Techinical colleges at 14 rather than remaining in mainstream education

[lucky1979]

The Times has a big series or artiles today about how the government are planning to let teenagers decide at 14 whether they would like to go to vocational colleges or stay in mainstream academic education.

Times is behind a paywall, but there is a smaller Guardian artcle on the topic here

I think it sounds like a great idea, much better to let teenagers decide for themselves where they want to specialise - especially if they are all going to have to remain in education until they are 18, it will be something much more useful for those who don't want to pursue an academic career and attempt to plug the hole which seems to be lack of basic apprenticeships etc. Moves things away from university being the only option for advancement as well. BUt they will still do the main GCSEs in case they change their mind later in life. What does everyone else think?

It must be a good plan. It must be grim to be stuck at school for another two to four years when you know you'd like to do something technical or technological and could be getting stuck in.

And we badly need people with these skills. It would need to be very carefully positioned, though. And it would be essential to insist that maths and English are continued to a high level so that if, later in life, pupils wanted to switch back into something more academic they'd have the core requirements.

Fantastic idea, as long as they are literate and numerate at 14. TBH GCSE's 'late in life' are not worth the paper they are written on.

From The Times - "The colleges will have an engineering focus and each will have another practical specialism, such as construction. Pupils will graduate with a ?tec bacc?, matching Mr Gove?s English baccalaureate, with GCSEs in English, maths and science, qualifications in each college?s two specialisms, such as an engineering diploma, plus a lower qualification in basic skills."

So they're still getting the literacy and numeracy but then the rest will be specialist qualifications.

I'd only support it if vocational colleges made sure that ALL students get GCSEs in English, Maths, a language and a science.... as well as devoting more time to practical subjects. Think 'vocational' vs 'academic' is far too polarised. Agree that GCSE's 'later in life' is not the point.

but what if you're not academic OR into engineering/construction etc?

I think it's dubious to say the least. And the schools which go for the academic route might well be tempted to steer more difficult, or borderline, pupils down the 'technical' route, I'd think.

Personally I'd want to go back to 16 being the watershed, I think.

I think it's a good idea, let them go to technical college at 14, still do GSCE Maths and English alongside other training, e.g hair and beauty, hospitality, childcare, business studies, admin skills, engineering, contruction etc etc. In fact this does happen now, in my area.

Plenty of 14 yr olds are already doing a day in college on these subjects. They also seem to love their day at college.

What JoanofArgos said

It sounds like another tier in the education system to me. Surely these sort of choices exist within the comprehensive system anyway? Round here less academic pupils do core subjects at school (including D and T) but do specialist vocational courses at the local FE college.

It doesn't really explain how a new tech school would fit in alongside existing FE colleges - or how facilities provided. Things like construction and hairdressing are pretty spcialised in terms of equipment, for instance.

It sounds like a way of reinforcing the class divide to me. Send the working class kids to tech college, because they aren't deemed good enough for further study or university - and keep the universities that survive govt high ed policy 'pure' and posh. I doubt it will be the pupils themselves deciding - teachers will syphon them and parental expectations will play a role.

yep, my year 9 dd has just brought her options booklet home - there are core subjects, and within that, some room for less academic kids to be catered for (dual award in science, no MFL, that sort of thing) and then you can also do apprenticeships, dance, etc.... OR you can do another MFL and another humanity. So it seems to me like the non-academic route is not too badly catered for anyway?

IMO the problem comes at 16 when they are all expected to stay on, regardless of whether it's the path they are really suited to.

I'm not convinced that at 14 you're really equipped to know what you're going to do for a career either. I can see that for some there will be short-termism - 'oh if I choose that, it will be much easier for now/I'll be able to get a job as soon as I leave school' rather than looking further ahead than that, and having a broad base from which to choose at 16.

I think telsa made a good point about parental expectations - if they're low, then aspirations for their dc's may well be low too.

My DH is from a very working class family, first one to ever go to university etc etc. His family were all very proud and supportive except for his brother-in-law who told him "Why are you bothering with that shit, get yourself a van and a trade and get out working"

DH did his degree, decided not to get a job in that field, drifted around for a while doing sales kind of jobs and now works as a lecturer in a field that is nothing to do with the one he studied at university. He says if he had his time again he would listen to his BIL and get that van, he feels university was a waste for him. Incidentally, his cousin who left school at 16 now runs his own business and is extremely well off, he earns quite a bit more than university educated DH :)

There seems to be the unspoken assumption that university is always always better and rich people want to keep working class people in their place and have them learn a trade instead as if it is some way inferior and it's NOT. It's not a low aspiration to be an engineer for example, and there isn't even the suggestion that people couldn't go on from these schools to do engineering at university, it's not an automatic end of education. And the people that do go straight into a job, why do they have less aspiration than their counterparts who lounge around doing a crap course at university and graduate with a great big debt and no idea what they really want to do for a career?

If these colleges are good, then there will be a huge amount of competition to get in, I doubt they will be dumping grounds as apart from anything else engineering is bloody hard work. Much easier to muck about in secondary school doing daft GCSEs in useless subjects.

I think some of the people with vocational skills and training will, in twenty years time, be having a good laugh at the ones who opted to stay on at school and go to university.

But they'll probably give them some nice tips when they come across them in cleaning and waitressing jobs.

I left school at 15 and did an apprenticeship as an engineer, I later completed my engineering management degree whilst still working funded by my employer.

I did far better than my peers who poured scorn on my decision to leave rather than stay at school and go on to uni.

Engineering is not for the less academic, nor is construction. Both fields have plenty of roles which require both education as well as experience to a high level.

Technical colleges are a brilliant idea, we have a huge skills gap in this country, many of my contacts struggle to recruit as there is such a lack of people either already qualified or who would want an apprenticeship.

If technical colleges had been available when I was at school I wouldn't have had two yrs of being labelled as rebellious and stupid by my teachers because I didn't aspire to A-levels.

I think there is a level of snobbery from many who object, someone who is trained well in a vocational skill including hairdressing etc has more potential earning power in our economic climate than a grad just out of uni with no practical skills in my opinion.
A-levels followed by uni is not the ideal route for many careers.

Why is the measure of all worth 'earning power'? Oh yeah, I forgot - we live in capitalism. Doesn't mean we have to adopt its money-fixated values wholeheartedly though.

And if these colleges don't just become dumping grounds for disaffected working class boys, I''ll eat my hat. Really I will.

Quote from Guardian article
"If we are going to have high-speed rail, the fastest broadband in the world, new nuclear power stations, we are going to need technicians," he told the Times.

There is no way that a technical college in Hackney or Sheffield for 14 year olds is going to have the type of equipment and knowledge base that major world research institutes called universities have in order in train the people who will really be doing the work in nuclear science, aerodynamics, computer science.

How much do you know about this field?

The colleges will be expected to give a base not specific complex knowledge. That comes later on with work experience and further education.

They will actually be giving disaffected young people an option and a choice. Why would you assume that the student body of a technical college would be made up of only the working class? What an odd assumption.
By the way, you don't have to be male to have a technical job. I am very much female.

i don't think it's that odd, as an assumption miniwedge. being honest about the middle class people I know, I very much doubt any of them would be happy for their year 9 to be shunted towards vocational training.

lordy my dad and mum both went to technical colleges in the 40s to learn a trade!

the dumping ground comment is a little weird, we still need carpenters, mechanics and plumbers - not everyone wants to work in nuclear science or aerodynamics

I think it's a great idea in theory. the main thing is to change the mindset that looks down on people who work with their hands.

I was in Germany in the 80s and if you wanted to become a hairdresser, painter... you had to take a three-year vocational course and pass it. If you wanted to have your own firm you had to do another year-long course and be called a Meister. Everyone would know that you had reached a certain standard.

I agree with the other posters that if vocational courses are started at 14 English, maths and science must still be studied to GCSE level so that qualifications can be transferred to a more academic situation if the student changes their mind.

Proper Tech colleges properly funded (as they never were in the secondary modern days) would be fantastic for non-academic kids.

But surely some kids will never be able to pass an actual GCSE in English or Maths (unless the Govt lowers standards ) - iirc the \link{http://www.connexions-direct.com/index.cfm?pid=79&catalogueContentID=158\e2e (entry to employment)} scheme used to teach up to a minimum standard in both, but didn't expect them to pass GCSE.

(Of course connexions is one of the casualties of the coalition... )

All of the middle class people I know would be very happy for their child/chldren to go to tech college, if that is what the child wanted.

OK, I'm probably going to get in to trouble for quoting large chunks of Times articles here, but this is description of the one that is already open:

"The facilities are incredible; housed in the 18th century Arkwright mill, which was producing cotton until the early 1990s, the old equipment has been replaced with lathes to turn metal, plastic moulds, plasma cutters, and 3-D screening rooms.

Mark Henshaw, deputy head, estimates that half of the students will go on to university, while half will go into industry or take up apprenticeships. The academic element, he said, was important, but it was also about valuing the practical side of the industry.

Jim Wade is the academy?s principal. ?What is key is our contact with industry ? the experience they can give the students,? he said. ?Many of the projects they work on have been designed with Toyota, Network Rail, Bentle, our business partners. It?s about how we encourage people to go on and become the next generation of engineers. It?s great if they want to go on to university, but it would also be good if they have the entrepreneurial skills to go on and set up their own businesses.?

Doesn't sound like a crap dumping ground to me, sounds like if anything the problem will be that the working class people are professing to be so worried about will be elbowed out the way by middle class parents trying to give their kids an extra head start, just like other state selective schools.

My parents were middle class, they would have preferred the tech college for me. Still think it's a bizarre and faintly insulting assumption that a tech college would be a dumping ground.

Oh my god, I've just seen the typo in the title and now I'm going to quietly die of shame.

It sounds like the reinvention of the Secondary Modern tbh: now running from 14-18, rather than 11-15/16.

I expect the early adopters will be very well-funded and supported , to "prove" the concept. Such levels of support rarely survive mass roll-out.

Coming next: some universities to specialize in vocational courses. Oh, hang on a sec, weren't they called "polytechnics"?