It is sadly no surprise to hear yet another lament about the state of the UK’s technical education system following the closure of a seventh university technical college (Editorial, 20 February). Successive governments have failed to really get to grips with vocational education because the people who make the decisions have little direct experience of it, and this has led to a devastating lack of investment in the sector.
In England, students aged 16-19 on technical courses attract less than half the funding of their peers in higher education – and those aged 19 and over on technical courses get even less. Following a series of budget cuts to colleges since 2009, well over a million adult learners have been lost as courses have been forced to close. If the government really wants to improve the standing of good-quality technical education, it must ensure that the sector as a whole is well supported. That means building capacity; UCU is calling for 15,000 more further education teachers which would support over 250,000 more learners. Without proper investment, this perennial conversation about the problems facing technical education is doomed to repeat itself
Sally Hunt
General secretary, University and College Union
Your editorial is very timely and very welcome. The Labour government missed a good opportunity when it discarded the Tomlinson report. The mistake we make is that you cannot separate “vocational education” from “academic education”. The key is to consider at which stage do you decide to apply what you have learned to a vocational specialism: 16, 18 or 21? Good schools and universities should cater for all. Tomlinson’s proposals would have allowed both academic and vocational sides to integrate from the age of 14, thus avoiding the idea of one or the other. It is about time to bring it up again.
Simon Surtees
London
Your editorial highlights a real challenge to the government’s apprenticeship drive. It’s easy to pat ourselves on the back when we see a few percentage points’ hike in, say, the number of female engineering apprentices, but the reality is that the UK’s significant cultural bias against technical training will not alter by a few rare case studies alone. We need to change the stories we tell our children – for example, how highly skilled technicians are seen as the real experts in industry, and how many rise to the top. Technical and academic education must be seen as existing on the same continuum.
Currently it is too easy for young people to close down their subject options too soon – often before they understand what it is they are giving up. A broader-based baccalaureate system to 18 could mean a majority would at least study a technical subject (certainly to 16) along with arts, humanities and science.
Mike Tomlinson’s review in 2004 achieved a broad consensus in favour of wholesale reform of the examination system but failed because of fear that it was unpalatable to middle-class parents, who had a particular affinity with A-levels (a system that has now been around so long that it could legitimately be drawing its state pension). Without change, the dominance of A-levels will continue to scupper initiatives to bring about improvements in technical education.
Peter Finegold
Head of education and skills, Institution of Mechanical Engineers
The Tomlinson review was right to suggest that 14 was a suitable age for access to vocational education. Kenneth Baker was also right to do something about this. The mistake was to set up separate schools as university training colleges. The answer is not to allow any UTC to close. In every area where there is a UTC in difficulty, an effective, mixed, local secondary school should be identified. The UTC and that school should then be closed. On that same day, a new school and a new governing body would open. Teachers from the two others would form the new staff. All pupils in the new school could then have access to some form of vocational training. Combining schools in this way was repeatedly done in London in the 1970s. At Oundle in the 1920s, all pupils were required to spend at least two weeks in its workshops.
Peter Newsam
Thornton Dale, North Yorkshire
Your editorial rightly highlights the disparity in status between “academic” and “vocational” education, but fails to recognise that decent GCSE results alone no longer equip our young people with the skills that the 21st-century economy demands. Employers increasingly favour “attitude” over “aptitude” and are looking for the creativity, resilience and workplace skills which creative and technical courses such as design and technology, arts, engineering and computer science offer. Before we start tinkering around the fringes of our education system again, we need to address the inadequacy of our narrow antiquated curriculum and the current Ebacc, which mirrors the suite of subjects taught in 1904. It limits opportunities for all students, not just the low attainers and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. The digital revolution is happening now; we need to fundamentally rethink what and how young people learn to meet their aspirations and the needs of the 21st-century economy.
Alice Barnard
CEO, Edge Foundation
Much of the media reporting over the prime minister’s visit to a Copeland school focused on Theresa May’s facial expressions. However, the visit highlighted a very serious subject for the UK economy. While at the school, the PM joined a “First Lego League” lesson where students were demonstrating robots they had built. The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) organises the competition in the UK and Ireland to help inspire the next generation of engineers.
There are not enough young people, particularly girls, taking up the important engineering gateway subjects such as maths, physics and design & technology – and then taking their studies further whether through an apprenticeship, or higher education. Although there are many efforts made to highlight engineering as an exciting, creative and vibrant industry, we need to do more to get these messages heard by young people. We are also at risk of stifling economic growth if we do not produce the future engineers we so critically need. We will only fix the skills shortage when more young people are enlightened to the exciting, creative and rewarding world of engineering. Initiatives like First Lego League are doing just that, with over 250,000 young people globally taking part each year.
We’d be delighted to welcome back the prime minister to see more of these activities and promote the importance of engineering for the UK economy.
Nigel Fine
Chief executive, Institution of Engineering and Technology
Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com