Andy to introduce new technical pathways for GCSEs in 2028(!)

[noblegiraffe]

Or perhaps not GCSEs but some other sort of qualification which will apparently tie into local industry, for students going into Y8 in September.

"The “prestigious” new technical pathways, which will pair skills training with work experience and connections with local employers, are set to be rolled out from September 2028."

Is Andy Burnham actually mad? 2028? Does he realise that it actually takes time to develop qualifications (or 'skills training'), resource them (particularly technical ones which require more equipment than a maths lesson) and then find the teachers to actually teach them? And the local employers to do the work experience? One of the major problems with setting up T-levels was problems with finding work placements, and that's for age 16+.

I know he has the MBacc in Manchester (although this seems to be merely a label for a set of already existing qualifications rather than new ones - does anyone have any experience of this?) but I expect it is easier to organise work experience for kids in a large city with good transport links than it would be in a more rural/coastal area - and the problem with a lot of those places is a lack of job opportunities for young people in the first place.

And he's announced this in the summer holidays, which one of his teacher relatives should really have warned him is what is considered a 'dick move' in education.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/schools-prime-minister-burnham-lucy-powell-ofsted-b1291512.html

https://www.tes.com/magazine/news/secondary/new-technical-pathways-for-students-announced-by-andy-burnham

Andy should also be aware that calling them 'prestigious technical pathways' is a noble effort, but there is, and always has been a massive issue with vocational subjects being seen as lesser than academic ones. If these prestigious pathways end up being for the kids who are not going to get decent GCSEs - which is always the kids who people think should do vocational qualifications - then they will not be prestigious and the middle classes will continue to steer their kids down the academic route.

I’ve been saying they should do something like this for years.

Like it or not, not every child is cut out for an academic education and they don’t all want to go to university. The thought of sitting in a Geography class for 2 more years is torture for many 14 and 15 yos. They’d be much better off doing something that actually interests them. In turn this could get children off the streets and do wonders for their mental health because it could give them a sense of purpose and achievement.

I think it’s a brilliant idea which should have happened years ago.

Sure, so where are these other ones coming from?

I know a teacher who has been roped into teaching engineering in September because they couldn't get a teacher, and he has literally no idea about engineering. That's not ideal.

Eugh I’m sorry but could you stop talking about kids in this way? “Dumping ground for kids who can’t do maths and English”’ you sound like an academic snob. The kids who might choose this route would probably do something like functional skills type courses in the necessary subjects, they might well have some kind of science in there too. Who says GCSEs are the only proof of intelligence?! I’ve been saying for years that there are some kids who are perfectly capable of having successful careers but GCSEs and A levels are not the right route for them. This sounds like a step in the right direction. It could work, why be such a negative Nancy about it?

Isn't it a shame that schools got rid of carpentry and metalwork workshops and kitchens years ago, Now they will need to add them back at huge expense. Or is everything going to be offsite and provided by... Who? Back in the day it was a bit 'domestic science' for girls and workshops for boys, but some of us girls did get a go in the workshops too, and all starting at 11, not 14 as now proposed and it was an afternoon a week. There was also technical drawing and design higher up the school.

But it doesn't start until 2028. As per your thread title.

But could also include training for other shortage areas, for instance adult care and child care, which is much needed and a shortage area.

Good LA’s already do some of this work, linking schools/colleges and local employers. One LA that I have connections with has large transport hubs, distribution centres and a film/tv/concert production industry. Certainly post 16 courses reflect the needs of for logistics, H&S, performing arts and connected services.

My personal experience is off my DC dropping out of grammar school but having very limited access to anything else. Ideally motor/engineering related, nothing local but farming but no support for an apprenticeship in another area. Difficult at 17 to rent a flat, but no halls of residence as would have been the case for university.

The same DC has made it work. HND through an apprenticeship an hour away and now earns really well. (Triple our other Masters graduate).

If they can't recruit engineering teachers now for established engineering courses, what makes you think there'll be a queue of them waiting to sign up in 2028?

I think this is great!

We need more kids going into the trades and AI-type work.

I don't understand your argument. You're obviously opposed to the scheme, is there an alternative you have in mind?

I have started a similar thread. My school already has behaviour issues in Child development, health and social and btec PE. It would need serious funding. How will safeguarding work? It is hard enough to get a weeks work experience. Even now we have several students still in school.

I like the idea in principle. But agree 2028? Really?

Tell it to the electricians and plumbers etc, laughing all the way to the bank.

I am literally talking about how this pathway will be viewed. According to Andy Burnham, it will be prestigious.

On this thread there's already the assumption that it will be for kids who would fail all their GCSEs.

If that's how it is viewed, then it will not be prestigious. If it's not prestigious, why would employers want to get involved? It's hard enough getting work experience for T-levels.

It is all very well saying 'GCSEs aren't the only proof on intelligence' but for good or ill, the majority of employers specify maths and English at 4+. It's why there is so much focus on getting kids over that line.

When you look at what some electricians, plasterers etc cost per hour, I know who is laughing and it isn't the graduates with £30k debt!

I have literally nothing against vocational education, nor the trades.

I do have a problem with governments tossing out poorly thought-through policy - basically vague posting - and suggesting that it should be up and running by 2028. It's absolutely crazy.

But try and discuss the logistics of how it will actually work and apparently you hate plumbers.

We still have those things. What we don't have is the staff because the ones we had have retired, and the ones we need haven't been trained because the courses don't exist.

We have to teach DT on a carousel as a result.

And the cost of running these courses is prohibitive too. The ongoing training and health and safety and provision of resources and maintenance of machines... it all adds up to a lot more than running English or maths.

It's a great idea - but by 2028? It's just not realistic.

But they can be a prestigious choice if attitudes change.

My 11 GCSE, heading for 4 A level, DC was made to feel a failure for choosing not to complete his A levels, not following the typical grammar school path. As I said above, his choices were limited by the practicality at 17 and his school provided very little advice.

He is talented, very practical and driven. Disliked school, wanted to be outside, ‘doing’.

Maybe attendance in secondary will increase too, rather than everyone battling with punitive measures. Maybe a positive impact on young peoples mental health.
The ‘Gove’ curriculum is not working for many. There needs to be well thought out, well supported changes so that more young people achieve and feel valued.

It is all very well saying 'GCSEs aren't the only proof on intelligence' but for good or ill, the majority of employers specify maths and English at 4+. It's why there is so much focus on getting kids over that line.

Two of my year 11 failed last year - neither got the 4. Both of them were adamant that I was wrong about needing the 4 in English and maths because they both had apprenticeships lined up.

Their exam papers showed that they'd both just had a nap.... they were mostly blank.

Their apprenticeships were both withdrawn.

We all know that exam results alone don't show who a person is - but employers all want "basic skills". One of which, in these cases, was being arsed. Both of them should have achieved at least grade 4, but they didn't think it mattered.

You are obsessed with the word “prestigious” kids and their parents who might be interested in an alternative education route won’t care about that word! Functional skills level 2 is widely accepted by employers in place of Grade 4 or 5 GCSE Maths /English and should be offered in schools. I’ve just been researching degree apprenticeships this morning with my ds and some of those companies were happy to accept Functional skills.
I suspect employers just want kids who are trained to do the jobs they have vacancies for and have had real work experience. Lots of Uni graduates out there unable to get jobs.

Functional skills doesn't count towards progress 8 though, which is why many schools simply won't offer it.

We can't offer functional skills in schools because the government won't let us. They don't count for the league tables.

I'm 'obsessed' with the word 'prestigious' because that is what Andy Burnham has confidently asserted his vocational pathway will be. There have been SO many problems over the years with trying to promote vocational pathways as of equal importance to academic routes - the word 'BTEC' is used by kids to be scathing about something. So you can't just announce that a vocational pathway will be prestigious and on a par with the academic pathway and assume that will happen.

I suspect employers just want kids who are trained to do the jobs they have vacancies for and have had real work experience. Lots of Uni graduates out there unable to get jobs.

Which makes one wonder why they are not hiring the uni graduates and training them up. Employers have a tendency to want the exact candidate with the right skills handed to them on a plate, and can't be arsed to do it themselves.

But staffing in schools is already an issue. Perhaps this is the start of change, perhaps more adults will train to teach if they are using their professional skills (engineers, social workers, nurses, mechanics, performers etc).

Three years ago, my geography teacher friend was offered a full time contract (after being part time) only to find at the last minute, that she had to teach Food Prep & Nutrition, Design Technology. Absolutely no experience at all but assured ‘most of the planning is on the server’. 😵‍💫😱

@noblegiraffe I am not a labour voter but calling him 'Andy' makes you sound like a Tory troll (which I believe is incorrect). I actually agree with you on lots of points. I suspect it will be the same old thing of: Maths, English, Science and a vocational award - all the usual ones with some work experience. I live in Cornwall and we had to stop Tlevel science because we could find enough appropriate work placement places. Sorry but we do not all live in a City. Its lipservice - no change.

Why can it not be prestigious, unless the only ability we value is the ability to pass exams. How fine it would be if kids who don’t fit an academic mould could instead access a curriculum that was hands on, recognised their practical ability and had parity of esteem with their more academic peers.

It’s not acceptable that kids who don’t fit the “string of exams, on to uni” pathway are made to feel less than, or that they’ve failed before they even get started.

I completely agree with you @noblegiraffe. This is an ill thought out move designed to get ‘people’ on board and make Burnham seem more ‘man of the people’. Everyone who isn’t a teacher will say ‘great, he’s addressing the need for vocational pathways in school’. Except, it’s completely unrealistic. T levels have failed primarily because a) they were rushed. Staff teaching them had no training or, often, proper access to the assessment criteria. So many kids failed their first year because they met none of the assessment criteria. In a lot of cases, they were then hurriedly moved into a 2nd year extended L3 BTEC.
b) lack of work experience. T levels require 300 hours of work experience! Great in theory unless you have no industry that relates to the T levels (Art and Design in Ashford? No. Gaming Design in Crawley? No). I know so many kids who were pushed into the T level course last year (having applied for ex L3 BTEC) that have either completely failed their first year first year or have no where near the required work experience. Local Facebook pages are full of parents/kids asking for work experience in Animal Management in an area that’s very rural/coastal with no animal businesses bar dog kennels, dog walkers and small holders. The industry isn’t there to support the qualification. So why would it now, magically, be there for 14 year olds? Specialist Provision have offered ‘vocational’ qualifications for years. Do these kids have more success at getting into employment? No. The courses are ‘soft’ ie no real hands on experience beyond their own provision and teachers trying their best to teach a subject they have no knowledge of. Schools are in enough trouble, how are they going to (in two years!) have the staff and facilities to now add all of these vocational pathways to their curriculum? What will the kids do at 16? Go to college and do it all again? Do a different vocational qualification?
FE colleges are well designed to offer a range of vocational equals at BTEC L2 and L3 (an extended L3 is equivalent to 3 A levels). These are tried and tested and work. The issues arise not with the equals but with the kids - disengaged, rude, unmotivated, unrealistic (why do I have to cut the same bit of wood over and over? I want to build a house etc). They also have to do English and Maths (if didn’t get the magical 4 at GCSE) and they’re resistant and disenchanted. Schools do need a reform but rushing in vocational qualifications is unrealistic and a sop to voters. It also doesn’t address the need to reform English and Maths to be more accessible to more children. 25% ‘fail’ (don’t achieve a 4) every year. The pass rate for re-takes then drops to 20-25% and they are caught in a loop of re-takes for 3 years (if they got a 3). If they got a 2 or below then can do Functional Skills (up to L2 which is equivalent to GCSE 4) which has a much higher pass rate. Address English and Maths in schools first because a 4 in Eng and Maths gives greater access to a range of L3 courses.

I did put paragraphs.