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.

Call me old fashioned but the majority of us used to leave school at 16 and walk straight into a job. Too many young people now are going to university to do pointless degrees that run up huge debts and won’t help their career prospects. I suspect lots of this is driven by pushy parents who see getting a job or apprenticeship straight from school as some sort of ‘failure’. Not true. (Just to add: I have a degree and so does DH and DS2 so I’m not anti further education)

Of course it doesn’t contradict the idea of comprehensive education - two of the fundamental problems with the secondary modern/ grammar system were the age at which young people’s educational - and therefore in many cases career - path was decided, before they had a chance to experience a more rounded education and make a decision. An 11 year old very obviously has a much less clear idea of their academic inclinations and interests than a 14 year old. Secondly, separating the types of school led to stereotypes and derision of the other type of education - on both sides. I’ve seen this very powerfully in my own family. A good comprehensive education should give you an appreciation of multiple different skills and intelligences.

As to the hypocrisy point, I genuinely cannot understand in what way a state school, Cambridge educated individual saying, “I was academically inclined and so I studied hard and went to Cambridge, but I recognise that path wasn’t the right one for lots of kids at my school, and think they should be better supported into other routes” is in any way hypocritical. If he was saying no one should go to Cambridge from state school, maybe. But he clearly is not saying that.

This policy is aimed to kids for whom the current system isn’t working. They’re the kids leaving school with a record of failure in academic exams, who aren’t entering the job market at all.

Kids who are supported and motivated will always be able to achieve more, where there are pathways open to them. Focussing part of education to engage children with different abilities doesn’t take anything away from kids who have always done well, it gives them another equal opportunity to develop skills suited to their ability and that help them find a place in the world of work.

The vast majority of kids aren’t going to be prime minister, they aren’t going to be academically excellent, creating educational pathways to practical subjects may open doors for them before they become disillusioned and de franchised. Which is a good thing.

You're just wanting to dig at Andy Burnham. Tedious.

Schools ARE a feeder for the local job market, and at the moment, they're failing kids in that regard. Kids that want to go to university get loads of support. Kids that don't, don't.

Most of us just want our children to get on in life and have the best available opportunities for their needs and skillsets, so normal people are sitting here and thinking, yes, sounds interesting, change is definitely necessary, how will it work in practice thought...? My doubts are around the nuts and bolts of delivering against the ambition.

But it's a great ambition, and the fact that Burnham went to Cambridge is neither here nor there, no matter how often you insert it into your posts.

He got the best opportunity for his skillsets and needs. This can only be a good thing.

Now let's make sure all kids get the same.

Honestly, you just sound like a twat. 'But Mr. Burnham went to Cambridge'. Mr Burnham? ffs. Give it a rest. This is a good thing. Can we not get behind good things without being so fucking partisan all the time?

Im super excited about all the things he is talking about - for once, someone is looking at the root of the issues rather than just shouting imigration - this has long been needed. Kids need to have options and this has been lacking for years

I feel like we might have some positivity back and maybe this country can heal itself - i just hope he has people around him that can drive these things forward

Education is a waste of time if it doesn’t equip young people to enter adult life in whatever form that takes for them. It is a waste of time (and money) if they spend a year or two trying to make themselves fit a system that doesn’t meet their skills and abilities.

The skills you refer to are important, and yes a degree should cultivate that ability in young people but that’s not always the case. They are also skills that can be developed in other settings, including in the workplace.

Schools aren’t working for far too many young people, changing that doesn’t take anything away from those for whom it is working but will make the world of a difference for young people who really need a different approach.

Indeed. This will do more to give the white working class boys Farage piously wrings his hands over a boost, than shouting at EDI, boats and hotels ever will.

A policy that actually seeks to redress a real societal injustice in a practical and meaningful way!

Well, sure if your aspiration is to be in the Cabinet then that is a job which specifically involves reading/ analysing/ critical thinking and articulating written and verbal arguments, and those are skills a lot of university degrees specifically equip you with. So, it isn’t surprising that a large number of cabinet members have degrees. (Although Angela Raynor is an inspirational example of how that needn’t always be the case). No one is suggesting degrees will suddenly stop being valuable or desirable to certain individuals who aspire to certain careers.

The argument is that academic degrees aren’t useful for all careers and that there should be recognised, valued routes into those career too. I have yet to see anything that persuades me that is a bad idea.

@Jellycatspyjamas I understand that - but the way to tackle this is to recognise that much of the problem is systemic and multi-faceted.

I believe that state-funded vocational and alternative academic routes should be available until 21, for Level 3 qualifications (ie including BTechs, T levels, apprenticeships) with funding for families and colleges/6th forms to support children who fall of the GCSEat16/Alevels at18 conveyor belt. Kids often fail for multiple reasons: ND/dyslexia that has gone undiagnosed, experiencing social deprivation, lack of jobs/dying local economy, lack of support in the home (for whatever reason: parents may have had undiagnosed SEN and been failed by that system themselves, have MH issues, be single parents struggling with childrearing and working etc).

The whole system needs adapting to allow for different learning styles, needs and later development - especially as we now know that most adults are not cognitively/neurologically mature until closer to 23, and developmental pathways vary alot depending on facts such as age of onset of puberty etc. the one size fits all education model that we have isn’t working and if we want to address youth unemployment and mental health, get them into fulfilling work as young adults, we need to do more than just gear it to the local job market.

We need more apprenticeships - but these also need funding and support if you want companies and small/sole-traders (builders, plumbers, plasterers, hairdressers, independent hospitality providers etc) to take on young people to train and mentor - and less red tape around younger employees. There are fewer and fewer Saturday jobs and opportunities for young people to get that first exposure to the working world and start building a CV - the govt could sponsor Saturday job schemes or give tax deductions to make this worthwhile for a company/traders.

It needs far more creativity than he is proposing if we want to fix the growing NEET issue.

I think this is a great move by AB. Academic kids from all backgrounds will still be recognised, those less so will have good options and not feel like they are failing at school. Those in the middle/late developers could come out with a mix of GCSEs and vocational qualifications that could be used to springboard into a more academic direction if wanted.

DC1 has just completed a BTEC. He now has enough UCAS points to go to uni if he wants to (now or in the future) and some of the skills needed to go straight into the workforce.

It's unfunded of course, which means that in reality it will be hard to make the real changes needed in a big way.

I agree with this - it is ironic that it was a labour government (Blair) that pushed for 50% of YP to go to university, only for it to ultimately devalue the qualifications they acquire, leave them in debt and without enhanced job prospects. The govt will ultimately pay for this with loans that will never be repaid and an ever-growing number of NEETs being reliant on state support.

Clearly the current system is failing - kids are staying in education until they are 21, racking up huge debts and not finding jobs at the end of it. Blair was wrong about 50% of young people having a degree because the jobs are just not there to warrant this - or the graduates are taking the jobs that were previously done by non graduates making all that debt for nothing.

The premise that comp schools = vocational path is also wrong since most comps stream and academic students will still follow an academic path.

@AnonyMumAuDHD it is really difficult to engage in good faith with a discussion where things like this are being said, “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.”

If you were born into a working class family in the North, your background and life experiences don’t change because you spent 3 years at one particular university, however much fun you had playing cricket there.

This attitude puts academically capable, working class kids off going to university - because it makes them believe they can’t go to an elite university without it fundamentally changing who they are, when of course they can.

I think its a very sensible way of educating children so long as the sorting isn't done too young - 12 is definitely too young in my opinion but 14 or older is better as everyone (parents, teachers and the child themselves) has a better idea of where their strengths lie.
I'm in Finland and the split happens at 15/16 here and its not a one way system, can switch to the other route later or even do both academic and vocational at the same time (called a double degree). And they don't lack a well rounded education in the vocational schools either, they have mandatory credits in mother tongue, two other languages, maths, physics, chemistry, social studies, art, pe, health, careers guidance and they have to do optional credits as well which broadens it even more but along their own interests. Just over half of teenagers choose the vocational route, so it's popular and is a better basis for getting into work afterwards (in fact if a person under a certain age, can't remember what age exactly but maybe 25) becomes unemployed and hasn't been to vocational school then the unemployment office directs them to vocational school to learn a profession to try to prevent long term unemployment in the youth.

I don’t disagree that the issues are systemic and need systemic wide change. I do think Andy Burnham has clearly indicated a direction of travel which is long overdue. Systemic change takes time and political will - and given the “will no one think of the bright children” cries, I suspect that political will isn’t a strong as people think it is.

As a clear, stated step to address inequalities in education I think it’s a good place to start. For too long government has held off changing anything because they don’t have the perfect solution or answers to every systemic challenge. I like him being quite bold even if his policies don’t necessarily suit me.

OMG !

I very much agree with him on this.

We need to shrink the number of people going to University for the sake of achieving "graduate" status but moving on to "unemployed graduate" status shortly thereafter or faring no better in the jobs market than an 18 year old school leaver with reasonable A Levels by ending up in a minimum wage role but with 3 years less work experience than those who didn't go to University.

We need to provide an alternative path for teenagers, in particular disaffected/disengaged pupils who might well actually engage with a hands-on trade apprenticeship route, and be able to start earning at a small level from a younger age and build up to a decent earnings level as their skill set in their chosen field increases.

It doesn't even need to be just hands-on trades. You can work your way up to qualified accountant without being a graduate.

There's huge potential benefits for the UK economy too however ideological some may consider the impetus behind this.

Apologies for referring to Andy as Mr. It is so outdated using titles such as those.....Andy is far better.

I come from a highly academic family. My children are very academic. I looked at the paper this morning and thought 'Blimey, I agree with Andy Burnham!'

Tony Blair pushed the number of children going to uni too high (although I suspect it did need to be higher).

Michael Gove made the syllabus too academic for some children. Kids end up taking maths or English again and again, failing each time getting more depressed. Why? In what way does it help them? Apparently only 25% of kids who fail maths GCSE the first time actually go on to pass it later. And yet they HAVE to keep taking it and getting kicked in the teeth every 6 months with a fail!

Surely it's possible to build a system where we can stretch academic children without stamping on those who are not academic?

Disingenuous too. Ace.

I think when I hear this please set up football junior clubs - everyone can attend training -getting fitter is so important mentally and the great goal scorer is the local hero not the richest drug dealer
when I grew up in the 60s all the (mainly less academic) seemed to play for local teams

Our neighbour had a self employed hands on business but the cost of insurance was too high to have at trainee in the workshop -and now with min wage not a chance

If they aren't struggling to recruit then I suspect that the local yachting industry is pretty happy employing people 'like them' who are known quantities on personal connections and doesn't particularly want to build connections with local schools to try and get a pipeline of applicants with no prior experience or contact with yachting.

People often think that connections being more important than qualifications only applies to 'elite' jobs, but it's just as true for a lot of more vocational routes. My brother is a now very successful electrician, but he struggled to get into it because we have no family connections to trades. Almost everyone else on his apprenticeship course worked for their dad, uncle or dad's mate. Obviously it's good to open people's eyes to vocational education that hadn't thought about it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's as simple as 'study vocational and you'll stroll into a job, go to university and you won't'.

This also all seems to be based on the idea you'll train for something at 16 and then do it for the rest of your life, which seems so old-fashioned now. Lots and lots of people move between all kinds of different work, retraining at various points - which is one reason why a broad, general education is a better base than being narrowly trained to do one thing.

As someone who attended uni late in life as a mature student i agree with PP who argue that we have far too many low quality graduates nowadays. Many degrees have been considerably dumbed down from the 1980s when I attended and a 1st meant something. So I would like to see a return to fewer graduates of much better quality, as in the 1970s/1980s. We should also look to other countries.

Germany. for example, maintains a strong balance between academic and vocational training through its formal Dual Training system. This reduces the social stigma traditionally attached to manual and technical work compared to other Western nations. Students split their time between practical training at a company (such as a factory, bank, or craft workshop) and theoretical education at a state-run vocational school. Trainees receive a modest, regulated salary from the employing company for the duration of their apprenticeship. There are standardised qualifications whereby federally recognised training occupations conclude with uniform national examinations administered by official bodies.

Skilled trades and technical professions are viewed as respectable career tracks. They have clear professional titles and pathways to higher management or master craftsperson rather than being fallback options for underachievers. Small-to-medium-sized enterprises rely heavily on this pipeline of certified technicians, ensuring robust employment rates and low youth unemployment.

People do but it’s not like the 60’s, anything like that relies on volunteers. You also need dbs checks, funding, sponsorship, kit, somewhere to train, risk assessments etc etc.

I would also note that if you actually want more apprenticeships then you need to massively reduce the bureaucracy around them (and probably then accept a certain amount of fraud as the cost of that).