Andy Burnham Hope

[TeacherPrimaryabc]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4k2djd5qpo

Excellent idea from Andy Burnham to shake up education - about time. The number of bored 14 to 16 year olds, forced to do exams and academic study against their will, preventing them from doing something vocational and active like plumbing, building, electrics, hairdresding etc is a flawed system. Some kids don't want to be doing maths, English, science all day. That's when partly, you get the bad behaviour and then kids going down the wrong path. They get to 17, 18 years old not knowing what to do and end up unemployed. Give them a pathway, guidance and a skill to continue with when they leave school. What do we think secondary teachers?

I think we've tried this before about 15 years ago and if this isn't executed better, solving all the problems the diploma et al faced, it'll be the same disappointment as last time.

This is an incredibly complex problem to solve but already as usual the people with insufficient experience, or direct skin in the game, are all thinking it's the best thing since the wheel was last reinvented.

I'd love it to work- I'm a big advocate for good quality vocational courses- but I think it will be done in a way that pleases the electorate rather than actually dealing with the wider issues about employment, employability, social mobility, and the public's relationship with education in general. I will be very happy to be proved wrong.

@PensionPuzzle yes it was tried before. In my town, a new 14-19 technical school was built next door to the technical college. The idea was kids would go to the school, do English/Maths/Science plus technical courses linked with the college.
It never got off the ground and closed within 18 months due to low numbers. The building is now part of the technical college.

There was a similar one in a nearby city that also failed.

It's a great idea in theory but complicated and needs huge work and investment to actually work.

It's a step in the right direction. But like similar initiatives, to me it's hamstrung by the assumption that technical study somehow demands less brainpower than that required for a degree in English, history, politics, psychology, social sciences etc.

The reality is, most modern technology is way beyond the intellectual capacity of the average teacher, never mind schoolkid, in terms of the depth and breadth of knowledge it demands in subjects like maths, physics, engineering, electronics.... not to mention an aptitude for problem-solving and applying logic... genuine interest in materials, processes and machinery... the skill to understand and use instrumentation... the physical strength and dexterity to use complex tools... the perseverance to engage with difficult concepts (as well as great tomes of poorly thought-through regulation)... etcetera.

It's certainly beyond the ken of the average English graduate, in which number I include myself and Andy Burnham. We were required to read stories and comment on them sagely.

The level of (perhaps defensive) condescension from those in the media towards technical education is quite remarkable. Earlier this evening I heard Evan Davies on radio 4 ask an education spokesperson (didn't catch who she was) if she would really rather have her own child 'wear a hard hat instead of a graduation cap' - as if to say, come on, we all know we wouldn't want our own kids to become plumbers (the only vaguely techie job most people can think of).

At the moment there's a huge dropout rate in students doing vocational qualifications like BTECs, significantly more than for A-Levels. I'm sure this is down to students realising the 'easy' option of a vocational qualification was much harder than they were led to believe.

I hope that standards in technical education will rise, and that as a nation we become a bit more realistic about what skills really build prosperity. Fewer lawyers, more engineers is a good place to start. If we have the brains for it.

The cynic in me also says that the timing in the holidays, and lack of detailing the announcement (exactly which subject areas are in focus? Which technical/vocational areas won't be included?) doesn't bode well.

How will this mesh with the CAR and the new curricula that we are all waiting for? Will he keep T & V levels as progression routes, or muck about with them so soon after they were last mucked about with?

I also think is incredibly unrealistic to get this rolled out by 2028, as @MixedFeelingsNoFeelings says finding or recruiting staff with sufficient expertise in schools, or developing industry people to be able to work with 14-16 kids, isn't a quick job either.

What do you think @TeacherPrimaryabc as the OP? I guess from your username you're a primary teacher- are you guys aware of these issues from your sector or is it just blind applause for big talk with little detail?

I appreciate that in theory it's a great idea but in reality, there are lots of difficulties. However, education needs some real thought / change, and I applaud the new PM for at least talking about it and bringing some ideas to the table. Whether they happen or not, is another matter ofcourse!

In primary, it's a one size fits all "machine" approach. Any school that gets a poor set of SATS results one year, alarm bells start sounding and the Local Authority and Ofsted will be getting ready to pounce. Schools are like machines just trying to get as many as children as they can, to get the best results that they can for the school, so as to not be under pressure from Ofsted. In year 6, it's full pelt - English, maths, English, Grammar all day long, to get as many to pass the test as possible.

What does that mean? So in primary quite often, child x who could be SEN but may not be, school doesn't work for them. He or she can't sit still for very long, and just wants to build, to cook, to create, loves art / DT (child x is an angel, happy and less stressed in these lessons, when this rare opportunity arises) but is instead for the majority of time, is forced to be doing all of the other academic subjects with some poor TA, running after them, having to insist they have done their writing, maths etc because we arn't allowed to do cooking and DT all morning every day and we haven't got the resources either.

Child x then just misbehaves most of the day, taking up everyones time. Exclusions are up, because schools just can't get them to do this rigid curriculum. Child x makes very little progress anyway because they are frustrated and stressed most of the day being forced to do academic study that they don't want to do (or they would rather do their maths / English in reality during real life activities). He or she also doesn't gain many skills in the practical subjects he or she is good at, as they are instead forced to sit and do the curriculum all day. We just create frustratred, stressed out kids in some cases where school just isn't for them. They want to be oustide, or doing practical activities.

Headteachers know that we can't have too many children not contributing to a percentage of who is achieving in this rigid, packed curriculum or their job is at risk. It's all about meeting Ofsted requirements, rather than what is best for individual kids. After Ruth Perry's death RIP, the government just changed the wording on a report card, but everything is just the same! No overall judgment of the school, but the report card still has "requires improvement", just different words!

There are many examples of child x, a few with extreme difficulties but many who are close to this. Why can't we have "some" children building, creating, cooking, climbing, (integrating maths and English into those activities), so that they thrive too? At the moment, there has to be evidence in books, which is checked and scrutinised. Is learning just written tasks in books or can children learn more practically if that is what suits them? I know my view on that!

But when they come to secondary they will still be expected to do (and the vast majority do!) normal maths and English lessons, even alongside whatever this new model looks like. I worked in an SEMH school and we still taught English and maths in discrete lessons whether kids were doing GCSE or FS in the end because that was the best way. They needed the qualifications for themselves and our job was to ensure they were able to demonstrate they could work at a defined standard by completing a recognised qualification.

Vocational learning in secondary never has (and hopefully never will) had an absence of written work or taught, sat down content. It's the mode of assessment and the ratio of practical to theory that distinguishes it from 'academic' courses. I have taught both, in some cases at the same time to the same kids, and it most certainly isn't this romanticised view of kids doing what they want and then hiding other subjects within it.

What you describe @TeacherPrimaryabc is having a small group of kids that will have a lovely time but wouldn't achieve the same number or 'quality' of qualifications as their peers and therefore will be disadvantaged for life. The judge of someone's qualifications is, of course, the employer (with college or university possibly taking a view along the way) and the job market, there is nothing that simply reforming the school curriculum can do to change this-it's a much bigger issue.

Obviously Burnham isn't going to allow that to happen but it illustrates how pervasive the idea of vocational being for kids who struggle is within society. As I said before, the issue is much more complex and nuanced and we made no progress towards resolving any of this last time we had the (likely very similar) push for schools to offer more vocational pathways.

What we end up with, is a group of children classified / labelled as "working below or working significantly below" throughout their time at primary. My experience is that the stereotypical child X, never reaches expected standard and leaves primary known as a child "below or well below expectations". Not helpful labels for their confidence I would argue. And I know child X, is brilliant at other things and would be labelled as "Greater depth", but child X never gets the chance to excel in something they are good at / enjoy because they must write a discursive text about the Ancient Greeks because the curriculum says they should. And when they write very little, they are just known as "working well below standard".

I can see this both ways up.

My son is severely disabled and he did a vocational course in horticulture at school (20 years ago now). Was brilliant. He was taught in a small group by a woman with a PhD. He was the last year to do it. Too expensive apparently.

I now work in a school where the trades are taught post-16. We refuse more than we accept because the courses are massively oversubscribed. We can't increase class sizes partly as we just don't have the space, and partly due to staff recruitment issues. Back in the day, if you worked on the tools there would come a time when you needed to retire from such physical work. However, that's no longer the case (tech and H&S have improved). Frankly, no one is going to take a £20-30k pay cut to deal with arsey teenagers.

The other things which caused huge problems rolling-out the diplomas were a) the difficulty around securing work-placements/ the employers’ inputs (if memory serves, 40 das) and b) blocking schools’ timetables so that students could get to whichever school/ centre in an area was running a particular course because it’s uneconomic for the average comp to offer a lot of them. On another thread about AB’s proposals I’ve talked about delivering FS English to Yr 9, which was meant to make running the diplomas easier and lock-in a compulsory academic element. All that happened was that Yr 9 did their FS, some ended up getting a L2 and then Ds down the line for GCSE, some very able students got L1, to their parents’ fury and much time was spent dealing with the complaints and in Yr 10, too few opted for any of the diplomas on offer locally for them to run. When it came to it, parents and students wanted the safe bet of GCSEs in the school they’d chosen for their 11yr olds. Also, the problem with an academy system that sets schools in direct competition with their neighbours is that when you have something like this that benefits from schools working together, it doesn’t happen. Also, some of the ‘studio’ -type schools for 14-18s that were set up to deliver these courses and had a more specialised curriculum had a real image-problem in terms of why some students were ‘encouraged’ to move to them in Yr 10 …and s lot of parents/young people didn’t want to make the move.

I'm really pleased that AB is at least opening the conversation up again but we need to avoid the funding and logistical problems of last time and, importantly, have a cultural shift around attitudes to trades and technical courses during compulsory education. And what is definitely doesn’t mean is that there will be less time spent on English, Maths and Science in secondary schools because they are gateway qualifications for employment and post -16 offers.

This maybe a crazy suggestion, but why can't some students go to college at 14 or 15, to learn a trade? Why can't we employ a few more DT, Art, Drama, business, computing teachers to provide for those students who want a vocational route? Get them creating, inventing, cooking, selling and making from a younger age instead of forcing students to do maths, English, science in a formal sit down, write essays format. There is an increase in truancy in recent times, particularly in years 10 and 11. Why battle with them to do academic study that they don't want to do?

When I taught in year 6, it was a real eye opener when we had our "Enterprise Week", after SATS. Some of the most disengaged students, who achieved modest results, made the most money that week and enjoyed it the most!! This is because they enjoyed making money, being active, making things to sell, real life activities and washing cars etc. They came alive that week, no behaviour issues at all. I think there is a debate to be had about how we do things. A bit like politics today, it's all about academic data, percentages and which school gets the best grades. What about the kids that this doesn't work for?