see.

We would do well to learn from this in the UK. Exit polling suggests that Trump’s victory reveals striking demographic polarisation. Women, and especially Black women, voted decisively for Kamala Harris whilst men voted decisively for Trump – he took 59% of the votes of white males.  But the other key differentiator was education: those with the lowest levels of qualification and skill were far more likely to vote for Trump. In 2016, at the Nevada Republican Primary Trump famously declared ‘I love the poorly educated’. This tells us so much about why it really matters to get education and skills provision right. What Bob Schwarz once called ‘pathways to prosperity’ are important way beyond the technicalities of qualifications. We share a common interest in making sure that the education and training system works and is seen to work for all.

This insight is built into Bridget Philipson’s letter to university vice-chancellors, published on the eve of the US election.  She asked universities to ‘play a greater civic role in their communities’.  … and in regional development’.  In practice, this would involve ‘partnership with local government and employers…shap[ing]and deliver[ing] the economic and social change that is needed across skills, research and innovation’.  A full part, in partnership, to shape economic and social change, particularly at a local level to support the national ambitions.  This is a demanding agenda, especially when financially stressed universities are examining every budget line. 

We argued in our contribution to the UPP Foundation Kerslake essay collection that the relationships universities have with the other institutions operating in the same place are critical. Universities are vital not only in driving economic prosperity and cultural engagement, as partners working with others, and especially with further education institutions. Our starting point was that universities and colleges have complementary missions which depend on collaboration. If post-18 institutions – universities and colleges – are to play a ‘full part’ in ‘shaping and delivering economic and social change’, the complementarity of mission between universities and colleges will be central.

Despite that complementarity, policy and behaviours have not always driven deep collaboration.  Universities sometimes see colleges as suppliers of students, and sometimes as vehicles for outsourced or franchised provision, whilst colleges can feel that they are frozen out of opportunities and the subservient partner in an unequal relationship.  Sometimes there are alignments of interest; often there are frustrations. Rarely is there the stability and certainty needed to truly foster long-term partnership. Unhelpful perceptions of hierarchy make collaboration difficult. Nationally, policy has separated the destinies of universities and colleges and driven competition between them, rather than designing a system and policies which could bring them together.

These gaps have real-world manifestations. The offer at age 18 for those with good A Levels remains relatively good, despite the regressive student loan reforms of 2022, but for those without good level 3 qualifications the offer is poor and worsened between 2010 and 2024. Adult education and training funding has halved since 2010, and, as Philip Augar has recently pointed out ‘sits at a miserly £1.4bn… to support nearly a million students’. Further education funding remains extra-ordinarily tight, whilst after a decade in which universities enjoyed relative economic security, higher education funding is now under enormous stress.

It’s also clear that current post-18 arrangements are not meeting our economic needs. In its first report, Skills England laid out the consequences of patchy, poorly planned and fragmented provision for skills shortages, poor productivity and weak regional growth. Not only do we invest far too little in technical and basic skills, and in adults outside higher education, but our policy and organisational structures make scaling what local successes we have nearly impossible. The complexity of the system, the in-built competition and duplication and the poor level of employer investment in skills are persistent problems.

Some steps towards a coherent tertiary framework, based on regional piloting and initial funding changes were set out in an extensive, multi-authored HEPI blog on 6 November (the day after the US election) by a starry team led by Huw Morris. But they were initial steps, cautiously advanced. There is something more fundamental at stake: a coherent approach to skills development and place-based innovation based on different approaches at every level.  The ingredients are easily stated. We need

• better and clearer pathways for all learners and not simply for those on the ‘royal route’ from good GCSEs through A-levels to a three-year degree.
• an offer to all adults, valuing learning in terms of the impact it makes for the learner at every level of learning 
• clarity for employers about how the system works, where they can get advice and, how they can invest with confidence to ensure that education and training deliver what they need;
• a coherent approach to skills development across government departments. 

Locally, a high-skill economy will not simply depend on colleges and private training providers but on a coherent skills ecosystem in which colleges, private providers, universities, employers and schools all play a part. Crucially, these ecosystems will need to drive the demand for skills alongside economic development. Nationally, skills should be seen as a key enabler for the government’s missions in economic growth, clean energy, opening up opportunity and better health.

If the vision is relatively easy to articulate, it requires a radical change in approach from government and institutions.  It will need regulatory and funding changes, with early learning from Wales and Australia to inform thinking.  England has a much larger skills system than either of those nations, and our assumption is that change will depend on a high degree of devolution and regionalisation.  That will mean national regulation and foresight but regional funding and planning. It will mean more distinct and clearer missions for universities and colleges, each playing to their strengths, but working together to join up their offer locally and regionally. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), for all its implementation and development challenges, has huge potential. Government should use the delay in its implementation to secure effective delivery, including – which is critical for access to learning – a deliverable maintenance offer. 

There is a broad sense now that further education and higher education are on the verge of radical change – what Sally Mapstone, President of Universities UK, has called a ‘fork in the road’.  The economic and social consequences of fragmentation and poor cohesion are now so clear that the system needs fundamental change.  A first step would be for colleges and universities to work together nationally to make the case for change, and to commit to delivering a better system more aligned to local inclusion and growth.  Government has a part to play, but the two sectors need to find common cause, and quickly.