WIREDGOV

Blog posted by: Mick Fletcher, FE Policy Analyst, Wednesday 14 February 2018.

Two big conceptual problems bedevil the debate about T levels. One, which I’ve written about at length elsewhere, is that people who should really know better persist in talking about technical education when they actually mean training for technicians. The other is the constant reference to a ‘vocational route’, usually followed by the assertion that only snobbery prevents its having parity of esteem with the academic.

The problem with this presentation is that it sets vocational education up to fail. The academic route is designed specifically to facilitate progression. GCSEs sort out who will do A levels which in turn largely sorts out who will study for degrees. Although it’s often exaggerated, such qualifications are not especially good at getting people ‘work ready’. That is because they are not designed to.

Vocational education on the other hand should have a clear line of sight to work.  It can only give the same opportunities for progression as academic study if its content, styles of delivery and assessment are distorted. Even if it does ape the academic model, it will still fail to attract potential HE entrants - and reluctance to undertake a programme mimicking academic study when you can do the real thing is not snobbery but common sense.

It is important to note that this argument doesn’t hold for ‘Applied General’ qualifications –DfE rightly sees them as part of the academic route (which incidentally would be far better termed the ‘General’ route.)  Applied General qualifications differ from A levels in style of delivery and in using vocational relevance for motivation but represent an increasingly important basis for progression to HE.

It is not to say either that it should be impossible to progress from one vocational programme to another at a higher level. People clearly do, and progression in the workplace, say from teaching assistant to teacher, should be encouraged.  It’s simply saying that if your aim is to become a doctor, starting with a nursing assistant qualification is not a good move.

A far better stance for vocational educators is to stress that sooner or later everyone needs to acquire vocationally relevant skills. For many, including lawyers and doctors, this usually takes place after gaining a degree. Others may take an apprenticeship after A levels or a lower level vocational qualification after GCSE. Progression is normally through academic qualifications which determine the point of entry to vocational study.

This approach dissolves the parity of esteem problem. We don’t look down on vocational education as is endlessly asserted. Subjects like law and architecture are eminently vocational yet also have high status. The explanation is that vocational qualifications derive their status from the academic level of their entry requirements.  It’s not a question of vocational versus academic; just that a vocational course you can get in without GCSEs has less esteem than one which requires A levels to enter. 

There are two further implications of this analysis. Current policy reflects a notion of levels which only really makes sense in the context of academic study. Thus policy focusses on supporting people to gain a first qualification at a given level; or restricts funding for those studying at ‘equivalent or lower levels’ (ELQ). In practice most people need two qualifications – initially to progress, normally via general qualifications and subsequently to acquire skills for work, normally through a vocational programme. Asking whether the vocational course is at the same ‘level’ as the academic is just not helpful.

Finally, the acceptance that vocational studies are for everyone reinforces the argument for large general colleges of FE offering vocational programmes at all levels.  If anything damages the status of vocational study, it is the assertion that those institutions providing most of what is commonly described as vocational education – engineering, care, construction, catering, hair & beauty etc. – cannot be entrusted with provision at levels four and five. Challenging rather than endorsing snobbery is the essential step that’s needed.