Technical and Further Education Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Tracy Brabin and Kelvin Hopkins

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Tracy Brabin]

Q David, I have been told that in some circumstances members of staff such as receptionists without relevant qualifications or training are carrying out careers guidance in colleges as a tick-box exercise. Are you concerned that there is no careers guidance provision in the Bill?

David Hughes: I am very concerned if that story about reception staff is true, because it is an incredibly important area of education and, of course, it does not start at 16; it starts a lot earlier. I would echo a lot of what Alison was saying. We need to think about key stage 4 rather than just look at age 16-plus, because the decisions that get made by young people and their parents and carers are critical to their future. We need to think about introducing them to the world of work rather than just providing them with some information about courses, so the work experience and work placements that the Sainsbury report and the skills plan rightly concentrate and focus on are really important to consider for key stage 4, rather than just waiting until 16. We want some of the best young people with good achievements at GCSE at 16 going into the technical route and apprenticeships rather than what we have now, which is mostly that if you do well at GCSE at 16, you take an academic route.

We know that probably about £1 billion is wasted when young people go on an academic route for a year and then move off it because they find it is not suitable for them. We need to stop that happening because that wastes money and, more importantly, young people are using up a year of their life on something that does not stimulate them or motivate them. We have got to go back into key stage 4 rather than just wait. It is critical that we get college information, advice and guidance right, but let us think about careers education through school, not just right at the end, and let us think about persuading the best young people to do technical if that is the right thing for them, because it should be high-quality to attract them.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Q What David Hughes and Professor Fuller have been saying is striking. I recall comparisons made some 25 years ago by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research and Professor Sig Prais between technical education in Britain and in Germany, Italy and Spain in particular, where they had up to 30 hours a week of contact-intensive pedagogic teaching over a period. In Britain it was nothing like that.

The underfunding of technical education and 16-to-19 education is noticeable. By contrast, at universities—I went there many years ago—you have a few lectures and a couple of seminars and tutorials, so the contact hours are much lower but the funding is much higher. Do you not think we have got this the wrong way around?

David Hughes: For lots of the technical routes, we are getting 12 to 14 hours of contact time, and that pales into insignificance compared to most of our competitors in the OECD. It is a really important issue. It is not just for technical, though; we have now got young people being offered only three A-levels rather than four AS-levels, and that is really shameful. It means that their opportunities to explore at 16 have been limited.

We really must address the investment issue to get the level of support that is required for young people. We are talking about young people who might have careers lasting 50 years-plus. They need a broad education to allow them to become learners, to think about continuous professional development, to change career probably two or three times and to be able to move when technology moves. I do not think that 12 to 14 hours of contact time for the 16-to-19 phase is enough. I do not think that the quality will be high enough or that the choice, even on A-level routes, is good enough, given the funding that is available.

Professor Alison Fuller: I am sure others will want to speak, but I would hate to say, just because we maybe think there is a big contrast in the numbers, that higher education is overfunded. I certainly would not want that message to come through.

There are a couple of other points. One is that a lot of vocational education—I still say that—happens in universities. The expansion of higher education has largely been in relation to vocational higher education courses in applied areas. A big cost of that is in equipment—lab space, technology, machinery and so on—and that same argument is behind suggesting that further education should really be better resourced. Good-quality technical education does not come cheap; the reality is that it is extremely expensive. We need very highly qualified vocational teachers—I include those who are moving in and out of employment, and I am sure Richard will speak about that, because he was part of the very influential report a couple of years ago from the commission chaired by Frank McLoughlin. It is a case of being serious about what it costs to provide a good-quality technical education, in terms of the people, resources, equipment and facilities.