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.

Posted too soon.

My friends' kids (another European country) are on a STEM pathway and a creative pathway (both aiming at university and one even has a graduate destination in mind at 17) but their schools are ensuring they take practical lab work and marketing work, respectively, just as seriously. It's in parallel, not closing options down. My DC will have to close one set of options down at 16 and she at 13 is already saying annoying things like "MFL is pointless because I won't need to do the GCSE."

This is such a great system compared to what we have. We could learn so much from on Germany.

Can I ask what happens in the German system or elsewhere with similar pathways if the secondary schools are in rural or deprived areas where there is very little industry etc? Schools in my area really struggle with work experience options. I’m struggling to see what links would be available. Hospitality might be an option but that sector is struggling so probably not an option and not something that will provide jobs going forward. Farming is another area but again struggling.

Also if this pathway still includes some GCSEs so still looking at young people with academic skills, we will still have a number of children struggling in the education system.

I think its a fairly good idea in principle but the timetable is way too optimistic and there are a lot of potential pitfalls that would need to be worked out first e.g. work experience, both getting it and potentially missing out on core subject lessons while doing it (assuming they will still be doing core subjects, certainly hope so!)

But I am wary of doing it at 14, I do think 16 is better but 14 might work out OK. When I was in school we could choose GNVQs alongside GCSEs, I chose one despite being a bright middle class teenager with parents pushing academic subjects because I just wanted to do something different and learn new things.

Finland has a good vocational system but its 16+ and it has a very solid system built around it and they continue academic studies throughout, just not to the same extent as academic high schools. There's technical universities too which are respected unlike polytechnics. Work experience is likely easier to organise because students are covered by the schools insurance so companies don't need to worry about insurance issues. At my last job (aircraft manufacture) we had a 15 year old work experience girl who was able to do hands on work, and I took my 14 year old in a couple of times and she was able to do real work, because they were insured to work properly. If they weren't then no one would feel comfortable letting them do anything beyond observing and maybe sweeping up so a proper insurance system for work experience is essential.

If people want to be plumbers etc, most are self employed and need a business brain for that. They also need social skills to be able to talk to customers

We won't though, will we? We don't have their politics. We don't have their culture. we don't have their economy.

It must be significant that Bavaria has had the freedom to develop their system in a context of a federal system where they are one of the top three areas by GDP (incidentally their GDP per capita is approx 1.5 times that of Greater Manchester, which is itself heavily subsidised by London and the SE).

Manchester (or London, which is significantly richer than Bavaria even if much of that is based on volatile financial services) can't "go it alone" in our centralised system.

Like it or not, we can only make changes very very slowly and painfully because everything has to be made to (kind of) work from Cornwall to Cambridge.

My brainy plumber has tried to train so many people and had to let them go because of manners! He is very tidy and polite as well as multi skilled.

Yes, this is essentially what UTCs were, Gove's plan for vocational education. Most of them ended up closing.
https://feweek.co.uk/gove-admits-the-utcs-experiment-has-failed/

"“Technical schools that recruited students at 14 and educated them until 19, each was meant to have a specialism, such as engineering… and a mission to inspire students who didn’t want to follow an academic path.
But he said: “Twice as many UTCs are inadequate as outstanding, according to Ofsted. UTC pupils have lower GCSE scores, make less progress academically and acquire fewer qualifications than their contemporaries in comprehensives.”
He admitted that student recruitment was a major problem for them, and “other schools have seen them as destinations for underperforming children”."

The article goes on to say that Greater Manchester UTC was one of those which had to close, so Andy Burnham should be aware of this failure.

I looked up your Kent Youth colleges which appear to be run by EKC group. Last year, only 7% of kids got a grade 4+ in English and maths. This is disastrous, particularly as it was 25% the year before, and 20% the year before that, but this just underlines the 'destinations for underperforming children' view.

So UTCs were a failed attempt at vocational education, but at least they have economy of scale when it comes to providing kids with training for a particular pathway. Burnham seems to think that the UTC idea of specialised pathways aged 14 can be provided within secondary schools, and multiple pathways at that. Within 2 years....

Many of us teachers spend a lot of time talking about the lack of manners of some of our students. It is another problem for society. I am sure you're no exception.

I think it's realistic to START rolling out in just a couple of years.

Remember his timescale is based on what he's actually DONE in Manchester.

The issue is whether the same scheme would work in rural areas and provincial towns where employment opportunities are much more limited and there's much bigger issues relating to transport.

The danger here is a metropolitan bias which only increases the issues with our divided society.

A lot of the drivers of political differences centre around how there's been a drain away from rural areas and provincial towns and this is reflected in differences in affluence already.

Plus the MBacc scheme is so far unproven as it's not yet got any data as to it's success. I suspect it will be good but to what degree remains to be seen.

I don't think it's a new idea as such. Just a scaling up of one that's already had a lot of the behind the scenes stuff done.

That’s very depressing

What has he actually done for 14-16 year olds in Manchester? All the info I can see has been about T-levels and post-16. Given that we're talking about a plan for 14 year olds, after extensive googling, all I can find out is that the MBacc award for Y10 will start this September, and a copy of an options booklet for Manchester Academy which contains the options for the 'MBacc pathway' which look like a completely normal set of options.

My point was it's possible. This boy wasn't an outlier. His younger brother did the same thing as well. And definitely didn't come from a family of privilege. Unlike JC, who although not from a wealthy immediate family, DID have a family with a background of previous privilege who clearly understood the way the system worked.

Take your dismissive 'blah blah'. Why bother starting a thread if you're rude and dismissive to anyone that just fails to agree with you? You do have form for this though, so I'm not surprised.

SOMETHING needs to be done and regardless of your impression that academic subjects are aspirational, I'd really have thought that you could see the utter shambles of HE, with massive debt, very variable levels of quality of uni ed and the lack of employability post-qualification is a massive turn-off for many, and not just the non-academics.

I'm certainly no AB fan. I don't think he should be PM. But he's doing SOMETHING which is better than the alternative.

I think the problem is that there will always be a certain number of kids who for whatever reason will not get any qualifications. In my parents day it was perfectly normal to leave school at 14/15 and go into a job.

Unfortunately today, a) those sorts of jobs don't exist b) companies want ready trained employees and won't invest in training c) kids seem less mature and often have a bad attitude towards work and authority.

I think the country is in a real mess. NEETs range from Oxbridge graduates to people with no qualifications at all but the problem is the same - no jobs. Without jobs all this is pointless.

Those with qualifications can at least plan a route out of the country.

Apologies for the dismissive 'blah blah blah', but every single year on results day Jeremy Clarkson tweets 'I got shit results and it never did me any harm'. And every year teachers put their heads in their hands and say 'thanks for that Jeremy, really helpful'. Teachers are constantly battling the 'my dad never got any qualifications and he's doing ok'. Sure, but no one ever points to the large number of people who didn't get any qualifications and who aren't doing ok. And the world is very different now in terms of jobs available for low-skilled workers. We cannot be pretending to kids that qualifications don't actually matter.

And yes, 'something' needs to be done. But it should be a good, well thought-out something, and not merely as 'this is something, therefore it should be done'.

Of course I can see the shambles in HE and uni debt, anyone who teaches sixth form can, and increasing numbers of kids are opting out. But this isn't about post-16, choices made at 14 should keep as many options for kids open as possible.

My kid is year 9 Sept so will miss out there.
But is academic so will 🤞🏻taking 9 GCSE.
What he won't be doing though - and bear in mind, we are in greater MCR - is work experience in year 10.
Why not?
Because it was increasingly hard for his school to get employers and pay the cost of insurance.
Instead, they've gone the Unifrog route of uni visits, college days, workshops etc
My daughter did do a placement but it was one I found for her. Many of her peers went to one of their parent's or parent's friend's workplaces. Which sounds more like Take your kid to work day, for those that remember it.
So it will be interesting how they hope to do it and roll it out two years from now.
Technology is on rotation already and at KS4 is often a ballache, as classes are too big and so many do not realise the components do require a lot of written annotation.
Ebacc has already limited option choices.
I live and work in an area of gtr MCR and Mbacc/what Andy has done for MCR schools has clearly passed us by. I haven't a clue. 🤭
Missed that memo.

I remember life skills/key skills twenty years ago.
I think vocational - health and social, travel and tourism, hospitality can all work...but only if you have the staffing to teach them.

I agree that AI is a game changer and that trades are potentially a better choice for decent money now: I wish my kids could be sparkies, plumbers or plasterers. The waiting lists are insane for building work. But my two are academic with no handwork/craft/manual skills or interest in developing them. Not from a snobby point of view, they're just all fingers and thumbs.

I haven't heard great things about T levels either, post 16 apprenticeships are competitive and degree apprenticeships I think have already or will become much fought over/the holy grail.

Germany has had the Gymnasium, Realschule, Berufschule route for years. Qualifications are paramount over there.
But it was always elitist with those who could afford Nachhilfe (tuition) paying very early to get kids through: Gymnasium was academic for potential uni graduates, Realschule would turn out office workers, Berufschule, trade.
Their Azubis (apprenticeships) I heard good things about but in the same way they always used to say here, those that can't, teach, over there I'm sure there was a phrase about Bus or Bahn. (So you could get an apprenticeship with transport but it used to be sneered at compared with a degree). Post and Banking also did decent Azubis iirc.
Hopefully it has changed now but I do know years ago that many kids with migration backgrounds/Turkish Germans were not levelled up and kids with SEND were all shunted to special schools/Foederschulen.
The pathways at the Gymnasium, grammar school equivalents also had work experience elements including social care (some of which were looked down on in Bavaria as Pudding Abi, google it!). Mine did business, Wirtschaftszweig and A level (got a good Abitur) but still ended up in hospitality (nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying the academic route she took didn't help her at uni, she struggled).

We clearly need change and social change so we have fewer disaffected teens because the current curriculum is not accessible to all of them, no matter how often you use the phrases levelling up or teaching to the top.
And we need ambition for those who don't have parents pushing them and to avoid kids falling into the post 16/post 18 unemployment gap.
Jan to March this year (according to a quick Google) figures showed 13.5% of 16-24 year olds were NEET (not in education, employment or training). That's 553 thousand young men and 459 thousand young women.
However, for me your biggest issue is still the lack of support with SEND, the huge backlogs and waits for assessment, the inflexibility with attendance and EBSA and the fact that the white paper is simply kicking it back to schools to fix without money.

I'd have much rather heard Burnham say he was making changes here than thinking vocational pathways will magic away the problems our young people are facing.

I appreciated nobles thread because whilst i had noticed pitfalls around the logistics of this working. I hadn't really thought of the tension between prestigious but for people who cant do gcses. Its onky prestigious if they were a straight 9 student actively chosing it because they were so useful and well regarded.

I hadn't really considered why 14 either. What's so important about starting bricklaying at 14 over keeping education broader and carrying on with music or art.

I think part of the reason is motivating people who the current system doesnt work well for which is a good reason but are there better ways to do this?

I agree with noble that students need qualifications and there arent jobs for people with no qualifications. the issue is are the jobs for people who didnt get 5 gcses grade 4 and above either - but is this the solution to that or not.

Absolutely. In fact I will change job in September and one of the things that sold the new school to me was that my interview happened to finish around 3pm so I was leaving the sixth form block at the same time as the students. On perceiving a visitor, they politely stood aside and waved me down the staircase.

This does not happen in my current school (despite it being a well regarded one we seem to have given up on manners, tidiness and the corridors are every man - teen - for themselves). I hate it!

I can't help thinking back to my own school days when you couldn't as much have saggy socks without risking the Deputy Head pursuing you down the corridor, and random adults would tell you off in the street if you dropped rubbish.

I would like to thank @noblegiraffe for starting the thread too. Having taught entirely in selective schools (by exam, exam and socioeconomic status, money, postcode, respectively), I didn't even encounter vocational qualifications such as BTECs until I'd already been teaching over a decade, and I didn't know that A-level represents less than half of the qualifications taken post 16. You'd never know that from the media!

Has anyone considered the gender implications of this? All the threads mention vocations primarily done by men (plasters/electricians/construction etc.)? There was even an element of misogny when Andy mentioned the hard hat as what proportion of women are actually in careers which use a hard hat? We seem to be ignoring (maybe deliberately) the non academic pathways for girls which invariably involve retail, caring, nursery work etc. where salari3s have been traditionally low.

What are the non academic routes for women which lead to prospects (apart from mentioning a successful electricians of course)

The government can provide the insurance.
The government can pass any law it wants to (with a big whipped majority and assuming support from the Lords), so can mandate employers have to take the kids, with a carrot of some tax breaks.

The alternative to 'making this happen' is accepting ever-growing numbers of NEET school leavers.

Financial and legal services maybe. Work your way up to the same place as a degree level entrant without the debt. ICAEW already do this in accountancy, although it's 16+ not 14+. It would be hard to design so the person kept ahead of what AI can do for free though.

I understand anecdotally that the trades can still be an unpleasant place for young women to be. Amazon, and the new supermarkets, I think have noticed this based on their job advertising.

Foreign owned businesses don't have to stick around if suddenly forced to find room for lots of basically unproductive 14 year olds though, do they? Have to be a hell of a tax break.

I wasnt really interested in sciences when i was at school I chose biology because it was the easiest and we had to do one.
If someone had said to me "if you choose Chemistry you can learn about ingredients and have the knowledge to maybe be able to start your own skincare/make up line" that i would have found appealing

@ClawsandEffect but if pupils are more engaged in relevant subjects for them would some of the bad behaviors improve? I certainly know a number of teens who are disruptive as they have no interest in a language or English lit etc and can’t see why they have to. They’d be different kids if interested. Luckily our school does a number of btec options at Yr10 Inc construction etc