It was refreshing last week to hear the prime minister speaking about colleges, at a college, in a major announcement about education funding and policy. That doesn’t happen very often. Certainly not often enough. Because if England is to have an effective and fully functioning education system, colleges are as vital as schools and universities.

The reactions to the speech were mixed. Some pointed out that this was simply reinstating parts of the funding and student entitlement lost over the past decade of austerity and therefore not much of a step forward. Others saw it as an attack on universities, on the dominant three-year model of Bachelor degrees and as signalling a shift of resources from universities to colleges. Both responses are fair enough, given just how much needs to change to improve things.

Background: Boris Johnson to announce 'Lifetime Skills Guarantee'

PM: End 'pointless, nonsensical gulf' between FE and HE

Coronavirus: '£3bn National Skills Fund must be released'

For me, though, this felt like a significant step forward, not least because the speech came from the prime minister and was about the first increase in adult education funding outside of higher education for over 15 years. Just as importantly, it augurs well for the forthcoming White Paper and potentially for the spending review. It suggests that even more of the positive recommendations in the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding (aka the Augar review) will emerge in the White Paper. It promises the hope that the "widespread and protracted" decline in funding of colleges that Augar described will start to change.

Investing in colleges and skills

My hope is, of course, that this speech really is a key turning point for college funding and that the White Paper does deliver a more "nurturing" environment for colleges, as Dame Mary Ney proposed in the report of the independent review of college financial oversight. I also hope that this is not at the expense of the right and proper investment in universities and in schools. Colleges do not want those sectors to suffer the neglect and decline in funding that they have had to endure this past decade. That would be a disaster for students, would-be students, employers, the economy and our society.

Sadly, the prospect of university funding being reduced to support fairer investment in colleges is a real one, given what the pandemic has done to public finances.

It’s why some commentators viewed the PM’s speech as an attack on widening access and limiting people’s life chances, because, implemented badly and with insufficient funding, it could do that. But it would be completely wrong to view the Augar review in that way. I’ve kept a copy to hand ever since the report was published in May 2019, partly because I kept seeing well-thumbed copies of the report on political advisers’ desks (pre-pandemic). It’s worth another look if you have forgotten what it said. Or if your focus on the recommendation about reducing the fee cap meant that the other chapters were not read quite as carefully. Particularly the chapters in skills, further education and student maintenance.

The foreword from Philip Augar sets out the driving force behind the whole report: that the disparity in investment in and attention to adults participating in higher education and those who do not is one of "care and neglect" respectfully. This is important because it emerged from many months of analysis, discussions and debate about the whole post-18 education landscape. It is what colleges and universities should be jointly campaigning on, because our current post-18 education system holds back millions of people and limits our success as a country.

I’ve never liked the narrative of the "forgotten 50 per cent" who do not "go to university". As political phrases go, it’s fine, but it often gets in the way of understanding what matters. I’m not and never have been against more people participating in HE, nor more going to university. What I am against is how the system simply does not work for people who don’t participate in HE. I say that because it is simply not fair, but also because as a country we want more people to be more highly educated and skilled. That will contribute to a more tolerant and cultured society as well as a more productive and healthy economy. It will mean that productivity can increase, wages rise, living standards improve, communities thrive.

What I want to see is a post-18 education system that offers different routes to higher skills and education, retraining, apprenticeships, CPD and reskilling for people across their lives. I want employers to invest more in their workforces and people to invest more in their own learning, particularly for personal enjoyment, enlightenment and satisfaction. To achieve all of that we need many things.

That’s why I am looking to the government for more funding alongside a more supportive regulatory and accountability regime in the White Paper and spending review. That is a great starting point, because if it can do that, college leaders will step in and develop their vision for their institutions in their communities. With the right support, a stable environment and sufficient funding, colleges will be able to partner with each other and with universities, adult education and other providers to meet the post-18 education needs of every place. They will be able to play to each other’s strengths and provide clear learning options, pathways and outcomes for every adult and every employer.

If the PM’s speech is the first step to unleashing colleges as key strategic players, able to deliver against local, regional and national priorities, then we are in for a great decade of growth. Growth in funding, growth in learning, growth in wealth and wellbeing. Because I am sure that we have not yet seen just how vital colleges are in this country and I am confident that, given half a chance, we will see them leap forward for the benefit of all of us and all of our communities.

David Hughes is chief executive of the Association of Colleges