We sometimes get so caught up in the detail of the latest initiative that obvious contradictions fail to leap out at us. It is great that, with the publication of It’s About Work…, the promised Tech Bacc and the proposal of a VET centre, vocational education, pedagogy and training are taking centre stage in debates about education policy. But we have a mountain to climb if we are to overcome the innate preference of many families for their own children to pursue an academic route to success.
The current consultation on vocational qualifications for 16-19 year-olds aims to establish standards for level 3 qualifications that will mean people can be assured of their quality and view them as something to aspire to. This is a worthy aim indeed. A key plank of the consultation is the proposal to define qualifications more strictly as either ‘occupational’ or ‘applied general’, depending upon whether they are designed to prepare young people for a specific career or, instead, to teach broader skills that may be applied in a number of career settings.
As part of the drive towards increased public information for potential learners, these categories would then be used to report on the performance of particular programmes in particular institutions. So far, so good, you might think – vocational qualifications will be presented on a level playing field with their academic counterparts. And both categories undoubtedly have a good proportion of CAVTL’s ‘line of sight to work’.
But why is there a need to categorise? The term ‘applied general’ doesn’t seem very sexy. Why would a young person want to do something which, from its label alone, would not seem to be very specific at all? It feels like something of a value-laden term, which could make well-respected qualifications like the BTEC in Business instantly less appealing.
Coupled with the Minister’s view that “far too little genuinely occupational education takes place among 16-18 year olds”, we might reasonably wonder whether ‘applied general’ qualifications are intended to be less valuable. Perhaps it is right for young people entering vocational education and training to specialise in preparing for a specific occupation.
But, for adults, we read in the skills strategy published last week that many ‘occupational’ qualifications are “too narrow”. Surely this is the same suite of qualifications being studied by younger learners? Should we be advocating that those on a vocational pathway study something which is ‘narrow’?
And what constitutes success for someone on an ‘occupational’ course? A job in what they have trained for, many would say. But what of the young person who studies hairdressing and decides instead to apply the business skills they will undoubtedly have learned to set up their own customer care consultancy? Or the engineer who is taken during their study with the mathematical elements of the work and decides to become an accountant after pursuing a degree in mathematics?
Are these students ‘failures’, or simply a testament to the amazing things that can happen when a course contains the broadest mix of practical and employability skills? What if everyone on an academic pathway not only ‘specialised’ in only one subject at either 14 or 16 (geography, say) but was also then judged on the basis of whether or not they become a ‘geographer’?
Attention to developing a very broad range of skills for work and employment is what those in the FE sector are renowned for. We know that success is as much about attitude and skills as it is about occupationally specific knowledge. I cannot help but wonder how being any more specific than that will be of help to anyone.