Higher Technical Education in England: are we (technically) there yet?
Skills shortages are not a contemporary issue
Technical (and vocational) education in England has a rich and fascinating history. Over two centuries (from the Great Exhibition in 1851 to the present day) technical education has developed in response to an ongoing recognition that for business, industry and local and national economies to remain buoyant and globally competitive, we need to invest in and develop people to address skills shortages and gaps.
So why, given this longstanding need and associated activity, don’t we seem to have cracked the technical education conundrum? And why, for as long as I can remember, has there been a narrative of envy and awe surrounding other nation’s successes in this arena – particularly those of Germany? Only last month, the current Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education revisited these narratives, noting the positive cultural value placed on vocational learning and education in Germany and the associated lack of hierarchy between technical and academic routes.
This squarely hits the nail on the head. Hierarchy and prestige and, along with this, differential expectations for different social groups, remain key barriers to technical education claiming its equal place in the contemporary English higher education landscape.
Not all education is equal
Prestige in higher education is an extremely complex concept that I sadly don’t have space to discuss at length here – Paul Blackmore’s work is worth looking at if you’re interested in exploring this further. But it’s probably fair to say that pervasive messaging that certain experiences are better than others will impact on perceptions, advice and decision making. In many pre-university educational settings and graduate workplaces, I have personally seen how A-levels and academic degrees continue as the dominant and trusted currency and the key ingredients for social mobility. Success is believed to improve even more if a degree is taken full-time in certain types of (research-intensive) university as part of a residential model associated with a wealth of extra-curricular, socialisation and networking opportunities. For those who don’t have easy access to this prestigious model – for a range of often complex reasons - the odds can be significantly stacked against them. It’s therefore no surprise that this underpins a number of the 12 national risks that form the recently published OfS Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EEOR).
Much as we might like to, we in the HE sector can’t fully detach ourselves from the perpetuation of the idea that certain types of entry qualification, provider, course and experience are better than others. We actively identify tribes and territories and associate each institution with these groupings through mission group membership and marketing campaigns. To borrow the powerful words of Professor Sir Howard Newby, then Chief Executive of HEFCE (the predecessor to OfS), in his evidence to the 2003 Education Select Committee ‘the English… have a genius for turning diversity into hierarchy’.
Before I go any further, I’m keen to point out I recognise some of the major challenges currently facing the English higher education sector. Many institutions are navigating a super-complex mix of student needs, institutional circumstances and regulatory, policy and funding expectations and incentives, all within an increasingly market-driven landscape. Why on earth would an institution identify and actively promote a new role for itself if it could negatively impact on income targets, reputation and position in the league tables? I also want to highlight the extensive and excellent work undertaken by committed colleagues to embed contextualised offers, set and meet impactful Access and Participation Plan targets and undertake strategic work to embed equality, diversity and inclusivity across curricula, teaching and student support services.
A renewed purpose and value for technical education?
With all this in mind, let’s return to technical education’s longstanding driver: the need to confront and tackle skills shortages and gaps through investment in people. Is the current English higher technical education offer able to address and meet this? Is its purpose now agreed and understood and are new forms of qualification valued (and trusted) to do this?
In terms of purpose, our understanding of higher technical education has morphed considerably in recent years, aided by a growing sectoral (and regulatory) focus on measurable graduate (employability) outcomes and the development of new forms of apprenticeship provision to address skills shortages. The introduction of employer-led occupational standards, which now underpin all new technical education courses in England including T-levels, Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs) and Apprenticeships, has also helped to clarify and define this purpose.
Furthermore, the role of higher technical education in creating alternative graduate (and post-graduate) opportunities for a range of underrepresented social groups has taken on new significance; something I wrote about with colleagues in relation to doctoral level study. In particular, the introduction of the apprenticeship levy (0.5% of employers’ pay bills collected from all employers in England with pay bills of £3m+) has provided the strongest incentive yet for employers and training providers to ‘invest’ in technical education, offering a growing range of debt-free ways to enter education and progress to highly skilled jobs.
This latter purpose has fuelled headline hitting concerns about the ‘middle class grab’ of degree apprenticeships. But it’s important to note the key word here: degree. In recent research commissioned by the Department for Education and the Office for Students, respondents were clear that degree apprentices become ‘graduates plus’: they leave higher education with a gold standard qualification, work experience, a guaranteed salary and no student debt. Is it really any surprise that this is attractive to everyone – not just underrepresented groups?
Are we (technically) there yet?
Arguably the real proof of the higher technical education pudding lies beyond degree apprenticeships, in the eating of other awards and brands (e.g. T-Levels and HTQs). HTQs, the most recent addition to the higher technical education family, have been created by the Department for Education to reboot undervalued and less prevalent Level 4 and 5 qualifications and lead to meaningful employment at the end of shorter (and cheaper) study periods. Yet, HTQs don’t necessarily come with guaranteed work experience, or a direct route into an honours (degree-level) year of study. They do, however, require funding through student loans or other private means. So, my question is: will HTQs become subject to an equivalent middle class grab as their pathways mature and what happens if they don’t?
It’s a pretty indisputable social fact that people will exercise any power and privilege they hold in whatever circumstances they find themselves. If new opportunities aren’t attractive, then the educationally privileged will continue to seek out established and more ‘prestigious’ routes. And if we follow this argument to its logical end, the latest round of reforms is unlikely to put an end to our divided educational landscape. Controversy klaxon: perhaps ‘middle-class grabs’ are a necessary (albeit for some, unpalatable) precursor to success? If T-Levels, HTQs and (non-degree) apprenticeships remain the preserve of ‘other people’ or ‘other people’s children’, then (technically) we still have some way to go.
About the author
Professor Liz Cleaver is Principal Consultant at Elizabeth Cleaver Consulting, and provides a range of consultancy services for higher education.
Liz is a Principal Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (PFHEA) and maintains connections with the HE sector through her work as a UVAC Associate and Advance HE Governance Associate. She additionally holds Visiting Professorships at UWE, Bristol, Buckinghamshire New University, Solent University and the University of Westminster. The views expressed in this article are her own and do not represent the views of the organisations with which she works.
Related content
