Do we really need anymore vocational courses?

Andy Burnham is right in his comments about the narrow ‘academic’ curriculum, imposed on schools by Michael Gove. The Francis Review has recommended some changes but its main foundations will still be in place. He’s also right about the current low status given to technical and vocational courses. Yet there are, despite what some of the media coverage in recent days has implied, plenty of them. Over the last 40 years vocational and technical awards have been regularly redesigned and rebranded with the Starmer government recently adding a new V level, that can be taken alongside academic study. Do we need anymore?

There are also vocational courses at GCSE level. Burnham’s enthusiasm for a more vocational learning at 14, could take us back to the days of the late 1990s, when Post Office boss Ron Dearing was brought in to provide alternatives to the new National Curriculum. Do we really want this type of early selection?

Burnham’s confidence in the Manchester Baccalaureate can be admired, but let’s get things in proportion. The Bacc is a ‘wrap round’ certificate – a reorganisation of what’s available to 14-year-olds, not a new style pedagogy.    Secondly, it’s only been in operation for about 2 years. While it may have been adopted across the city, it’s far too early to conclude whether it’s had any major effect on employment. The recent success of the Manchester economy, carefully nurtured by Burnham, is the result of a wider range of factors, international as well as local, some good, some not so.

We don’t know yet what changes to the curriculum would involve. (Francis has already called for the abolition of the Ebacc) – but they wouldn’t be implementable, we’re informed, till 2028. A more engaging curriculum for disaffected youth (if that what Burnham’s proposals will be?) might keep youngsters in education longer (though the leaving age is now officially 18, thousands still disappear from school roles at 16, many even before that) but by itself is not seriously going to improve chances in the labour market.

As the Milburn Report emphasised, youth unemployment and economic inactivity is a ‘structural’ and long-term problem.   Burnham appears to recognise this and has so far avoided the ‘get to work or we’ll cut your benefits’ mentality of the Tories and Reform, (though the Telegraph reports that sickness benefits could be stripped for young people unless they do training or voluntary work and that DWP boss Pat McFadden, has been inspired by the Dutch government’s approach: requiring young welfare recipients to join community projects such as litter-picking). However less than half of all NEETs actually claim anyway and those that do only make up about 15% of the universal credit bill.

Young people have been losing out to other groups for years. The old ‘youth jobs’ no longer exist and with few apprenticeships or other real alternatives to low paid service sector employment, they’ve delayed their transition to the labour market and flocked to university instead – now, Labour seems to be abandoning the Blairite aim of 50 per cent of school leavers going to HE. But ‘entry- level’ employment, the 21^st century equivalent relied on by the current generation of graduates is being seriously cut back as, employers grapple with the implications of AI – the employment crisis facing young people stretches well beyond the NEETs.

Burnham is right about the need for closer partnerships between schools and local employers, especially in relation to apprenticeship recruitment and so on. These and extended work experience placements are much more important than another round of classroom based vocationalism. Labour’s manifesto provided a Youth Guarantee.  This includes more work placements, personal coaching in job hubs, but also six-month subsidised job guarantees for long term NEETs. There’s also a commitment to expanding apprenticeships (easier said than done) and to preventing employer levy payments being used to fund existing management trainees rather than school leavers.

These are very limited measures. Because of Labour’s self-imposed ‘fiscal rules’ its opposition to tax increases for the better off, not to mention the string of other issues facing the new government, they are very likely to remain under resourced. Yet as far as the NEETs are concerned they represent a small step in the right direction.

Of course, this doesn’t mean we should stop campaigning for a good general education for all. Rather than parity between the academic and the vocational tracks, neither should continue to exist.