This first meeting in 2010 resulted in a most interesting discussion. Geoff Hayward presented his thoughts and findings, much developed through his involvement as a director of the Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training, on school to work transitions.
Geoff started by contrasting the relatively simple concept of qualification acquisition – the focus of governmental focus – with the much more complex changes in life course undergone by young people as they move through their years of education and training and into work (or for some under-employment). In the UK, for the majority, the transition from education to stable employment has got later, from 15 in the 1950s to over twenty currently. The UK model relates success and opportunity with the acquisition of the highest bag of qualifications. In some other countries different developmental perspectives, processes of education and training and crucially cultural norms, stress the importance of broader social skills of young people and structured learning often stretches into their twenties. Copying their approaches is inappropriate but some way of broadening our approach so that it addresses the formation of identity – attitude, beliefs, self perceptions, behaviour and status – and developing knowledge and skills and gaining qualifications would be beneficial.
Discussion started by focusing on the development of social skills, the ability to see how others see us (decentring) and a contributing place in society. It was argued that at work this had become more difficult with the demise of apprenticeship and other ‘time serving’ entry to work arrangements. At the same time, the arts and humanities had become devalued within school and vocational development. And, the emphasis on the market and acquisitiveness as a source of well-being and the downgrading of local community action had undermined social cohesion.
Geoff highlighted the references in the ‘Future of Work’ statement to equipping employees ‘to survive, prosper and develop’ in the labour market and ‘to give them the flexibility to b able to fit family and work/fife together’. But he asked how this is to be done, what employers are actually looking for and does this mean that education and training are to become a moral as well as a qualification delivery enterprise?
At face value educational improvement had been substantial in the last fifty years with outcomes in the school system getting better on all measures but whereas those with good results from higher education (the best ‘launching point’) are more likely to be in employment, have an interesting job and earn more, the opposite is also true, with those with poor results are less likely to be able to work their way up through internal labour markets, and at worst, will work their way through a succession of government schemes into unemployment and benefit dependency. Strangely, employers’ lack of understanding of qualifications and the low standards of performance required below level three is one factor that still provides some opportunity for those with poor qualifications to improve their relative position in the labour market.
In discussion it was accepted that education systems were bound to result in a ‘launch’ model in which, on average, those most academically able would have the greatest success in terms of subsequent earnings. However, the current system is heavily biased in favour of academic rather than vocational success and initial rather than continuing education and development. Employers were almost encouraged to think they had little responsibility for employees’ development. Employees, particularly in lower paid occupations had limited horizons and networks within which to progress.
Geoff argued that, although successive governments have sought to influence positively vocational education, the system had moved from a mix of employer and education-based development to a school/college dominated system. Though many young people work part time, a formal youth labour market is a thing of the past. And yet complaints are rife from employers about the quality of the outputs of the system at all levels. The ‘soft skills’ dilemma is still clear because, while important, these skills can be argued to be organisationally specific and many so called ‘soft’ or employability skills’ are more akin to personality traits, dispositions and attitudes. Jobs at even relatively low skill and pay levels tend to be offered first to graduates or are liable to be eliminated by technology. Those who struggle to get worthwhile jobs and populate the NEET group include those with low attainment, white working class boys, afro-Caribbean boys and those with special educational needs. They face competition from older more experienced workers and immigrants. The problem is widespread in developed countries though NEET rates vary. Solutions are not clear as young people in this group tend to find it difficult to acquire skills at a level that employers value and worse, tend to acquire a label that makes them less employable.
Geoff considered what action might be taken to ameliorate if not solve the problem including better information and guidance in the context of a liberal academic curriculum, developing a training culture, tax breaks for small firms and more liberal education within the vocational curriculum. Above all, it seemed, employer vision of what might be achieved with a better developed workforce would be necessary.
The final discussion started positively, referring to the successes of the vocational education systems in Austria, Germany and Norway but accepted that even in these countries it was becoming more difficult to maintain standards, particularly in more deprived geographical areas. For the UK, where historically and culturally costs and volume rather than standards and value have set benchmarks within the economy, the challenges ahead are clearly considerable.
