Post-16 skills reform is often framed as a story of opportunity: clearer pathways, better alignment with employment and a more responsive education system. On paper, this is encouraging. For many learners, employers and regions, it genuinely matters.
But Christine shares why there is a more uncomfortable question we need to ask – one that sits beneath the policy language and productivity targets. Who will this reformed post-16 system actually work for?
Reform only delivers impact if learners can access it, navigate it and remain within it. And history tells us that without intentional design, the same groups continue to be excluded.
In post-16 education, inclusion is not a side issue.
It is the real measure of whether reform succeeds.
Post-16 Inclusion and the Skills White Paper: What’s Promised
The Post-16 Skills White Paper positions inclusion as part of a broader strategy to reduce economic inactivity and strengthen progression into work.
Central to this is the Youth Guarantee, offering young people access to education, training or employment.
This matters — particularly when:
- around 13.6% of young people are NEET
- long-term disengagement is linked to poorer health, earnings and wellbeing outcomes.
However, headline commitments don’t automatically translate into inclusive experiences.
To understand whether reform works, we need to look beyond pathways and ask how learners experience the system in practice.
Who Is Most at Risk of Being Left Behind Post-16?
Evidence consistently shows that certain groups face far greater barriers within post-16 education:
- learners with SEND
- young people experiencing disadvantage
- those with low prior attainment
- adults returning to learning after disruption or exclusion.
In some analyses, learners with overlapping SEND and disadvantage are up to 180% more likely to become NEET than their peers. A scary statistic from Impetus’ recent report!
These patterns are not about aspiration.
They are about access, confidence and belonging.
Disengagement becomes predictable rather than surprising, when learners experience:
- inconsistent or inaccessible CEIAG
- repeated placement on the wrong course or level
- mental health pressures
- caring responsibilities
- digital poverty.
Photo by cottonbro studio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-persons-doing-holding-hands-3693920/
The Invisible Curriculum: Why Belonging Shapes Post-16 Skills and Inclusion
One of the least discussed aspects of post-16 inclusion is what might be called the invisible curriculum — the emotional experience of learning.
For many learners, especially adults and those with disrupted educational histories, Maths, English and digital skills are identity-shaping.
They carry memories of:
- shame
- failure
- “I’m not clever enough”
- “this isn’t for people like me”.
This is why Maths anxiety, literacy avoidance and digital disengagement persist well into adulthood.
Learner confidence doesn’t fall under “soft skills”. It determines whether learners even attempt to engage.
This is where contextualised learning, play, reframing and humour-based approaches, including my ongoing exploration of the Laughology FLIP model, become powerful. They help learners re-enter learning safely and rebuild belief.
If pathways provide structure, belonging provides stability.
Where Post-16 Skills Reform Still Risks Exclusion
Despite positive intentions, several aspects of reform risk reinforcing inequality if inclusion is not designed in.
Modular learning
Flexibility is valuable, but without strong guidance and support, modular systems can feel fragmented and overwhelming, particularly for learners with low confidence or complex lives.
CEIAG consistency
Careers education remains uneven. Language is often inaccessible, assumptions about prior knowledge persist and careers conversations are too often separated from curriculum.
Digital and AI confidence gaps
As digital and AI tools accelerate, learners without devices, connectivity or confidence risk being left further behind.
Adult learners
Many adults returning to education still experience systems designed for confident, linear learners, not those rebuilding trust in learning itself.
What Inclusive Post-16 Education Actually Requires
If post-16 inclusion is taken seriously, design must begin with those most likely to disengage.
That means:
- Belonging-first curriculum design
- Community-based progression routes
- Trauma-informed and confidence-aware pedagogy
- Integrated Maths, English and Digital Skills, taught through real-life contexts
- CEIAG embedded within learning, not delivered as an add-on
This is not about lowering expectations.
It is about removing unnecessary barriers.
Inclusion as a Marker of Quality in Post-16 Education
One of the most significant missed opportunities in skills reform is failing to treat inclusion as a core quality indicator.
As rigorously as completion rates, we would design very different systems if we measured:
- who stays
- who returns after exclusion
- who rebuilds confidence
- who progresses from low starting points.
This is why I hold firmly to the principle that:
Quality = Equity
A system that only works for confident learners is not high-quality.
A system that enables the least confident to thrive is.
Post-16 Skills and Inclusion: So Who Gets Left Behind — and What Needs to Change?
The White Paper offers a moment of possibility.
But possibility without inclusion remains fragile.
So the question we must keep asking is this:
If belonging is the foundation of learning, what would post-16 programmes look like if they were designed around the people most likely to leave?
If you’re exploring how to strengthen post-16 inclusion through curriculum design, confidence-building and everyday practice, you’re welcome to connect with me on LinkedIn or get in touch.