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.

You need to tackle your prejudices about working class life and working for local businesses OP.

I think there is some reality about this and there is a distinct difference in the broad expectation of pupils at my local comprehensive as compared to our local(ish) grammar. I agree there are plenty of children at our locsl.comprehensive who would benefit from going down vocational routes but there is also a pressure on teachers to not differentiate pupils in terms of intimate career destinations by making the bright kids attend the same type of work experience as the less academically able as well as being less open about university opportunities (including the fact some unis are better than others). You need a policy that supports those wishing to do vocational study while not limiting brighter children through an over emphasis of the average comprehensive school being just funnel for local recruitment. One of my daughter's is predicted high GCSE grades yet not one teacher has mentioned university as there seems to be something of a culture amongst the teachers to not differentiate pupils openly which imho is partially a result of comprehensive having to serve the local community with retail workers, care assistants , hospitality workers, mechanics, all of which are needed and certainly this shouldn't be a schools raison detre.

Personally I think it’s a good idea. My younger son is hopefully off to uni in a few weeks. My elder son has multiple disabilities and struggled greatly with education. His college year group were all taken to a higher education event with various unis and colleges exhibiting. He came back with a variety of completely random uni goody bags and told me he’d been to the stalls with the nicest colours. He’ll never have a career or a full time job, but if he could be (heavily supported) into training for a local job, surely that’s a good thing?

Obviously there is a huge difference between my disabled young adult and vast numbers of young people without disabilities….. but for those who may be lesser suited to higher education, surely vocational routes into work will boost their chances of employment and a career? There’s a huge shortage of jobs for everyone at the moment including those with degrees.

I think this can be done well in bigger secondary schools - at my secondary school were could choose to go in either the A stream or B stream for GCSEs. The A stream did 10 GCSEs and the B stream still did 5 GCSEs (Englishx2, Sciencex2, Maths) and then the rest of their options they could do more GCSEs or BTECs, GNVQs.

I think it would be trickier in smaller schools as you'd be balancing things like "can we teach a second MFL/seperate sciences" vs. a vocational course.

And there is the rub......are bright children meant to not aspire toward university because it is snobby? Should not comprehenisives be a fertile ground for next generation of scientists, doctors, lawyers etc. The point is that by essentially labelling comprehensive as manufacturers of the next generation of what was traditionally called working class you may be doing the schools a disservice.

I just thought it revealed how little he knew about what was really going on in some (admittedly not all) schools. Our local schools have links and outreach programs with Farnborough airport and the technology college has a wide variety of courses in aeronautical subjects at different academic levels. Good schools already do this.

They won’t be stopping capable DC from getting to Uni.

DS was steered into uni by his 6th form provider, who probably just wanted him to stay for their foundation year. Obviously we supported him, but had never thought he’d be suitable for uni. And sure enough he wasn’t. Unsuccessfully resat year 2, nothing but a big debt to show for it.

We have huge numbers of DC who don’t benefit from a uni education. Make sure they have options too!

there is also a pressure on teachers to not differentiate pupils in terms of intimate career destinations by making the bright kids attend the same type of work experience as the less academically able as well as being less open about university opportunities (including the fact some unis are better than others).

That sounds like a school/teacher problem though not a general policy.

All schools should have aspirations for their pupils and make them aware of appropriate options.

My concern would be that schools have finite resources and the race to provide a new fact of vocational qualifaction s will put an additional strain on schools (and agribusiness should be helping as they will benefit from trained students?). Teaching of subjects as higher maths, English literature , history etc. may be depriorritised as schools pick up this government agenda. (Lets.all.drop the 'posh' subjects as local business doesn't need a worker with an intimate knowledge of MacBeth)

I see most people disagree with you, OP, but I don't like this policy either. I think it's fundamentally regressive - if areas are supposed to focus on their own local shortage areas then well-off areas are obviously going to be preparing them for a wider range of better paid work than deprived ones. Is that what Andy Burnham really wants? Is that actually going to redistribute wealth across the country as he says he wants? I think it's part of his general fetishisation of the 70s and the idea that it was all better when whole towns of boys knew from infancy they'd be going down the pit or working in the local factory. I don't think that's possible now even if we all think it's desirable.

I suppose more fundamentally, I don't like this view of education for those as young as 14. I think at that point we should still care about education for education's sake. I also think there is a good, pragmatic reason to do that, which is that it isn't actually easy to predict what skills might be needed for future work. Transferrable skills matter. Finally, I think that if businesses want staff with highly specific training, that's something they should pay for, not the state and not the learner. We have the lowest spend by employers on training in Europe. If you want to employ 16 year olds with broad foundational knowledge and ability to learn I agree that's a school's job. If you want to employ 16 year olds who can do the exact specific thing your business needs then you might need to invest some of your own time and money.

Schools can (and do) offer a variety of options at KS4. It doesn’t have to be separation at 11. At my DD’s school a student could choose purely ‘academic’ GCSE’s with an eye to highly selective universities. There is further maths, separate sciences, languages etc. A different student could choose the core GCSEs (maths, double science, double English) + a humanity +. 3 BTECs. Some students may drop an option for additional maths and literacy support with an eye to dual entry functional skills. The choice is for the student guided by teachers & parents. No one is forced down a pathway. Ultimately the student and family makes the decision. Careers advice covers uni pathways, vocational college courses and apprenticeships at different levels. Being mindful of whether the BTEC and vocational options fit the local job market does not mean that the academic options are neglected. This is what true comprehensives are. We don’t need to divide kids into different pathways at 11. As they mature, they can make the right choices for their interests and aptitudes.

Maths and History will be fine. They are cheap to teach.

Its the softer academic subjects like MFL and Music that are depriortised.
My DDs school unfortunately has no Music department now. The current Yr11 had a French teacher from the local college as the school failed to recruit (The younget years do Spanish now, as they could revruit Spanish teachets but no French ones).

Someone has to work in the local Amazon warehouse

I'm also not sure how any of this sits with devolution - he says this should all be done by local areas and mayors, but also that they should all choose to change education in the way he wants. What if a local mayor decides they think education should remain academically focused because they think that's best for their area? Is that ok, or not?

I completely disagree with you. Way too many children are pushed towards university by secondary schools of all types when for many an academic route does not suit them.

This is a hangover from the Blairite thinking that we needed a more educated workforce. What we have ended up with is a load of young people with mediocre degrees, a ton of student debt and no work.

I don't know to what extent teacher attitudes are ultimately shaped by the ethos of government but there does seem to a reluctance to in some cases highlight bright talented children. My concern would be because schools would be pressured not to think of themselves where children could aspire and tech their ambitions academically but as places that ultimately are there to serve local business with a rather defeatist attitude that all the kids are going to work locally in essentially vocational jobs. (This is certainly not the ethos in grammars).

I think there is actually an argument for the reduction of low quality university courses which lead to disadvantage but will the government be open to this alongside its vocational agenda? Will we speak goodbye to the University of Northamton in favour of more FE courses?

Something needed to happen for the children that are not suited to gcses, a levels and degrees. They are a big chunk of our children, being pretty much failed by the current offer. They sometimes have to fail there gcses before they are allowed to study qualifications that work for them, but these qualifications are in FE colleges which are underfunded and often much further from home than the various A level options, or places that offer 2 or 3 btechs (normally business, sport and health) but not an actual full vocational offering.

Im undecided if this was the thing needed. My main concern is if the area has no jobs or the wrong type of jobs, what then. Your education should let you leave to a more prosperous town - even if its more vocational than gcses. It should not keep you to the local business only.

& I am all for education for its own sake. However, we need vocational options for those who want them as well as academic & artistic options. In a school of a reasonable size you can have both. Students at DD’s school could do the core GCSEs I described + a humanity/mfl + 3 arts (e. g. Art, music & dance) if the chose it.
They have run music with less than 10 students. They are a community comprehensive and try to meet the choices of their young people. However, there are limits they wouldn’t run a course for 1 etc. Some schools are committed to a broad. & balanced curriculum offer.

Ex teacher.

in the last decade schools have (largely as a result of gove) stopped offering vocational options and focused heavily on academic gcses.

i mostly taught children with quite severe special needs and they would have benefitted much more from the vocational training that was in place before this.

there’s (currently) too much focus on academics and for those who are never going to go to university because they struggle with basic reading and writing a stronger vocational offer really meets their needs.

I actually agree there has been a push for perhaps non academic children to attend poor universties which is now being realised a mistake. However there are high status universities in this country and we shouldn't inadvertently prevent aspiration of young people to go these universities by what seems a blanket approach to change the focus of your average comp to be essentially a machine capable of producing a local workforce. This is not the reason for education i mho.

“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.”

If they find the option to attend college existing, then they aren’t very bright at all.

You yourself also have a clear agenda as your claims don’t tally with anything at all. Your ideas about grammar, v secondary modern, v comprehensive are also incorrect.

I have to admit I was confused when he mentioned coding - the current computer science GCSE is a garbled mix of engineering, history, ethics and coding. No one who loves coding wants to know how they built a computer in 1980's. They should perhaps break subjects like this down into several separate courses as so many have a love of coding and get good GCSE but drop it for A Level because of all of the bumf.

Disagree.

Education has become untethered from the skills/interests of a significant minority of pupils. I’m a secondary SENDCo and I often get parents asking about what was, in their day, called ‘college’ i.e. a ‘practical’ education from Y9/10, and we just don’t offer that route since the Gove reforms.

This policy proposal isn’t taking away choice/opportunities, rather it’s tuning into the abilities and aspirations of children who find sitting at a desk all day tricky. The benefit to the local economy and youth employment is incidental but welcome.

Doesn't this show the challenge of a truly comprehensive education system where your average extremely hard working teacher has to cater to a wide range of student abilitu? I suppose the problem is that, yes, there is that need for vocational qualification for some but how do you go about how and then you can identify students that would benefit. By having to launch a broad universal policy initiative you are not giving thought to the breadth of talent and knowledge within schools. Vocational training is important but I have seen locally an over focus on vocation does lead to break on aspiration. 'local Fe college is good for that pupil so why not for another' type atfirude.

The proposed reforms seem entirely sensible. The whole idea of aiming for half of young people to go to university is nuts, resulting in degrees becoming massively devalued and a cohort of graduates who’ve been sold a dud.

I went to university (from a comprehensive!) back in the day when around 8% of young people went. It was meaningful and led to genuine opportunities. The majority of young people don’t need a university degree and certainly don’t need a shedload of debt, they need to be steered towards training and work which aligns with their aptitude and capabilities and which fulfils a need in society.

I don’t see any risk of the more academic young people in comprehensives not having the opportunity for university. Thankfully universities are more geared up these days to targeting bright young people who aren’t in private or selective schools. We need far fewer graduates overall though - and Andy Burnham is right to address this.