Higher education and further education: time to step out of the silos

This blog was kindly authored by Andy Forbes, Director at the Centre for the Advancement of Lifelong Learning, Ruskin College Oxford.

The need for further education and higher education to work more closely together is a recurrent theme of the Post-16 White Paper, which declares: “Across the post-16 education and skills system, we will support providers to…foster collaboration with local market actors.”  But how is this aspiration for active local partnership playing out on the ground?

There has always been a considerable overlap between the missions of the further education and higher education sectors. But the introduction of higher and degree apprenticeships, the continued policy focus on expanding HTQs and other standalone Level 4 and 5 qualifications – in some areas in formal partnerships through the Institutes of Technology initiative – and the number of FECs with degree awarding powers now directly delivering higher education courses, means there has been increasing convergence as the higher education market has diversified and grown.

Further education and higher education have been working in partnership for decades, as I set out in my recent report, “Partners in Progress: Colleges at the Forefront of Technical Education” (Lifelong Education Institute, Feb 2026). For many years, the relationship was primarily transactional – based on validation and articulation agreements – but it is now evolving into more strategic, even structural partnerships. There are, of course, huge differences between the academic offer, workload, pay, conditions, pensions and career pathways of staff in each sector and completely different funding and regulatory arrangements, which means that further education/higher education mergers are rare occurrences and have to overcome formidable technical hurdles to be successful. Strategic, rather than structural partnerships, are therefore the most likely to proliferate.  

The devolution of adult skills responsibilities to Mayoral Combined Authorities, and the decision to include higher education institutions in the next iteration of Local Skills Improvement Plans, is arguably the most significant development, as an increasing number of universities are now adopting a place-based strategy and focusing more on delivering higher skills linked to local economic priorities. Colleges and universities now share catchment areas to an unprecedented extent, with the student body at some higher education institutions now consisting of 70% or more commuting students. This is reflected in the growing number of regional forums involving both sectors, typically convened by the local authority. In addition, as I talked to further education leaders as part of the research into the report, I heard several anecdotes of an upsurge in friendly but informal contacts between further education and higher education senior teams, including VCs and Principals.

 Although at the national level UUK and the Association of Colleges are now working closely together on policy issues, the IoT network remains the only formally structured delivery partnership in existence, with the honourable exception of the Hertfordshire HE Consortium, now celebrating its 26th year. Most further education and higher education staff at all levels still attend different conferences and events, visit different websites, and therefore discuss and debate issues in silos.

This degree of sectoral segregation is becoming rapidly outdated. From an economic development point of view, employers need a seamless skills offer from basic to graduate level, rather than having to engage with multiple institutions to meet their needs. If HTQs are to thrive, and if the Lifelong Learning Entitlement is to have any impact, further education and higher  education will have to work in tandem

As with much of the White Paper, the government signalled ambitions and aspirations about partnership without offering any defined frameworks or incentives to support them. Where is the systems thinking we need? Where are the incentives to encourage further education/higher education collaboration?  So far, there’s not a great deal in practice to build new forms of partnership around. Hard-pressed senior leaders have hardly got the time to have friendly conversations without any tangible outcomes, or the money to invest in speculative joint projects.

But both sectors should at least take some practical and relatively inexpensive steps to move closer to each other at the national level. Why don’t UUK and the AoC organise a joint conference? Why couldn’t higher  education mission groups and further education networks like the Mixed Economy Group of colleges begin to forge strategic alliances through information sharing and discussion forums? There are, of course, still significant barriers, not least the vexed issue of competition versus collaboration around Level 4 and 5 provision, but the arrival of the LLE, and the prospect of new DfE proposals around the idea of ‘degree break points’ – now to be called Flexible Degree Reform – is beginning to provide a new policy environment for innovative partnership.

Meanwhile, at a local level, the critical role of Mayoral Combined Authorities is already apparent. The convening power of regional mayors is proving effective in getting further education and higher education leaders around the table – often with local employers as well – to discuss place-based skills collaboration. As everyone is now talking about ‘Manchesterism’, it’s a positive sign of the possible future direction of travel that Greater Manchester universities and colleges are busy undertaking a significant exercise in systematically mapping regional patterns of provision and identifying potential areas for joint action.

Whatever the future direction of Post-16 policy under a new Prime Minister, we have a lot to talk about – more than ever before – and we need to stop waiting for any government action and take the initiative into our own hands.