A Tertiary System is Emerging, but Largely Despite the System, Not Because of it

There is a growing sense that England is finally beginning to talk seriously about tertiary education. The language has shifted, the political framing is changing, and devolution is accelerating the demand for more coherent local skills ecosystems. But as the recent ETF and LSBU tertiary roundtable demonstrated, the lived reality on the ground remains far more complicated.

Convened on 22 April, the roundtable brought together senior voices from across further education (FE) and skills, higher education (HE), and policy to explore what a tertiary system might actually look like in England, and whether it meaningfully exists at all. The discussion repeatedly returned to one central tension: while the ambition for a tertiary system is gaining traction, the structural conditions needed to deliver it are still largely absent. In other words, collaboration is happening, but often in spite of the system rather than because of it.

A view from the roundtable was that competition across the English system is the key inhibitor to a unified tertiary system. Providers are incentivised to protect market share, defend institutional identity, and compete for learners, funding and reputation. This is not simply cultural; it is structural.

There was recognition that some places have been able to resist the more damaging effects of marketisation, often where local authorities or civic leadership provide strong coordination. But these were described as exceptions rather than the norm. London was cited as a useful example of what happens when competition is left unchecked: oversupply, duplication, and a confusing landscape for learners, with institutional incentives often pulling in different directions rather than aligning around shared local need.

Despite the constraints, the discussion highlighted that meaningful tertiary working is possible. One of the most compelling examples explored was the LSBU group structure, where a university acts as an anchor institution alongside further education and sixth-form provision. In this model, collaboration is formalised through governance, and pathways are designed around learners rather than institutional boundaries. Importantly, contributors were clear that this is not about eliminating competition; instead, there was a strong argument that regulation and system design can play a more constructive role in reducing the sharp edges of the market, enabling collaboration to flourish while still allowing responsiveness and innovation.

A particularly strong theme was that England may not need one single tertiary system. Instead, it may need multiple place-based tertiary systems shaped by local socio-economic conditions, industrial strengths and community need. The concept of tertiary was described as more than a technical reform agenda. It is increasingly a political signal; a shift away from quasi-markets and towards systems thinking. But the conversation also carried a warning: while the language has changed, the underlying fundamentals have not. Funding remains complex, restrictive and often misaligned with collaboration. The system continues to reward institutional success more clearly than shared outcomes. For many providers, flexibility is constrained not by ambition but by the rules and resource pressures they are operating within.

If there was one issue that consistently surfaced throughout the roundtable, it was pathways. Participants agreed that learner journeys are becoming increasingly non-linear, shaped by retraining, economic disruption and changing career patterns. The traditional assumption that young people progress smoothly from one level to the next no longer reflects reality. This raises major questions for tertiary reform. A system built around neat progression routes will struggle if it does not properly account for adult learners, those returning to work, learners who need to step in and out of education, and young people at risk of becoming NEET.

The group also reflected on whether the system is currently designed in a way that is navigable for learners. Even where provision exists, the landscape can be difficult to interpret, and opportunities can be hidden behind institutional complexity.

The roundtable also exposed a clear gap in the tertiary conversation: employers. While policy often assumes employers will act as rational partners, participants challenged this assumption. Employers, like learners, are navigating a system that has changed rapidly and inconsistently. Many still rely on outdated assumptions about qualifications and pathways, and recruitment continues to favour credentials over skills. There was strong agreement that tertiary reform cannot focus solely on learners. It must also address how employers understand and engage with education and training, and how the system can support them to recruit, invest and plan in a more skills-based way.

The debate around student choice also surfaced as an important fault line. While choice remains a central organising principle of the system, participants questioned whether it is experienced equally across tertiary education. In FE and skills, choice can be limited by geography, transport, cost, course availability and capacity. For many learners, accessibility and teaching quality matter more than the ability to shop around. Without meaningful diversity of provision, choice becomes a rhetorical principle rather than a lived reality. There was also concern that marketisation reduces diversity over time, as institutions mimic perceived winners, reinforcing hierarchy and narrowing the range of genuinely distinct offers.

The roundtable closed with a shared sense that the sector is ahead of the system. The conversation has moved on. The appetite is there. But without aligned incentives, funding and regulation, tertiary reform risks remaining a patchwork of local exceptions rather than a national reality. What is emerging, however, is a clear direction of travel: England’s future tertiary system will not be built through rhetoric alone. It will be built through place, partnerships, and a clearer shared understanding of what the system is ultimately for.

By Dr Vikki Smith, Chief Professionalism Officer, at the Education Training Foundation and Fiona Morey, Executive Principal, LSBU Colleges.