Schools are not just 'feeders' for local job market

[mids2019]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jul/27/burnham-to-tell-schools-in-england-to-adapt-teaching-to-local-business-needs

Andy Burnham says schools should be looking to feed the local job market when he I is in charge of the most Oxbridge weighted cabinet in years whose children presumably are aiming for university and certainly not looking to enter any local job force.

Which proportion of the school should be dissuaded from university entrance to make this plan work.? Is there any counter message for the bright kids at state schools (presumably this message isn't aimed at grammar or private) to aspire to university including Oxbridge to look ultimately at non regional roles?

Maybe we could bring back the grammar school system while sale so we have a university capable cohort with new secondary moderns catering for local business .....would that suit Mr. Burnham.

it's frustrating as my children are fairly academically capable but it seems state schools are being pushed to hear career advice to local non graduate jobs to fulfil government agenda which is leaving them confused.

I disagree. I think we'd all agree that schools should do whatever best for children. It's just not in a child's interest to be long term unemployed, and if we push a child towards an academic path that has no viable career after it, that's failing them. Schools currently have no statistics collated about the "5 year on" outcome of their leavers, the way unis do. So they're incentivised to get them into a uni without thinking of the long term picture.

The fact remains that we create way more graduates than we need, and way fewer of certain trades than we need (having to rely on immigration for those). That's not good for our school leavers

There needs to be a huge change of emphasis in education away from the purely academic to the skilled, technical and practical. We need people who can build and make things and for those people to be properly trained. State education is very one size fits all and in has failed huge numbers of young people. Big changes are required.

So in the less than 2 weeks since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister your kids have already had careers advice from school that directs them to non-graduate jobs? Yeah right.

There’s far too many out of work young people. Not every job needs a degree and many young people would be better off without the debt it generates.

If your children are very academic, that's lovely and you can support them individually to pursue that. Burnham is talking about the bigger picture, not your particular children.

Fundamentally, if you have a kid on say 5s at GCSE, and you encourage him to become a plumber, he's got a way better chance of having a comfortable life than if you encourage him to go for an English literature degree. Substitute plumber for whatever local shortage of trade.

The point is that the elephant in the room is that the message is feared towards non academic students many of whom would benefit from some form of vocational training. I agree.

However back in the day we had a means of differentiating between those who were going to benefit from a more academic focus and those from a more vocational route. It was the grammar secondary modern system.

By being ideologically sex to a comprehensive system where the brightest and the least bright are so educated you need to make an admission the more vocational training may suit a significant proportion but not all which the government will not openly admit to as it disturbs the idea of comprehensive edication. You can't square the circle.

Any chose to go to Cambridge instead of wearing the hard hat on the article so isn't there an element of hypocrisy here?

Sorry for the typos.

Our local school is afraid to make the admission that children with strong a scenic qualifications have greater job opportunities in life which is a simple fact born out by many many studies. There seems to be a feeling that differentiating career advice or feeding different aspirations is against government desires so are less open to discuss ,say, being a doctor with a proportion of students as any sort of differentiated advice is against the comprehensive model which we see in this article.

But you sound wedded to a system where the children are separated at 11 (based on how much their parents can afford to tutor them much of the time).
Sounds like you’re happy as long as yours are separated from the thickos.
Not a fan of AB but this sounds reasonable. Young people need jobs. The country needs trades and practical skills. I have seen DCs peers with low academic capability go to uni and build up debt but not be able to get the high paid office jobs.

Th at may well be the case and I do agree with you. The unsaid truth though is that you still need to allow academically bright children to aspire and if we set the sole focus of let's face it non selective comprehensive schools to 'feed' local businesses is that entirely appropriate?

Yes we need a local workforce but we do need to acknowledge and support those in comprehensive that want to go to university (like Andy). The article suggests that the focus should be taken from supporting bright children and have a universal policy of think of state schools kids as a homogenous mass that is there to support a local economy which in my opinion is wrong.

I was listening to radio 4 at 5am today and a really good programme about kids in Wigan who had nothing to do, nowhere to go, no qualifications. These left behind kids need a route into adult life

I think you’re very angry about not very much.

People have been saying this for ages.

It’ll be interesting to see his workings on this proposal. His brother was, maybe still is heavily involved in education and was, again maybe still is very active in the world of sixth form colleges running one very large college in the northwest of England.

https://www.sixthformcolleges.org/384/meet-the-team/member/22/trees

He will have first hand knowledge of how the everyone to university system worked/failed young people.

https://www.tlc.ac.uk/about-tlc/board-members/nick-burnham/

Schools need to prepare children for the world of work, whatever that is. I’m impressed with what I’ve seen of AB so far - he’s talking a lot of sense.

It's not about looking down at people who aren't going to be doing academically well it's about preventing a one suit fits all.message to comprehensive schools where by default they are starting to look at their pupils as having to be pushed towards local vocational jobs as a matter of policy. (Maybe all the grammar and private school pupils should take all those uni degrees while your comps are happily taking on more vocational qualifications?)

In my experience bright children at comps can get confused with the mesaaging about jobs if there is a top down drive to make them feel they should be going to HE college instead of Oxford.

I disagree. I think comps can reasonably cover both academic and more vocational routes - at GCSE level it's called choosing your options.

Before Gove screwed it all up comps could offer a range of BTECs alongside GCSEs, but that offer seemed to get cut considerably between my DD1 and DD2 (6 academic years apart).

Ways it could be done:

• schools offer specific BTECs dependent on local area needs, local businesses can 'sponsor' the equipment needed to do this and maybe provide practical support
• schools timetable so that some students can attend a local college 1 day a week to do trade skills
• schools provide level 1 'underlying skills' courses eg those that cover a little bit of plumbing, electrics, carpentry rather than just focus on one area

The advantage of providing good quality vocational at school for those who want it is it keeps the kids in school so they can then attend core subjects and it makes those core subjects seem more relevant. Furthermore 'mid ability' kids can dip their toe into a more practical course before having to make the A level v Vocational choice for college.

And none of this need negatively impact the more academic kids in higher sets, and they can still be on the same football team or school performance as the less academic.

In my experience bright children at comps can get confused with the mesaaging about jobs if there is a top down drive to make them feel they should be going to HE college instead of Oxford.

There is no reason why schools can't give messages about all routes, and then possibly steer kids if needed. Our comp did.

There’s no shortage of support for young people to go to university, in far too many cases it’s considered the default position whether it’s right for the individual child or not. Having vocational options available and as respected as university doesn’t take anything away from more academic kids, it does give kids a more practical option and gets them into the workplace earlier, which for some kids is really beneficial.

The question is which work? Andy went to Cambridge for some reason when there were presumably more local vocational jobs and we'll done to him for getting a place at a prestigious university course. The point is that we shouldn't forget there are bright chikdrsn, like Andy, that will still be aspiring to university at local comps and they shouldn't be brow bear to think voational courses are the only way forward as university is not for them (which is the unintended consequence of policies like this)

Back in the day? I'm 50, one of the older people in my workplace and that system was long abolished nationally before I started school. I doubt there are many people left working who came through it. My parents both went to grammar schools but there were also a ton of problems with it.

Mainly schools need to be smaller with smaller classes. That would sort out a lot of issues before you start with anything else.

Those bright children presumably have parents who can challenge the vocational narrative if necessary? Because a child in a state school isn’t getting to Oxford without parental involvement to some degree. Besides which there’s no reason why schools can’t support kids into A levels/uni and recognise some will benefit from a vocational course.

Not all high paying jobs require a degree in any event, it’s not as simple as uni = well paid any more.

the parents of bright children will tend imho to eschew comprehensive and aim toward getting this children into the few grammar schools in existence, exceptional comps or private schools so kind of have a selective system through the backdoor. One of the reasons parents to to great expense to get their children educated privately (or at grammar) is a fear that through announcement of policies like this comps aren't there for bright kids they are there to provide a workforce pool for local business essentially.

It's not just Nady guilty of this of course ministers of various stripes have advocated similar things through the yeats.

That is a fair point but I still see a by product of such policy is that there is more weight placed on comps to push vocational qualification a perhaps at the expense of traditional academic curricula. There seems to be almost a shame at our local comprehensive to push high status university as an option for good students as it is counter the narrative that jobs come first and you should all be being feared to work in my local (deprived) town X.

let's face it my most local grammar (Stratford Girls ) aren't going to be suddenly employing a horse of teachers to teach hospitality BTEC. It is local comprehensive which are meant to adhere to this agenda which seems to be 'vocation first". We should be encouraging aspiration in our children as well as a love of.learning and the fear is an overriding imperative to support local business gives some children the impression that getting a 4 in English and Maths is all they should aim for as this is the benchmark for the vocational courses the government wishes to promote.

Fear isn't reality though is it?

Yes it is swings and roundabouts, but in recent years there has, imo, been far too much emphasis on 'go to uni even if not very academic', and a messing about with vocational qualifications to no benefit.

Plus in many areas there are no grammar schools, just good comprehensives which do what they say on the tin. On MN you could be forgiven for thinking that comp areas are the outliers and most areas have grammars and non-grammars. That just isn't true.

I may be wrong, but I'm not hearing that all kids should be pushed down vocational routes, rather that that option should be made more available (like it used to be as recently as 15 years ago) for the less academic kids.

If yiu have Grammars, you dont have Comprehensives.

In true Comprehensive areas, rge schools balance the needs of everyone. At DDs school they start the University aspiration visits in Yr8... and the careers talks in Yr9 before Options. Its quite normal to take 8 of the highly academic GCSEs alongside a BTEC for balance. The two most popular BTECs are Animal Care and Construction. (Its a farming area, plus a zoo/Wildlife park nearby).

I agree with him big changes are needed. I was talking to friends about work experience, which some of the current Y10 cohort have done while other schools don't seem to be interested in. All of those who's kids had done it had positive responses to it clarifying jobs available, giving purpose to study etc. My issue is that for many kids their parents cannot just ask a mate to take their kid to the office for 2 weeks and the laws seem to be gradually scaring employers off doing this due to sensitive information and insurance etc. A single mum who hasn't worked due to chronic illness doesn't have the same connections as the local builder or lawyer, for example.