The government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper sets out an ambitious and largely welcome agenda: a more joined-up system, clearer pathways, stronger employer engagement and a renewed focus on higher-level skills as a driver of growth. Many of its core themes will feel familiar to those working across higher education, further education and cultural organisations. In fact, much of what is proposed aligns closely with the work of the National Centre for Academic and Cultural Exchange (NCACE), even if that alignment is not always explicit.
At its best, the White Paper recognises that skills, innovation and opportunity are not created in isolation. The emphasis on collaboration, place-based delivery and employer partnership speaks directly to NCACE’s mission to support sustainable, equitable exchange between universities and the wider world. The creation of Skills England, the strengthening of Local Skills Improvement Plans, and the call for universities to specialise and collaborate all reinforce a shift away from institutional silos towards shared responsibility for economic and social outcomes.
There is also welcome recognition of the role of universities beyond teaching alone. Research, innovation and commercialisation are positioned as central to national renewal, with continued investment in HEIF, Local Innovation Partnerships and spin-out activity. This mirrors NCACE’s long-standing argument that knowledge exchange is not a “third mission” bolt-on, but core infrastructure for a resilient, inclusive society and economy – particularly when it engages disciplines across the full breadth of the academy, including the arts, humanities.
However, while the White Paper is strong on growth and productivity, it is notably quieter on civic mission and on the role universities play as cultural and social institutions rooted in place.
The document consistently frames engagement through the lens of employers and priority sectors. That is understandable, but it risks narrowing our conception of value. Universities do not only serve labour markets; they serve communities. Cultural organisations, local authorities, voluntary groups and citizens themselves are largely absent from the picture, despite being essential partners in tackling the complex challenges that shape people’s lives and opportunities.
This matters because the most effective knowledge exchange is rarely transactional. NCACE’s work shows that long-term, trust-based partnerships, often anchored in cultural and civic contexts, are what enable innovation to stick. They create pathways into skills, employment and participation for people who are too often excluded by conventional routes. They also support public engagement with research, helping universities remain socially accountable and publicly trusted at a time when that trust cannot be taken for granted.
Public engagement itself is another missed opportunity. The White Paper rightly emphasises better information, advice and guidance for learners, yet it does not fully acknowledge the role that universities and cultural partners can play in shaping aspiration and agency long before formal skills choices are made. Engagement through culture, heritage and creative practice is often where confidence, curiosity and a sense of belonging are first built, particularly for those from under-represented backgrounds. If the goal is genuinely to “leave no learner behind”, these softer infrastructures matter.
There is also scope to strengthen the treatment of knowledge exchange beyond commercialisation. While spin-outs and industry-aligned R&D are vital, they are only part of the picture. Exchange that supports public services, place-based innovation, cultural vitality and social wellbeing is less visible in the paper, despite its proven contribution to local growth and resilience. NCACE’s experience suggests that recognising and incentivising this broader ecosystem would unlock more inclusive forms of impact, and do so in ways that align strongly with the government’s wider missions.
None of this is to dismiss the progress the White Paper represents. On the contrary, it offers a strong foundation on which to build. But as implementation moves forward, there is an opportunity, indeed a need, to widen the frame. Embedding civic mission, public engagement and diverse forms of knowledge exchange more explicitly into the system would not dilute the focus on growth; it would strengthen it.