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?

But a percentage is funded by industry - JCB sponsors the current one and other industry heavyweights are getting behind it, so that can fill the funding gap to an extent.

And yes, once there are large amounts of them I'm sure some would be better than others, but I don't see how that is different from current state schools, or why that should be a reason to abandon the whole idea.

Oh come on! Do you think all the parents fretting on here that a state primary might not get their kid into a private secondary are doing so in the hope that independent education at 11 is going to result in the child learning a vocation? Do you think independent schools will strive to get a reputation as the places to go if you want your child to gain a plan to tech school at 14?

The independent system will be one way that wealthy parents buy their way out of this, for sure. Yes there will be some enlightened parents who will be happy for a less academic child to pursue a vocation, but I doubt that will be the norm...

but sec moderns weren't tech schools - they were meant to be separate institutions

\link{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_System\1944-1970s tri-partite system}

"Grammar schools were intended to teach a highly academic curriculum, teaching students to deal with abstract concepts. There was a strong focus on intellectual subjects, such as literature, classics and complex mathematics. In addition to wholly state-funded grammar schools, a number of schools currently receiving state grants could become direct grant grammar schools, with some pupils funded by the state and the rest paying fees.

Secondary technical schools were designed to train children adept in mechanical and scientific subjects. The focus of the schools was on providing scientists, engineers and technicians.

Secondary modern schools (secondary intermediate schools in Northern Ireland) would train pupils in practical skills, aimed at equipping them for less skilled jobs and home management.

It was intended for all three branches of the system to have a parity of esteem. The appropriate type of school for each student would be determined by their performance in an examination taken in the final year of primary school."

my italics

If it's going to be done at all it needs to be done properly this time.

Ponders: the old tripartite system becomes 2-part, do the old definitions won't fit.

I think the earlier leaving age is strongly redolent of the secondary modern. Especially as the old secondary techs never really took off.

Joan, I think things are changing. Parents at my children's private schools are questioning the wisdom of pushing those who are not academic along, because even if they get into universities they are not getting good jobs and they may have large debts. In some cases they aren't getting jobs at all. I think a lot of parents who are struggling to meet fee obligations will wonder if this isn't a better option.

I don't understand why engineering is being patronisingly looked down on as a "vocation". Engineering is a highly respected discipline, and it's an extremely difficult university degree.

Why the snobbishness about engineering? You really think that people won't want their children designing planes? Or designing the latest type of suspension bridge? Or coming up with a credible alternative to the petrol driven engine? Some graduates may go on to use their knowledge in more "vocational" careers, such as plumbing or construction, but if half are going on to university then there will be a large proportion going on to earn a lot of money in a field where, if you're good, you will always be in well paid work.

What do you think engineers do?

From what I can see, these schools are designed to be the technical equivalent of grammar schools but with a focus on engineering. And we know how popular grammar schools are. They're not a place where you learn how to hammer in nails and suck your teeth when you look at a boiler.

My brother was an engineer and it was a demanding degree at Southampton. He had an apprentiCeship with a major organisation that builds planes and a guaranteed job when he left.

I think there's a Confusion with engineers who fix televisions or BT lines. Not the same (though those people are very definitely needed and in demand, too).

It's definitely a good thing. For too long schools have pushed academia upon kids who have absolutely no interest in it. There's something wrong when we have a massive surplus of media graduates but a shortage of plumbers, electricians, plasterers etc.

Another problem is the feminisation of education, but that's a topic for another day.

My cousin would have benefited from this. He never flourished until he left school and went to college to do mechanics.

There are people for whom academic study is not suited. We desperately need to encourage them rather than let them vegetate in school longer than is necessary. How much more they would learn knowing that their main aim was a subject they enjoyed?

I hate this idea that people who want to do a trade are somehow beneath those who go to uni. Time for that prejudice to die a death.

Apart from anything else, the prejudice has led to those with a trade earning more than a large number of those going to uni. It would not surprise me if the median average wage for a tradesperson was higher than that for a graduate.

I think it is an excellent idea to allow 14 year olds who want to to move to a more college like environment.

My aunt went to one of the few technical schools in the 50s (the third part of the tripartite system, that never really got started) and was a big supporter of them.

I don't see why they can't use the pre-existing FE colleges and give them extra funding (back in my day it was the Tech anyway ), rather than starting a whole new set of institutions though.

Interestingly the FE college near here will accept 14 year olds on a specific range of courses, and they are very popular - partly with those who want vocational options that aren't offered in their school (small rural secondaries), but also with some who have 'outgrown' the school environment.

They're definitely not dumped kids - the ones I know are from quite a mix of backgrounds, but for one reason or another they were square pegs in school. IMO there are a lot of 14 year olds who will thrive in a more adult environment - no uniform, first name terms with the lecturers, more responsibility for their own work, etc.

Abr1de, surely what we should be offering as well is plenty of day release, night school classes etc. so that those who maybe start out with lower level engineering skills as you describe, and don't want to go any further in their teenage years can then later - if they want - study and go on to higher level qualifications.

Basically, I'm not sure why we ever got rid of technical colleges and Polytechnics, perhaps we just need to reinvent them . . .

Definitely agree, Takver. There's no reason why people shouldn't be accelerated onto the next level. It's a waste of talent otherwise.

couldn't really give a stuff what prejudices there are with people who 'work with their hands' is there a secret world where these people are looked down on really? glad i don't recognise it in my life!

my ds(17)s local comp has lots of non academic options - it's brilliant - aviation studies is one too

DH went to technical school in Denmark and now has a great career. He is well ahead of me in terms of experience and company pension size. He is now doing an MBA (paid for by his employer) as he has entered senior management. In another year he will earn more than I did when I worked for an investment bank.

For me class has nothing to do with it. I want my children to be happy and if they are not academic I do not see the point in them wasting time in the classroom when they could be learning by doing. I think the technical school starting at 14 is a great idea as long as it isn't a decision forced upon pupils. These technical schools should also prepare these students with basic business skills so that if they do decide to set up a business they know where to go for help/further training and how to keep basic books.

because it will start at 14, riven - atm any student who wants to do something techie has to slog through to GCSEs at 16 & then do it

Ponders, but pupils are already allowed out to colleges on day release to do some vocational training. Thinking about it I do wonder if at 14 students are mature enough to cope with being released from school on a full-time basis.

Its a good idea if it is done properly.

Grimma: I think your if is spot on.

they wouldn't be released from school at 14, riven - they'd be changing from an academic school to a technical college.

What Ponders said, they're going to a different, specialist school, rather than just not going to school. College is maybe suggestive of being part of FE, while actually it is still part of secondary education.