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.

Which is exactly what AB is advocating for - that there are a range of opportunities on offer post 16 and 18 and that these include university, trades, vocational and a strong focus on the local area and that young people are being made aware of all of them, not just the academic routes, as has been the case in recent history when so much manufacturing and primary industry has collapsed in the UK, although his brief is confined to English schools. One measure that state secondaries are judged on is pupil-destination so it’s highly unlikely that any headteacher is going to discourage any pupil who is capable of/ aspires to entering higher education.

On another point, what a lot of Mumsnet don’t appear to be aware of re the shift from grammar schools to comprehensivisation in the 1960s and 70s is that one of the biggest drivers for the change came from middle-class parents whose children failed the 11+ - and it was Margaret Thatcher, as Education Secretary who agreed more of the comprehensives than any other minister. It’s highly unlikely that we will ever return to a system in England where ‘every town has a grammar’ because not everyone has the natural ability or, these days, parents who can afford the tutoring required.

How fine would it be if, instead of academics being the driving force, ability was. So instead of “the less academic did vocational courses” it became “those with less practical ability focussed on academics”.

The idea that every other kind of education or training is somehow a lesser substitute for a (preferred) academic one isn’t serving the vast majority of children who are not academically minded, much less excellent.

A lot of language used in this thread really exemplifies how weird the British ed (and class!) system is. What if we redefined “high and low ability” as interests, skills, talents? What if it wasn’t merely smart = academic track. Stupid = vocational track? Doesn’t have to be a binary or hierarchy. We can value all kids and their interests/talents. E.g. a child might be super into engineering and want to do the practical and academic parts of this. This could lead to an engineering degree or an apprenticeship.

Right now we are forcing kids to do work they are not interested in and to take exams we know they will fail. I simply don’t see the point. We should move towards something much more flexible. Like someone else said, we should have functional literacy and numeracy then academic versions for those with the talent and interest but the rest should adapt to the person.

I think it's still the case that elites in Britian are proportionately made up from those who attended private schools grammars or the cream of the cream of conps. I am actually quite pleased with the responses here as there is some assurance that comprehensive still cater for a wide range of ability and going forward this should be the case.

install feel there are reasons parents do a lot to either get their children into private school, a grammar or into an excellent comprehensive and unless all these parents are deluded there must be some wisdom behind it. Imo it is because such schools are viewed as aspirational willing to support academic achievement (or why else would they exist). I just hope that this support of academic achievement can coexist beside the need for vocational educatio n.

I do hope the support of more vocational qualifications and apprenticeships does lead to a reduction of students essentially getting fleeced with low quality degrees (though I know some aggressively defend these courses).

one final.point as the cabinet make up goes to show enrolment at elite universities does still open doors and so I have to question the segment a 'hard hat is as good as a graduate cap' sfatment......think this a little naiive.

Agree, it’s about broadly playing to your strengths.

DS1 (at a comp) is very academic and in top sets for subjects that are set by academic ability. But he has AuDHD and PE/sport is a mystery to him, so he is grouped with other ND/geeky/untalented sportspeople, and it works incredibly well for him.

He has also said to me that ‘X is brilliant at metalwork, I’d love to be good at it’. Surely the mark of a great comprehensive school is that the pupils recognise each others disparate strengths across the curriculum?

OP I do genuinely think you’re worrying about the wrong things. It’s been clear for years that sending too many kids to university isn’t a good thing. There of course needs to be provision for those capable but it is an extensive route for many young people with reducing prospects at the end. AI is doing a lot of the functions you’d have given a new grad in my sector and I’m sure I can’t be alone. My organisation has suspended its grad scheme. Schools and education in general don’t seem to have caught up to how the world of work is changing and the skills kids will likely need.

My kids are bright and likely destined for an academic path but we’d also seriously look at degree apprenticeships if that route was an alternative to accumulating £50-60k worth of debt.

There needs to be higher academic education for kids that can handle it, there needs to be more degree apprenticeships where you can learn on the job and there need to be routes for kids at 14/15 who are never going to get 10 decent GCSEs and can’t bear being forced to do academic qualifications that are too hard. I think the proposals are good to add in technical options while keeping up core skills in maths and English.

I do wonder what this push will mean for some of the lower ranked universities. The top research institutions will always be in demand but the lower tier universities may start to struggle to be sustainable.

Quite right. OP’s thread title deliberately misrepresents the situation and her posts reveal little understanding of how well run schools already cater pretty well for most abilities, albeit within the constraints of an underfunded and over-prescribed service that was greatly damaged by the ideologically driven Gove reforms from 2010 - reforms modelled on his own educational experiences that were limited and outdated even in his youth.

I think selective schooling does play into a narrative that academic is “better”, while also scaffolding/pressuring kids who aren’t particularly academic into academic settings. Just need to look at the level of tutoring undertaken to get kids through the 11+ or selective processes to see that. If anything I think the move to have so many kids at university acts against academic excellence because universities are teaching a much broader cross section of ability than they would have when university education was more restricted.

I think that university is great for jobs where having a degree really matters, including academia and furthering knowledge, but not as a holding space for kids who don’t know what to do with their lives post school.

I think however that if you want to be a 'leader' you maybe (?) need to have gone down a more academic elitist route for higher education which should teach you how to think, analyse and debate at a higher level.

Surely the key issue is that anyone regardless of background who has the ability and desire to be a 'leader' should have access to that elite education. Then the backgrounds of those in power should lead them to consider the whole population.

it isn't wrong that most top politicians have come through top universities. What is wrong (or was wrong, much improved now?) was that top universities were only accessible by certain groups.

And it’s utterly wrong that going to private or grammar school gives a leg up into higher paying jobs or elite positions in society. Especially when the evidence is that at university level, the brightest young people from non selective schools outperform the high achievers from private and grammar schools. The more that can be done to redress the balance, the better. I believe only about 5% of children go to grammar schools as they’ve rightly been phased out in most of the country. And about 7% of children go to private schools. So considering almost 90% of children are in the comprehensive system, it needs to work for everyone - those with the ability to benefit from a university degree and those who will benefit from industry linked learning.

My DD is at a comprehensive with a very academic sixth form AND a suite of vocational qualifications and links to industry.
It is possible to do both.
We do have a grammar school in our area but it's small and so we effectively have grammar plus comp.
But unlike in the years before I went to secondary (and I'm nearly 60) we don't get the bright children from backgrounds with nobody who's been to university getting to grammar school.
So you are arguing for children whose parents care about university getting into academic schools and those who are bright but whose parents didn't go to grammar and don't know how to do that, to go to secondary modern.

Far better to have secondary school teachers decide who might suit A levels and who might suit BTecs than parents who don't know what you need to do to pass the 11+.

@TeenToTwentiesI agree to some extent however when folk are then in positions of power their background becomes fodder for all sorts of slur. Just look at the hate levelled at Angela Rayner, regardless of whether you like her or agree with her, by any measure she’s done well to overcome disadvantage and gets no end of criticism. Folk now challenging whether AB can claim to be working class having had an Oxbridge education - there’s no end of people happy to tear strips off folk based on background.

For me it’s the same small mindset - bright people go to university (so by implication if you don’t go to university you can’t be bright), vocational occupations are for those who are less able (despite the level of skill and knowledge it takes to run a business successfully) and everyone knows their place.

So kids are hot houses into uni, only to find they can’t cope when the scaffolding is removed, they end up rotting in their bedrooms because they’re so anxious about failing in an education system never designed for them.

Anything that helps kids engage in education and find a route into adulthood is a good thing, because we’re not getting it right currently.

I have two dc, one very bright who has a good degree from an RG, the other more middle ability who has learned a trade. Guess which one has more money and doesn’t have £50k of debt ?
AB is absolutely right with this. Gove’s changes caused untold damage to many kids and it’s about time this was rectified. Kids leaving school with 10 fails, believing they are useless, when a vocational route would have been so much better.
I’ve been a teacher for nearly 30 years and this is absolutely the right path to take.

An academic who was analysing the education system in his country (France) noted that part of the point of the education system is making sure children access things they are capable of doing.

a lot of the stats about private and grammars miss the point especially at sixth form as while 7% of children overall are in private education lots of sixth forms offer scholarships and reduced prices for highly academic children who otherwise couldn’t afford it.

equally, after GCSEs the results tell you (largely, obviously there are exceptions) if someone is academically capable or not and again, grammars and sixth forms that specialise in a levels take in lots of children who were previously in comps.

the 16-18 age range is largely already split by what they want to study /whether they are capable of a levels/degree apprenticeships etc.

the figures on private schools entry to “elite” unis reflect that somewhat - there’s a lot of students who get scholarships age 16 who are under the private school entrance stats who were state school previously,

equally many professions that were previously run much more on the “old boys network” etc are now much much more meritocratic - medicine, engineering, even investment banking,

the exceptions largely are elite professions that don’t actually pay very well - eg journalism or
music or similar which for most is badly paid at least at the start.

law also has similar issues.

It isn't able / less able though, it is different skillsets.

At my old work place (which was graduate based) there were 3 equal but different promotion routes:

• manager or groups of people / departments
• project management of the technical products we designed
• technical specialist

Someone could be the greatest plumber in the world, but I would maybe prefer them to be advising UK plumbing strategy, not leading it and balancing all the socio economic issues around it too. (Unless they had an unusual background that qualified them to do so).

Many, perhaps most kids are wasting their time doing pointless "academic" degrees which do not (as this is not the goal) prepare them for work. This is fine if you have a private income, go wild, but it's a huge disservice to most kids, who need to work and get on in life. If you can get to Oxbridge then fine, great! Let's get you there! But most people cannot, you know? They are trying and somehow it is the case that the average person is of average intelligence.

We are not helping people by tying fifty grand of debt round their neck at twenty one years old and pretending that pretending to write a series of mediocre essays on the Milgram experiment is an effective route to a flourishing adulthood. Everyone deserves the opportunity to succeed, and this necessitates many many routes to success.

There are so many things I disagree with you about in your post.

Bring back grammar schools - absolutely not unless a better selection method is found. DC1 failed the 11+ and yet got mostly 9s at GCSE, 4xAstar at A-Level and a 1st from Imperial. Luckily, the local comprehensive was good. I know this is just one example but having been to a grammar myself, I can tell you that there were many kids there who shouldn’t have been. The 11+ is just not up
to the job. Grammar schools were abolished decades ago in most of the country for good reason.

Yes it is true that the Burnham cabinet has more Oxbridge graduates than any other but all cabinets for as long as I can remember (back to Thatcher 1979) have been dominated by Oxbridge grads. What is a bit different about the current lot is more of them are state school educated. Anyone who gets into Oxbridge from a state school is likely to be extremely driven, as well of course highly intelligent.

University is obviously not for everyone and I don’t believe there is any plan to dissuade those who are capable of going.

Local job markets are different. We have a lot of school leavers who have never had a job. something has to change.

In Germany, apprenticeships at 16 are routine and vast number of kids do them - maybe half of all school leavrers? Many employers big and small in all fields participate- banking, engineering, crafts, plumbing , even retail. They are VERY highly regarded because the standards are high. The young people work and go to college, so usually something like 2 days at college and 3 days at work for about 3 years. I know they do exist here too but they are not that common. It is a system to aspire to.

I agree, I also think the level of support some kids need to access university tells us it’s not the right path. If someone is selective mute, highly anxious to where they can’t leave their accommodation without support and unable to engage with their tutors, maybe university isn’t the path for them. Because there are so few options post school, they’re at uni, unable to take part in uni life, unlikely to achieve employment post university but it gives them another 3/4 years of support.

If there were more realistic options earlier in school, accessible to kids with differing strengths, and that gave a route into employment that young person may not end up needing scaffolding through a course not right for them, but which is the only option.

Totally disagree. Education is never a waste of time. A degree is not just about getting a job or merely the subject knowledge. All degrees are about developing high level critical thinking, analysis, independent thinking, logic, creativity, problem solving, being able to distinguish between opinion and fact or strong arguments and weak arguments, learning to research and work truly independently. These are all transferrable skills that employers highly value.

I do agree that the massive debt is a problem. However graduates do, on average, earn more across their lifetimes than non-graduates and many or even most graduates will not be paying back their loans in full. Graduates are, on average, in better health too and have a longer life expectancy. Perhaps because the skills they learnt at university make them more resilient and more able to solve difficult problems in their lives?

Unfortunately, the reality is that most secondary schools are not set up as AB remembers them in the 1980's. Technology departments don't teach students the tool skills in the same way as they used to. They don't have much in the way of heavy industrial equipment and modern tech such as CAD and 3D printers because they are prohibitively expensive. IT systems may look plentiful, but processers are often very old and slow in running modern software. Sometimes the kids phones can run design apps better than the school computers! Staff often teach these subjects as a second or third subject to " fill in" their timetables and specialists are rare because they are paid more in industry.
The situation is slightly better in the 6th form colleges, but not much. They are a shadow of the former technical colleges who often had strong links with local industry and extra funding to train apprentices from those industries.
Tony Blair's " Education, education, education" policy effectively marginalized these departments, putting academic subjects above practical ones in school ranking statistics.
It's going to need a massive shift in funding, staffing, and restructuring to achieve what AB wants.
I really do want to see significant change in education but I would like him to stop giving "a gimmick a day" on social media and produce some proper costed plans with realistic timescales before I have any confidence in his leadership.

This policy is very much predicated on the existence of jobs in the area - in many the factories, industries etc have closed, moved overseas, or streamlined due to AI/technology/machine automation.

Schools need to be creating a qualified and capable work force for the jobs and industries we need as a nation, not trapping kids into one locality. I actually think this policy is harmful for working class kids in depressed areas - it won’t liberate them or help them break the cycle that has trapped their parents.

Afterall, if the schools had had this approach, Burnham would not have had the chance to go to Cambridge (where I KNOW he was not an outsider, because he captained the cricket team that my DH played along side him in, as he was there at the same time, played in the soccer team etc). He had a full and exciting time that broadened his opportunities because the system WAS set up to help children excel and look where he is now.

He can pretend as much as he likes that he’s a working class lad from the north, but he’s Oxbridge elite, just like most of our former PMs, and just as out of touch.

AB has two brothers who are teachers, both have been Heads, one is the head of a 6th form college in Preston. There is clearly some influence there so to claim he’s totally out of touch is completely wrong

There are currently over 1 million NEETs in the UK and we have a shortage of skilled tradespeople.

Why on earth would you not want schools to better tailor education to the needs of young people and our economy? Sending more young people to university to do largely pointless degrees is a waste of their time, energy and money - and I say this as someone who went to Uni myself and whose two children did. Not entirely sure how much use our degrees are to any of us!

The academically gifted will always excel and I doubt very much any policy maker is advocating that a young person who is clearly gifted and wants to carry on their studies should not go to university. Hopefully, what they might be saying is all the young people currently not being served well by the education system can hope for better!

I think that op is thinking that AB's point about "local employer's needs" is looking at the the benefits to local employers. No, it's for the benefit of the school leaver to be employable.

I'm a strong believer that being unemployed, particularly long term, is one of the worst things that can happen to a young person, with bad consequences for his health, his relationships, and even increasing the probability of going into crime.

Op is thinking in terms of "good jobs" and "bad jobs" but my point is that an increasing proportion of young people are heading towards NO job. No job is way way worse than any job.

We have so many children on a pathway to lacklustre or irrelevant degrees heading towards lower-end white collar jobs like HR, DEI, admin assistant, and these are the jobs that are being cut as companies tighten belts and use AI. Part of the problem is that we've brought these kids up thinking that working in the trades is "common" and for stupid people with bad grades, an idea op is clinging onto.

Actually, many trades are highly skilled and well paid. The builder-decorators who redid my bathroom (beautifully) are on nearly 6 figures, and they finish at 3pm everyday, no weekends, and are booked up months in advance. Absolutely nothing stupid about that job. And yes they even needed to use Pythagoras when doing flooring calculations. We need to put more British kids on that pathway because currently we are filling gaps with skilled workers from Europe and elsewhere.

I'd be much much happier if my kids had a life like that, than languishing through multiple interview rejections for some needless white collar job.

I didn't even say it was about getting a job, I explicitly stated that is not the goal.

These are fine goals in life, well done for having the luxury to prioritise them over food, shelter, and the chance of a family.

But most people need to eat. You might not give a shit about those people but I do. So there lol.