Sixth forms have warned resources are being “stretched to the limit” and funding levels are unsustainable, as ministers announced lower-than-expected increases for post-16 students.
The Department for Education announced last week that the national funding rate for 16- to 19-year-olds would rise by just 0.5 per cent in 2026-27.
Yet the skills white paper last October had promised above-inflation increases, given rising numbers of 16- to 19-year-olds. Inflation is currently running at 3 per cent, and stood at 3.6 per cent when the pledge was made.
Sixth form leaders have said the funding gap could threaten their ability to offer a broad range of subjects, hold down class sizes and pay staff competitively.
They added that the timing of the announcement would leave them “flying blind” just as students are choosing their options.
The 0.5 per cent increase, which lifts per-pupil funding to £5,133 next year, is the lowest since rates were frozen in 2021-22. Last year funding rates rose 5.4 per cent, significant above inflation.
‘Unacceptable and unworkable’
Sacha Corcoran, principal at Big Creative Academy in east London, said the increase was “simply unacceptable and unworkable”.
She highlighted the “ever-increasing expectations put on post-16 provision to provide not just a quality education but a plethora of wraparound support and guidance for our young people”.
“At a time when we have rising youth unemployment and over 10 per cent of young people in England are [not in education, employment or training], never has it been more important to invest in further education.
“This will continue to seriously impact the wellbeing and retention of staff, not just at the academy but across the sector, as this is not sustainable.
“We simply cannot deliver on all the expectations of Ofsted and the DfE, tackle staff workload, support our learners, manage estates, with the funding rate agreed. We are not magicians.”
Real-terms cuts
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has reported that real-terms spending per pupil in sixth forms is now 18 per cent lower than 2010-11.
Benedicte Yue, chief financial officer at the River Learning Trust, said the increase was “effectively a further cut when viewed against the backdrop of an 18 per cent real-terms erosion of sixth form funding over the last 15 years”.
“We are being asked to deliver a 21st-century ‘skills revolution’ on a budget that has been systematically hollowed out.
“The lack of adequate core funding leaves us with no levers left to pull other than increasing class sizes.
“This may put the viability of minority subjects at risk, which directly threatens the ‘broad and balanced’ curriculum the government claims to value.”
In October the government had promised “significant investment”. It said it would ensure there was a real-terms increase in per-pupil funding in the next academic year to respond to the “demographic increase in 16 to 19-year olds.”
Delayed announcement ‘compounds pressure’
James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, said the increase “falls well short” of the government’s promise.
“In reality, this is a real-terms funding cut that will make it harder for our members to provide the high-quality education and personalised support that students need to succeed.
“This settlement will also make it more difficult to provide support and teaching staff with a competitive pay award.”
Kewin said the Treasury must make additional funding available “to ensure that sixth forms receive a genuine real terms increase in 2026-27 – raising the funding rate by 0.5 per cent falls well short of that”.
In previous years, the government has announced the base rate in December. This year the announcement was delayed until March.
Yue added that the timing of the announcement “only compounds the pressure”.
“Announcing a marginal increase now, while we are still waiting for our final sixth form statements, leaves school leaders flying blind at the exact moment students are making their critical post-16 choices.
“You cannot build a world-class technical and academic pathway while the base rate fails to keep pace with the most basic inflationary pressures on staffing and resources.”
College leaders previously told FE Week that they were “disappointed” with the lack of funding. They warned it could mean they have to divert funding from high-needs provision and staff pay.
Your thoughts