Category Archives: Education

What could skills policy look like under a Burnham-led government?

The prospect of Andy Burnham succeeding Keir Starmer as Prime Minister is significant for the skills sector. Burnham is a strong advocate for technical education and has criticised previous governments for their ‘obsession’ with higher education, including former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair’s target of having more than 50% of young people go to university.

In his first major speech since launching his bid to replace Starmer on Monday 29 June, Burnham acknowledged that while university is ‘great for those who want it’, there also needs to be a focus on the life chances of those who don’t wish to opt for the higher education route. Given he has long called for ‘true parity’ between academic and technical education, as highlighted in his manifesto for his 2015 Labour leadership bid, Burnham is likely to place much greater emphasis on study programmes linked to in-demand technical and vocational occupations as part of a broader effort to create clearer pathways into employment for young people.

Burham’s Manchester Baccalaureate (MBacc), which provides a pathway into the region’s high growth sectors through technical and vocational qualifications, is a clear example of what this shift could look like on a national scale. Launched by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) in September 2024, the MBacc guarantees every young person in the region a clear pathway to employment opportunities through a combination of careers advice services, work experience placements and technical qualifications, including by expanding access to T Levels and apprenticeships.

Since its launch in 2024-25, the MBacc has benefitted from growing support amongst local employers. In January 2026, GMCA confirmed that several leading employers, including Autotrader, IBM and the NHS, had pledged over 1,000 additional work placements to T Level students. This demonstrates how engaged and invested businesses can be in skills and the future workforce, provided the right policy framework is in place. The MBacc not only provides technical education routes into growing regional industries, but it also encourages young people to make subject choices at the ages of 14, 16 and 18 that support progression into these pathways.

Another aspect of Burnham’s approach is the emphasis he places on greater collaboration between skills, health and employment, specifically the need to adopt a place-based model while pivoting away from a nationally directed skills system. One of the advantages of a place-based model is the recognition of significant regional differences in the causes of unemployment and the nature of local labour markets. This includes inconsistent access to training provision and the variety of opportunities for growth across the country. A Burnham-led government is likely therefore to see more devolution by default, whereby employment support is further integrated with local health, skills and community services. This would mean that providers in the FE and HE sectors play a much larger role in supporting people into work.

A Burnham premiership is likely to see a more devolved and technically-focused skills and training system. On a practical level, this is likely to involve granting established combined mayoral authorities (like London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands) greater autonomy in shaping skills provision around local labour market demands. For employers and training providers, this direction of travel will place greater emphasis on more joined-up local working and support across education, health and employment services. While this has the potential to significantly transform the skills sector, the test for Burnham is whether he can demonstrate that a localised, devolved approach will deliver economic growth, boost living standards, and give every young person growing up a ‘clear path into a re-industrialised Britain’.

If you would like to talk more the potential of a Burnham-led government and what this could mean for the skills sector, please email Noureen@gkstrategy.com.

EU Youth Mobility Scheme: Brexit divisions and the Burnham factor

GK’s Brett Morton examines the ongoing negotiations with the EU on a youth mobility scheme and what it means for the future of the UK-EU relationship

A youth mobility agreement has become a central component of the Labour government’s drive to improve UK-EU relations. Although both sides broadly support the principle of making it easier for young people to live, work and study across borders, the parties remain divided over the terms. Points of contention over immigration caps and tuition fees risk preventing a wider package of UK-EU cooperation measures. Both sides had been keen to secure these at a second bilateral summit scheduled for 22 July in Brussels. The summit has now been delayed following the Prime Minister’s resignation.

The scheme under discussion would allow 18-30-year-olds from the UK and EU to spend a limited period living, studying and working in each other’s countries. In broad terms, it would resemble the agreement the UK already has with countries such as Australia and Canada. Under those arrangements, young people can come to Britain for up to three years, subject to visa rules and annual caps, and work, travel or study without employer sponsorship. The UK would like any deal with the EU to follow the same basic model: temporary, managed and clearly distinct from free movement.

That distinction matters because immigration remains one of the most politically charged legacies of Brexit. Opponents of the proposal, including Nigel Farage, argue that such a scheme would amount to freedom of movement under a different name. Ministers have been keen to stress that any agreement with the EU would be time-limited and capped. Reports suggest the Starmer government favoured a ceiling of 50,000 participants a year. The EU, by contrast, is believed to prefer a more flexible arrangement, with no fixed cap but a break mechanism that would allow either side to intervene if numbers became excessive. For the next Prime Minister, accepting a scheme without a visible numerical limit would be politically difficult, particularly given the public’s appetite to reduce net migration.

Since Brexit, labour shortages have become a persistent problem in sectors such as hospitality, agriculture and construction. At present, a young EU citizen who wants to work in the UK for a limited period usually needs sponsorship from a British employer. In practice, that system is often costly, bureaucratic and tied to salary thresholds that many small businesses cannot meet. In many cases, sponsorship requires employers to offer a salary of at least £41,700 a year, or the going rate for the role, which places it out of reach for much seasonal, temporary and lower-paid work. Supporters of a youth mobility scheme argue that without the need for sponsorship or salary thresholds, it could widen the pool of labour and make it easier to fill temporary or seasonal vacancies. Even so, its impact would be limited, as it may ease pressure in high-turnover sectors but would do far less to address longer-term shortages in fields that depend on permanent skilled workers, such as healthcare or technology.

A major obstacle to a youth mobility agreement is tuition fees. The EU wants students to study in the UK and EU countries on the same basis as domestic students, meaning EU students at UK universities would pay home fees rather than higher international rates. With 24 institutions reportedly at risk of insolvency within the next year, according to the Education Select Committee, international student fees have become a vital source of income. The Russel Group, an association of 24 prestigious universities in the UK, has warned that granting EU students home fee status could cost the sector around £580 million, reducing universities’ ability to invest in programmes such as Erasmus+ and Horizon Europe.

The youth mobility debate must also be understood in its wider political context. Starmer had originally hoped that a UK-EU reset would help revive his premiership by showing that closer cooperation with Europe could deliver practical benefits, from smoother trade to lower costs for consumers. With his resignation, that personal political purpose has fallen away. Future negotiations are no longer about rescuing his administration, but about shaping the direction of the next Prime Minister’s agenda.

With an Andy Burnham coronation now increasingly likely ahead of 22 July, the EU has postponed the summit. A youth mobility scheme could offer Burnham an opportunity to pursue economic and social reforms in response to what he has described as the ‘damage’ caused by Brexit. However, Burnham is also likely to be cautious about making significant concessions to Brussels, particularly on a cap, as he seeks to appeal to Reform UK voters and avoid reopening divisions from the Brexit referendum ahead of a potential 2029 general election. The future of any youth mobility scheme with the EU will therefore depend on Burnham’s political calculus.

Tiny Humans, Big Lessons: Early years under Labour a year on

GK’s Thea Southwell Reeves examines how Labour has placed early years at the heart of its social mobility agenda by focusing on high-quality, education-led provision.

 

Early years is a priority for government and has been since it first entered office last year. High quality early years education is a cornerstone of the equal opportunities ‘mission’ to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. Bridget Phillipson had championed early years long before the election and the appointment of the first ever early years minister was an indication of the priority it would have in the new Department for Education (DfE).

Although several of Labour’s early years policies have continued the work of previous governments, this government’s key ideological shift is away from seeing childcare as simply an economic issue to a focus on the provision of high-quality early education as a driver of social mobility. Addressing regional gaps in childcare provision known as ‘childcare deserts’ is fundamental to this, as is increasing the focus on quality to close the growing disadvantage gap in school readiness.

During its first year, the government’s priority has been implementing the final stages of the funding entitlements roll outs, which were completed this month. Now, eligible working parents of children aged 9 months to 5 years are entitled to 30 hours of funding per week. Overall, the expansion of funding has driven demand for spaces. The government had set a target of creating 85,000 new early years childcare places by September 2025 to support the roll out of funding expansions. It is not yet clear whether this target has been met, butInitial analysis suggests that most of this additional capacity has been concentrated in areas where provision already exists rather than creating new capacity in childcare deserts.

The government’s schools-based nurseries programme is designed to focus new provision in disadvantaged areas with 189 of the 300 government-funded new or expanded in-school settings opening this month. About 10% of school-based nursery provision is delivered by a PVI partnership. The second phase of funding is now open for applications and is prioritising high quality bids from schools in the most disadvantaged communities.

What’s next for early years?

The funding rates to deliver the government-funded childcare have always been contentious, with the industry maintaining that the funding simply does not reflect the true cost of provision. This has led many providers to use additional charges to ‘top up’ their income but the government has pushed back on this, revising the guidance around chargeable extras earlier this year. In its new strategy for the sector, published in July, the DfE announced a full review of early years funding, including the merits of national funding formulae. It will consult on proposals by summer 2026 and businesses should be monitoring and contributing to this process. The strategy also includes plans to increase the funding available to providers to support children with SEND and improve the way funding is allocated as part of the government’s wider reforms to the SEND system. More detail will be set out on this in the schools white paper this autumn.

The early years strategy, for the first time, raises DfE concerns about a rise in large providers backed by private equity. These providers, according to DfE, ‘are less likely to operate in deprived areas…and over time this can result in price rises and disruption to services.’ At the heart of this is a concern about market exits that could destabilise regional childcare provision. Policymakers will continue to monitor the financial sustainability of the early years market and may take further steps to increase market transparency if appropriate. This could include measures like those being taken in adult or children’s social care, such as a financial oversight mechanism. For businesses and investors, monitoring the development of this policy thinking and engaging with the policymaking process is vital to minimising any risk associated with such policy change, as well as realising commercial opportunities.

If you’d like to discuss early years policy in more detail please reach out to Thea on thea@gkstrategy.com