The publication in September of the Education Committee’s report on Further Education (FE) and Skills was a breakthrough moment for specialist FE and for Natspec. Finally, we had the backing of a group of parliamentarians for a set of policy changes that we have long been calling for including: consolidation of FE special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) policy under the Minister for Skills’ portfolio to address an identified policy vacuum; an extension of the local authority duty to provide transport support to include 16 – 19 year olds with SEND; and fairer access to capital funding for specialist colleges. The fact the support to address these long-standing inequities came from the Education Committee, following an extended inquiry, made it particularly welcome.
It is all the more disappointing, therefore, that the government, in responding to the Committee’s report, has chosen not to implement any of its SEND-related recommendations. Instead, we are told that ‘SEND is already a fundamental element of Skills policy’, despite the fact that the recently published Post-16 Education and Skills white paper includes no proposals to support more young people working at Entry and level 1 into work, and the consultation on improving post-16 pathways at level 3 and below stops at level 2. That leaves almost all young people in specialist FE out in the cold.
There is also no appetite for addressing the issue of transport support for 16 to 19-year-olds with SEND, despite the increasing numbers of local authorities (LAs) cutting back on discretionary transport support for this age group. Once again ‘improving inclusivity in mainstream schools’ is given as the solution to a problem that largely affects college students. The DfE doubled down on its position earlier this week, when DfE Permanent Secretary, Susan Acland Hood, told the Public Accounts Committee that a ‘blanket duty’ of this nature on LAs would be difficult to implement and could even constrain young people’s post-16 choices. The Education Committee’s recommendation that LAs should be required to offer travel training is also rejected, despite it being a practical way to reduce the need for transport support for some young people.
The Committee’s recommendation for fairer access to capital funding for specialist colleges is also summarily dismissed. The DfE simply lists the existing sources of capital funding to which specialist colleges are eligible, which we know to be insufficient to address colleges’ need to adapt buildings for changing cohorts or meet increasing demand for places. Although it does admit that a recent LA survey indicated that only ‘around 5%’ of the High Needs Provision Capital Allocations goes to post-16 provision and that there is no data on how much of this very small proportion finds its way to specialist colleges.
The government’s response demonstrates that it has not yet found solutions to the issues raised by the MPs on the Committee. Natspec will continue to use the Committee’s support to lobby for the policy changes that will ensure specialist FE – and the learners who benefit from it – are recognised, valued and included. The publication of the SEND reform proposals due early in 2026 provides a further opportunity to restate our case.