Edge Lecture, 2 November 2011: questions from the
audience
Brian Lightman: What are your views on providing impartial advice and
guidance to young people?
Stephen Twigg: this is an especially important question. We have given high
priority to the issue of face-to-face advice and guidance as the current
Education Bill passes through both the Commons and the Lords because we
do think it is important. It is necessary but not sufficient [to require schools to
provide access to impartial information and advice].
I have talked to a lot of people about this in recent weeks and one of the key
words is “impartial”. Experience of Connexions has been varied: in some
places it has worked really well, while in others it hasn’t. Assuming the
legislation goes through, we will need to devise a new policy for the future. I
want to learn from innovative programmes. One I am very attracted to is
Future First – currently in London but seeking to extend to other areas –
where alumni of state schools go back to their former schools to talk about
their lives and jobs. The early evidence of this programme, which is mostly
funded from the private sector, with some funding from schools themselves, is
that it is a very effective way of providing good information, advice and
guidance for young people.
Nadine Dereza: I am interested in the legacy of Worldskills in promoting
vocational education and training. One of the key areas I’d like you to focus
on is parents as key influencers. I’ve seen the light – that the academic route
is not the only route to success – but many parents don’t share that with me.
Stephen Twigg: Absolutely. There’s a broader point about the engagement of
parents in education. Research evidence shows that parents’ involvement not
only in their children’s progress but in specific institutions makes a real
difference to how effective schools and colleges can be.
You’re making a specific point about parents giving the right encouragement
and support from the earliest possible stage. I’ve got a school in my
constituency, Cardinal Heenan School, which does a lot of work with 13-14
year olds to help them look at their career options. They hold an industry day
when they invite people to come in and talk about the kind of jobs they do, but
they do it not just for the pupils but for parents as well.
Lord Baker: you mentioned Worldskills, which was a triumph. The day I went,
there were literally tens of thousands of children at the exhibition, so the
message is clearly getting through.
Fiona McMillan: it’s great to here you speaking with such enthusiasm about
vocational education. One of the challenges for us is enabling people to
understand that the gap between academic and vocational is not as great as
they think. I hear people say the outcome of vocational education is
employment, while the outcome of academic education is a place at
university. Actually, there are lots of examples – particularly in colleges, I have
to say – of students following vocational programmes and moving on to higher
1
education. Indeed, there is a great opportunity for us to look at further and
higher education, working in partnership with employers – through
apprenticeships – to achieve the academic rigour we associate with higher
education. It need not be one way or the other: the two come together. The
more we can do to break down that barrier, the better. That will help us get
through the parity of esteem issue.
Stephen Twigg: I absolutely agree with that. I had dinner yesterday with
some head teachers and college principals and mentioned that I was giving
this lecture. They gave me the same advice you have just given. They urged
that we get away completely from this academic/vocational divide. On person
even said we should move away from calling the school year an “academic”
year, because that sends a particular message.
We need rigour in both elements of learning. That is the kind of approach I
want to take when looking at the type of qualifications we offer. Clearly, if
people are getting qualifications which are being wrongly valued against
GCSEs, that needs to change – the Government is right about that – but we
must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Where we have very rigorous
and robust qualifications which merit a rating equivalent to more than one
GCSE, they should continue to get that equivalence.
There is then a broader issue, which links to a previous question about
engaging parents and the wider public. Talking to people on the doorstep,
they actually don’t want “modern” apprenticeships – they want “old fashioned”
apprenticeships! There is a sense that perhaps there was something great
before that isn’t there any more. They may be looking through rose-tinted
spectacles, but there is an issue of perception which we cannot ignore. We
either have to adapt our apprenticeships, or come up with some pretty
persuasive arguments to show why they are wrong.
Joy Carter: I want to ask about the status of vocational degrees, which can
be delivered by universities, colleges or a partnership between the two.
Stephen Twigg: vocational degrees certainly have an important part to play.
Changes to the fees regime will make a difference to choices made by young
people. They will make more considered choices when the level of financial
commitment that they themselves are making is so much higher than before. I
imagine some vocational degrees will benefit from that.
There are dangers here which we have to be very careful to avoid. Michael
Gove and other Ministers in the government might say, “Are you saying that
bright kids from a working class background shouldn’t be aspiring to go to
Oxbridge or to follow an academic route?” I’m absolutely not saying that, and I
do think it is an outrage how few young people from poor backgrounds get
into some of our top Russell Group universities. We need to address that as
well. But for many young people from various backgrounds, vocational
degrees will be best for them – and just as importantly, it is right for our
economy as well. That was part of the thinking behind the expansion of higher
education which started when Ken [Baker] was in office and which we
continued. It wasn’t just a good thing for more young people to get degrees: it
was that our economy needed more people with that level of qualifications.
2
Dame Ruth Silver: I’d like to offer you a quote. I used to go up the Old Kent
Road and see a fabulous placard with Thierry Henry which said, “Every goal I
ever scored, I scored with my head”. I was very pleased to hear your sense of
integration between the head and the hands.
I wanted to speak on behalf of colleagues who are struggling to keep up their
skill development both in the public sector and among independent training
providers, who have a fabulous focus on particular occupational areas. We
need both the resources (equipment and so on) and up-to-date skills amongst
teachers and trainers.
Money is tight, and sometimes the balance of new (expensive) equipment –
respected by employers – puts a pressure on budgets. However, helping
instructors, teachers and trainers keep up to date with current industry
practice should not be neglected because of the cost of equipment and
materials.
Daniel Cremin: one of the things you have spoken about in the past is the
quality of teaching.IN terms of professional development in schools and
colleges, there has been a lot of imaginative innovation such as Teach First.
What new routes and approaches are needed to recruiting people and
providing CPD, such as secondments to industry? And what is the role of the
state in this – should there be more done on that side rather than top-down
initiatives, or do you still see a need for state funding pots for professional
development?
Stephen Twigg: That’s an important question. I want to move the debate
from structures to what goes on within the school and the classroom in terms
of evidenced of the impact of high quality teaching and learning and effective
management and relationships with parents and the wider community. In
recent weeks I’ve said this in the context of schools, but I believe it applies as
much to other settings, including colleges, private training providers and
higher education as well.
You ask an interesting philosophical question about how far these things
should come from on high, and how far they should be organic and grass
roots. I think the more organic and grass roots they are, the better, but there is
still a role for oversight to make sure they are happening. If we are going to
see the status of teaching as a profession (in all settings) continue to rise, we
need to provide the space for continuous professional development and time
away from the classroom, whether as sabbaticals, placements or peer review.
A teacher friend told me about the time he spends going to another school to
look at the different types of teaching done there. We need more of this kind
of development. I need to learn more about this both in schools and in further
education before deciding what policy prescriptions are needed.
Graham Lane: what are your thoughts about the future of the GCSE now that
the participation age is rising to 18? Would 14 be the more important age for
making choices? Some subjects lend themselves to a mixture of learning –
engineering, for example, calls for a good standard of maths. Shouldn’t we be
seeing all young people take a mixture of so-called academic and so-called
practical to widen their opportunities?
3
Stephen Twigg: you’re not the first person to make this point to me! A
number of people have used the phrase “stage, not age” to get away from the
idea of things happening at 11 and 16. I cited in my speech the example of an
academy school where they’ve gone for – not exactly what you suggested,
Graham, but a longer period for optional opportunities which enables more of
a mix of academic and vocational subjects. Young people there were blending
(for example) a GCSE in Religious Studies with a BTEC. I’m not going to pin
my colours to the mast at this stage, but a considerable body of people in the
education world are making the case, and I am very interested in engaging
with this debate.
Lord Baker: I don’t think anyone in government or the education world has
fully addressed the issue that as we extend participation first to 17 and then to
18, why have an exam at 16? I am a devotee of an exam at 14. Indeed, I think
the national curriculum should end at 14, but that’s a debate for another day!
Nick Gash: we can learn from professional bodies because people have to
become members, and then have to maintain their CPD. I’d be happy to share
this experience with you. A wider question is the separation of the academic
and the vocational. Would things be better if the two departments of state
were brought back together?
Stephen Twigg: I’ve had a couple of examples of things being reported in the
press which are not quite what I intended, so I will be very careful about
calling for the reversal of something done in 2007 when Gordon Brown
became Prime Minister! What I will say is I can see the positive reasons why it
was done, but I can see the downside that you refer to. One of the things we
will need to do as part of a policy review in Opposition is to look at the
machinery of government. To be honest, more generally, there was a
tendency during the 13 years of Labour Government to be too quick to rush
into reorganising departments and the machinery of government, which
placed too much focus on structures rather than what was going on, which
could be an argument against changing it back. But let’s have that debate. If
you want to encourage more young people from poor backgrounds to
progress to university, it might be an issue that you have separation between
the department responsible for schools and the department responsible for
universities. There may be ways round that, but I wouldn’t close the door to a
discussion of changes to the machinery of government.
Graham Hoyle: your opening remarks about the purpose of education –
personal development, cultural enrichment, social justice, equipping the
workforce of tomorrow – were fantastic. However, we go on to say there is a
real problem in terms of the preparedness of 50% of our young people for the
world of work. I don’t think the policies of any government have adequately
positioned the preparation of the whole cohort for work. After all, almost young
people all do enter work, usually for 30 or 40 years. I think this needs greater
priority.
Secondly, I think it was actually a mistake to drop the word “modern” from
apprenticeships. Previous – old-style – apprenticeships were associated with
particular jobs and industries and an era when far fewer women were active in
the economy. Now we have a cross-section of apprenticeships across
traditional sectors and the service economy.
4
Stephen Twigg: there’s a whole set of issues around people leaving
education and their lack of preparedness for work, including literacy and
numeracy – which I focused on – and other things as well such as life skills,
confidence – what I would call citizenship skills in the widest sense. You are
spot on in challenging me on this, because I don’t think anyone has got this
right in the past, and it is an important aspect of the debate going forward.
On apprenticeship, I wasn’t endorsing a particular point of view, but rather
reflecting things I have heard said. It is commonly said that “we should bring
back apprenticeships”. If people genuinely think that we don’t have
apprenticeships, we need to persuade them that we do, and that they are of a
consistently high quality.
Sara Jayne Stanes: What’s your position on getting food education onto the
primary curriculum? The hospitality industry is crying out for people, and
teaching young people about food will also have wider benefits for society, the
environment and agriculture.
Stephen Twigg: I’ve seen some excellent examples of primary schools which
do have that focus, and how it can help in a cross-curricular way with
numeracy and literacy and so on.
Susan James: we too often focus on what’s wrong with vocational education,
rather than on vocational excellence – what works well and what this country
does right. We should commission more research into what works, and why,
such as why apprenticeships work so well in some sectors.
Stephen Twigg: thank you.
David Walker: I am interested in your views on Alison Wolf’s comments and
recommendations about work experience.
Stephen Twigg: Work experience is very important, but the current picture is
very mixed between different schools and different regions. I think we can all
quote examples of poor work experience, so greater focus is definitely
needed. As to the stage at which it should happen, my instinct is fairly early, in
order to help to inform choices about courses and careers. But you may tell
me that evidence and research say something else: I would be interested to
hear more views on this.
Rona MacDonald: industry is desperate for engineers, so we need
inspirational teachers of STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering
and maths). How will you engage with industry to find out what we want from
young people coming out of education?
Stephen Twigg: my colleagues and I are keen to engage with a whole range
of partners, including employers and industry. As for STEM, this will clearly
have to be a priority. There are encouraging signs about the numbers
choosing these subjects and going on to further and higher study. We must
make sure this is maintained.
Lord Baker: STEM subjects are at the heart of University Technical Colleges.
Employers actually write the UTC curriculum in this area – they decide what is
to be taught there.
5
Pablo Lloyd: Employers have a responsibility as well as a right to a say in the
vocational system, not least because of their £40 billion investment in skills.
This is a somewhat under-managed area from a government point of view.
Stephen Twigg: I like the way you put the question – the balance of
employers’ rights and responsibilities. I agree that qualifications must have
weight with employers as well as with learners and educational institutions.
6