I'm puzzled by Fig 1. The link seems to go to an IFS report on P8, so I can't tell if that chart does support your point that FE funding has been declining since well before 2010. I'm thinking 16-19 funding isn't captured by those stats. No doubt it declined substantially after 2010 - I was working in a 6th form college 2010-2013 and we had to significantly cut contact time for A-Levels and the Level 3 vocational programmes, as per student funding was cut, but I'm not so sure about before 2010.
The changes Gove et al. made were cheap because they didn't need new teachers, buildings, equipment, or logistics.
I'm not convinced widespread selection at 14 into academic and vocational pathways is a good idea, but if we are going to try it then it's going to require serious funding because it will need at least three of those things. I appreciate you recognise that but I'm wondering if we have any idea what it will actually cost?
I'm thinking about UTCs. You're right they're doing okay now but that's after opening about sixty and writing off about a quarter of them. My guesstimates may be way off but I think the UTC programme must be heading towards £1B additional costs above per pupil funding. Maybe 100,000 students since 2010 (current enrolment is about 20,000). That's £10k each. Maybe lessons learned from the failures, and maybe UTC "sleeves" and college day release etc will be cheaper - some small successes around MBacc, I think - but otoh don't forget what happened to 14-19 Diplomas.
Good on Burnham for being concerned about these children, and for paying some attention to issues of motivation rather than just academic outcomes. However, for me, it's not obvious how any government with a red line on raising the main tax rates is going to find the money to actually make this work.
Michael Gove summarised his objections on X as “the bigotry of low expectations”. In this context a key element of the German system is the “Meisterbrief” at the apogee of the vocational system. This is difficult to obtain and includes not only technical knowledge and proficiency but also includes specific training to teach. You have to hold a Meisterbrief to be allowed to take on trainees.
From the purely social perspective, my son had a friend in primary school whose father was a “Malermeister”. Still not a lawyer but a peg up from “my dad runs a small house painting company”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “compelled” in relation to the German system. German companies are legally obliged to be members of their local Chamber of Commerce, which runs the vocational education examinations (and also delivers a range of other services provided in the UK by Government). I have been told that following his review in 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-stone-unturned-in-pursuit-of-growth Lord Heseltine was wiling to push for “public law status” of Chambers of Commerce in the UK which would be a necessary condition for introducing a similar system. (Providing large scale train the trainer training to catch up would be an enormous challenge).
Chambers of Commerce members do have to offer trainee places but don’t have to fill a specific quota (or take any particular individual). There are growing complaints too about the standard of general education and work ethic of many trainees.
The key thing is that if you want to open a car repair workshop on Germany you need to have a Meisterbrief or employ someone who does. Under the banner of “freedom of establishment” and services liberalisation, the UK tried to get the EU to force this to be abolished but it has strong cultural roots. The most visible sign of the system is the traditional flared trouser and waistcoat outfit worn by apprentice carpenters. As with the wigs worn by lawyers in the UK, you can tell that a profession has status if it has a distinctive (if slightly ridiculous) uniform.
Great piece and eloquent on the need to improve the offer to the forgotten third. Just one criticism - I think you overstate the success of the UTCs. Many have closed after failing to recruit pupils or reopened in a different guise following disastrous inspections. Outside big conurbations the coverage isn’t consistent enough for them to be reliable providers.
Yes in the south west Salisbury closed after failing to attract enough pupils. We do have a studio school attached to an agricultural college whose students are very employable. However attendance and GCSE outcomes are both well below average and the real reason for their employment outcomes is the local availability of employment opportunities in agriculture with no requirement for any qualifications.
I guess before getting too excited about engagement we also have to think about the value of what you are engaged with. My reading of the Wolf report was that she found that the only 14-16 qualifications with any labour market value were GCSE English and Maths. If it's the case that the GCSE-alternative in construction not only doesn't qualify you as a bricklayer but isn't even particularly valued by employers hiring trainee bricklayers then one might reasonably ask what is the point? In particular in that case it might be better to focus on (more valuable) general education even if the chance of significant progress isn't super high.
Do you have a take/evidence on this? Obviously one might say that's because the vocational qualifications in 2010 weren't vocational enough but I think there's a bit of a danger of slipping into "real socialism has never been tried"...
I've a huge amount of time for Alison's report - and I'd certainly agree people taking vocational options at 14-16 should continue to study English and Maths (but perhaps a lot fewer other academic subjects).
One of the big problems with the situation 2004-2010 was that the (often much easier) vocational qualifications were given false 'equivalences'.
I'd say it's much less about the qualification and much more about spending time in the workplace (which the Wolf review also recognises as important). If a disengaged 14 or 15 year old is spending time in construction, or a social care setting, or where-ever - whether that's a multiple week placement, or day release - that itself is keeping them engaged, and they'll be learning valuable things about how to operate in a workplace, from timeliness to working with colleagues or customers. Maybe they'll then go on to take a (good) vocational qualification, maybe they'll just learn on the job and then go into full time employment; either way is better than sitting through endless lessons on materials they don't understand, playing truant, and then going on to a life on benefits.
A key element of the German system is that the vocational exams are actually set by employers (through the Chambers of Commerce). This is actually where City & Guilds started too, but seems to have lost its way in recent years.
A good piece and it made me think about the part that's hardest to legislate for: parents. All the delivery reforms you set out matter but a lot of families still treat a technical route as a backup option. That will limit demand no matter how good the supply gets. I know parity of esteem is a phrase you're wary of. Some progress has been made but shifting how parents see these routes feels like the real hard work that comms campaigns so far haven't cracked. Do you think that shift has to be tackled head on or does it follow once the routes prove themselves?
Some of it will be that they prove themselves. But also, we need a backup option.
No-one likes to think that their kid will be in the bottom 25%, or start flunking out and going off the rails. But even though no-one would choose to be there, it's really important that we have good routes for these kids, that keep them engaged, out of the welfare office and into employment.
I'm puzzled by Fig 1. The link seems to go to an IFS report on P8, so I can't tell if that chart does support your point that FE funding has been declining since well before 2010. I'm thinking 16-19 funding isn't captured by those stats. No doubt it declined substantially after 2010 - I was working in a 6th form college 2010-2013 and we had to significantly cut contact time for A-Levels and the Level 3 vocational programmes, as per student funding was cut, but I'm not so sure about before 2010.
Sorry, I linked to the wrong IFS report - too many tabs open!
This is the link you want (now also corrected in the report).
https://ifs.org.uk/education-spending/adult-education-and-skills
And you're right the trend for 16-19 funding is different, and that in real terms it rose per pupil until 2010 and fell per pupil after that.
Easy done. Thanks.
I think funding is crucial to this debate.
The changes Gove et al. made were cheap because they didn't need new teachers, buildings, equipment, or logistics.
I'm not convinced widespread selection at 14 into academic and vocational pathways is a good idea, but if we are going to try it then it's going to require serious funding because it will need at least three of those things. I appreciate you recognise that but I'm wondering if we have any idea what it will actually cost?
I'm thinking about UTCs. You're right they're doing okay now but that's after opening about sixty and writing off about a quarter of them. My guesstimates may be way off but I think the UTC programme must be heading towards £1B additional costs above per pupil funding. Maybe 100,000 students since 2010 (current enrolment is about 20,000). That's £10k each. Maybe lessons learned from the failures, and maybe UTC "sleeves" and college day release etc will be cheaper - some small successes around MBacc, I think - but otoh don't forget what happened to 14-19 Diplomas.
Good on Burnham for being concerned about these children, and for paying some attention to issues of motivation rather than just academic outcomes. However, for me, it's not obvious how any government with a red line on raising the main tax rates is going to find the money to actually make this work.
Michael Gove summarised his objections on X as “the bigotry of low expectations”. In this context a key element of the German system is the “Meisterbrief” at the apogee of the vocational system. This is difficult to obtain and includes not only technical knowledge and proficiency but also includes specific training to teach. You have to hold a Meisterbrief to be allowed to take on trainees.
From the purely social perspective, my son had a friend in primary school whose father was a “Malermeister”. Still not a lawyer but a peg up from “my dad runs a small house painting company”.
I’m not sure what you mean by “compelled” in relation to the German system. German companies are legally obliged to be members of their local Chamber of Commerce, which runs the vocational education examinations (and also delivers a range of other services provided in the UK by Government). I have been told that following his review in 2012, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/no-stone-unturned-in-pursuit-of-growth Lord Heseltine was wiling to push for “public law status” of Chambers of Commerce in the UK which would be a necessary condition for introducing a similar system. (Providing large scale train the trainer training to catch up would be an enormous challenge).
Chambers of Commerce members do have to offer trainee places but don’t have to fill a specific quota (or take any particular individual). There are growing complaints too about the standard of general education and work ethic of many trainees.
The key thing is that if you want to open a car repair workshop on Germany you need to have a Meisterbrief or employ someone who does. Under the banner of “freedom of establishment” and services liberalisation, the UK tried to get the EU to force this to be abolished but it has strong cultural roots. The most visible sign of the system is the traditional flared trouser and waistcoat outfit worn by apprentice carpenters. As with the wigs worn by lawyers in the UK, you can tell that a profession has status if it has a distinctive (if slightly ridiculous) uniform.
Great piece and eloquent on the need to improve the offer to the forgotten third. Just one criticism - I think you overstate the success of the UTCs. Many have closed after failing to recruit pupils or reopened in a different guise following disastrous inspections. Outside big conurbations the coverage isn’t consistent enough for them to be reliable providers.
I'd recommend reading the study I linked to - I fully agree they had a rocky start, but then they figured out how to do it and have improved greatly.
I recognise they may work less well in more rural areas.
Yes in the south west Salisbury closed after failing to attract enough pupils. We do have a studio school attached to an agricultural college whose students are very employable. However attendance and GCSE outcomes are both well below average and the real reason for their employment outcomes is the local availability of employment opportunities in agriculture with no requirement for any qualifications.
I guess before getting too excited about engagement we also have to think about the value of what you are engaged with. My reading of the Wolf report was that she found that the only 14-16 qualifications with any labour market value were GCSE English and Maths. If it's the case that the GCSE-alternative in construction not only doesn't qualify you as a bricklayer but isn't even particularly valued by employers hiring trainee bricklayers then one might reasonably ask what is the point? In particular in that case it might be better to focus on (more valuable) general education even if the chance of significant progress isn't super high.
Do you have a take/evidence on this? Obviously one might say that's because the vocational qualifications in 2010 weren't vocational enough but I think there's a bit of a danger of slipping into "real socialism has never been tried"...
I've a huge amount of time for Alison's report - and I'd certainly agree people taking vocational options at 14-16 should continue to study English and Maths (but perhaps a lot fewer other academic subjects).
One of the big problems with the situation 2004-2010 was that the (often much easier) vocational qualifications were given false 'equivalences'.
I'd say it's much less about the qualification and much more about spending time in the workplace (which the Wolf review also recognises as important). If a disengaged 14 or 15 year old is spending time in construction, or a social care setting, or where-ever - whether that's a multiple week placement, or day release - that itself is keeping them engaged, and they'll be learning valuable things about how to operate in a workplace, from timeliness to working with colleagues or customers. Maybe they'll then go on to take a (good) vocational qualification, maybe they'll just learn on the job and then go into full time employment; either way is better than sitting through endless lessons on materials they don't understand, playing truant, and then going on to a life on benefits.
A key element of the German system is that the vocational exams are actually set by employers (through the Chambers of Commerce). This is actually where City & Guilds started too, but seems to have lost its way in recent years.
A good piece and it made me think about the part that's hardest to legislate for: parents. All the delivery reforms you set out matter but a lot of families still treat a technical route as a backup option. That will limit demand no matter how good the supply gets. I know parity of esteem is a phrase you're wary of. Some progress has been made but shifting how parents see these routes feels like the real hard work that comms campaigns so far haven't cracked. Do you think that shift has to be tackled head on or does it follow once the routes prove themselves?
Some of it will be that they prove themselves. But also, we need a backup option.
No-one likes to think that their kid will be in the bottom 25%, or start flunking out and going off the rails. But even though no-one would choose to be there, it's really important that we have good routes for these kids, that keep them engaged, out of the welfare office and into employment.