Institution news
If developing skills is one of the ‘pillars’ of the Industrial Strategy, technical education should be a plinth on which it rests.
Philip Hammond opened his first Budget speech with a commitment to 'invest in Britain’s future', citing how the only sustainable way to raise living standards was to improve productivity. Currently, the UK stands stubbornly 35% behind the productivity of Germany and 18% behind the G7 average.
On top of the £23 billion committed to infrastructure and innovation investment announced in last autumn’s statement, the Chancellor announced an additional £300 million will fund the brightest and the best research talent, including support for 1000 new PhD places and fellowships, focused on STEM subjects. Then, a further £270 million to keep the UK at the forefront of disruptive technologies like biotech, robotic systems and driverless vehicles.
But pride of place was set aside for how he intends to address the skills gap, through investment in schools and a renewal of technical education, following the blueprint set down by the independent panel led by Lord Sainsbury. The new streamlined technical 'routes' replace the 13,000 or so different qualifications with just 15 clear, career-focused paths.
It’s right of course, that the government’s embryonic Industrial Strategy should have a clear, properly thought through national skills strategy to underpin it. Today’s Budget announcement will certainly contribute to this.
Our economic success is heavily reliant on structural change of this type, but also demands a culture shift – especially how we might frame technical education, not simply to be on par with academic study but to be seen as seamless with it. Bringing about such a cultural transformation may prove to be a little trickier.
The Chancellor's £500 million per year additional commitment to support game-changing 16-19 education reforms including T-levels are welcome, but the challenge will be in how to attract young people and their parents to the value of technical training, in areas such as engineering, in the first place.
Our schools focus on a narrow set of academic success indicators and are largely staffed by teachers who have little experience of industry. Parents remain fearful that a technical education is a second-class option.
To ensure the T-levels, Institutes of Technology and the renewed 16-19 sector all succeed, we must change fundamentally the relationship between schools, Further Education (FE) colleges and industry.
Teachers should spend time in the modern workplace to understand the value of technical skills. Schools must open their doors to their educational competitors in the FE sector. Arguably the biggest threat to T-levels (in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) are the option limiting A-levels. It may be time to think again about whether reform of technical education can happen without changes to the academic ones.