| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. John Pugh (Southport): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the distinction between higher or academic education and vocational education is somewhat spurious, given that some of the most oversubscribed courses in HE—those in medicine and law—are essentially vocational?
Mr. Chaytor: I agree completely—indeed, I have made the same point on many occasions. I come back to my starting point: this Government have done more than any other to try to bring together the academic and the vocational into a seamless range of provision. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress the vocational nature of some very prestigious university courses. We must get away from a concept that has divided our education service and our society; indeed, the Conservatives' policy on HE finance draws that point to our attention more than ever before. In arguing that we cannot have so many people in universities, and that we should abandon the 50 per cent. target, they are really trying to turn the clock back and to build a divide, at a very early stage, between the sheep and the goats. At the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century, this country does not have the luxury of dividing people into sheep and goats at birth, or at the age of five, 11, 16 or 18. That is why a coherent and integrated post-16—preferably, post-14—policy is needed.
I want to draw attention to the enormous step forward that the White Paper has taken in the financing of vocational education. There is the introduction of education maintenance allowances, which will go nationwide; the introduction of the education grant for adults post-19, which is being piloted; the development of employer training pilot schemes, which, as I understand it, are being carefully evaluated with a view to going nationwide; and the introduction of a commitment to free tuition for level 2 courses. All are
important developments that represent a significant shift in educational opportunity for people who, historically, have been denied such opportunity. The Government are making the central point that, if we want a nation that can compete effectively in the modern world, and in which every individual has the opportunity to develop their full potential, we must invest equally in all individuals, rather than making arbitrary distinctions between those who will receive an academic education with a higher per capita investment, and those who will be sidelined into vocational training.I know that time is short, but I want now to offer some constructive support for, and criticism of, the White Paper. I want to pick up on the comments of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, and to discuss the organisational structures that we have inherited and are trying to shape into the delivery mechanism for the White Paper's policies. The combination of the sector skills councils, the 47 learning and skills councils and the increasing involvement of the regional development agencies presents a confusing picture. I have made that point to the Minister privately, so I know that he is aware of it, but I want publicly to reiterate the overriding importance—this is also the view of a growing number of people—of streamlining our bureaucracy for the delivery of vocational education, and of bringing together previously separate bureaucracies, organisations, quangos and agencies. If this policy, in which we have invested a huge amount of political and financial commitment, is going to succeed, we cannot afford to see it hit the rocks because of bureaucratic obstruction.
In my many years of experience in vocational education and training, one difficulty has been that the debate has focused on the delivery mechanism. What has been left out in that is the concept of the curriculum. Whether we have good access to high-level skills, whether we have motivated young people and adults, and whether we develop a lifelong learning culture all greatly depend on what people are learning.
I conclude by returning to the early-day motion—I must confess that I had forgotten about it, but it was obviously a good one and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for reminding me of it—and focusing on the curriculum. The White Paper says that we need an adult curriculum in bite-size chunks, and we are now starting to talk about a modular curriculum.
I know that the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, Ken Boston, feels passionately about that issue and I would urge the Minister to read his article published in The Daily Telegraph on 8 October. I realise that that newspaper is not often in the vanguard of progressive educational thinking, but on this occasion it provided Mr. Boston with a platform to make a telling point. In the article, he said that, in Australia—where he comes from—
- "the schools most successful in attracting students into vocational education are those that shape their curriculum, according to the age of the students, on the basis of the national training packages. These are unitised, credit-based, industry-derived training programmes that specify knowledge, skill and competencies at successive levels of qualification within each vocation."
- "My experience has been that the presence of teachers with similar inspirational qualities is critical to the attraction and retention of young people to vocational education in schools."
It is an enormous irony of our education system that the elite and those who find it easiest to learn—undergraduates and, increasingly, postgraduates in universities—are completely used to a unitised, credit-based system. It is accepted as an effective form of motivation. Yet those who are less well motivated and find it more difficult to learn are expected—and have always been expected—to follow courses that continue for one or two full years. It is hard for certain young people and adults to maintain a strong level of commitment over that period of time.
I conclude with a plea to the Minister. Yes, we have to get the bureaucracy right and streamline the organisation, but let us not be obsessed by organisational matters. Let us focus on the quality of teaching and on the curriculum. Let us ensure that we have a seamless policy, starting at 14, with a unitised, credit-based curriculum. I believe that that is the single most important factor that will encourage more of our young people to continue their education and training beyond the age of 16, beyond 19 and throughout their lives.
6.38 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): I shall endeavour to be brief, although perhaps I shall not be able to match the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard).
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) suggested that his constituency was the further education capital of the United Kingdom without contradiction, but I am sure that South Cambridgeshire can compete, not least with the presence of Hills Road sixth-form college, which has the highest academic standards of any FE college in the country, and Long Road sixth-form college. Homerton college also makes an important contribution to teacher education, so South Cambridgeshire is certainly up there and bidding against the claims of Bury, North.
I do not want to dwell on higher education, not because I do not have anything to say on the subject, but because I suspect that there will be other and better opportunities to discuss it at greater length. There is a risk of losing sight of some of the particular issues that could usefully be discussed this evening. I shall touch on a few.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned the important issue of productivity, and the Trade and Industry Committee has considered with great care how productivity can be stimulated. It is not enough to say simply that the composition of skills between this country and others differs, and that that explains the productivity gap. That is part of the explanation, but the differences between this and other countries are complex. Nor is it true to say that if we spend more money on education, we will
automatically see an improvement in productivity. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) misrepresented the Conservative party's approach, as the key point is not simply that we have too few people with intermediate skills—with the implication that we have too many people with degrees. The point is that we have far too many people with a lower level of skills.The Minister said, rightly, that we should consider whether qualifications are fit for purpose, but quality education—vocational or academic—is all about fitness for purpose. It is about ensuring that students, of whatever age, pursue courses and qualifications that are fit for their purposes. The Minister reminded us—as if we had forgotten, and I do not think we had—that people can progress to degree level by a vocational route. That is true and, therefore, it ill becomes the Government to set an arbitrary 50 per cent. target for participation in higher education, when people reach different levels of education through various mechanisms. In many instances, they take a more vocational route that is based substantially in further education or work in the early days. It is the nature of the Government's problem that they have directed people into university courses, when the further education route might have been better for them.
Modern apprenticeships are at the heart of the vocational route. As the Minister suggested, I shall look at the entry to employment scheme and how well it bridges the gap that otherwise might force people into foundation modern apprenticeships. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough mentioned the external assessment of key skills and the desirability of the incorporation of that into the NVQ structure. Many employers certainly find that the bureaucracy and the time lost from work when those on modern apprenticeships go off for external assessment is a deterrent.
However, at the same time, we should compare our system with the German apprenticeship system—as the Engineering Employers Federation did in its helpful document, "Bridging the Continental Divide". In Germany, the general and technical competencies are the subject of external testing and examination. That is important, because we need to make a distinction between those occupational aspects that are practical and can be examined and assessed as people do their work in their workplace, and technical competencies that should be assessed independently to boost the value of the qualification if the young person moves to other employers. Not all examination and assessment should be brought into the workplace.
The EEF document also referred to research produced for the National Institute Economic Review in 2001 by H. Steedman, which shows that the comparison between Germany and this country is still a testing one. It states that
- "overall, a young person who completes an apprenticeship in the German system would be able to meet the standard for a British NVQ3 in the same occupation. However, a young person with a British apprenticeship and NVQ3 would not be able to reach the standard required for the German system's general and technical education requirements."
I listened with interest to Irena Grugulis of Bradford university on a radio programme the other night. I confess that I had seen no reference to her report previously, although I understand that it was published in the British Journal of Industrial Relations in September. It deals with the contribution of NVQs to the growth of skills in the UK. Her analysis suggests that NVQs do not attract the support from employers that they should. I do not know whether that is true, but I subscribe heartily to her prescription that there should be a much stronger industry and employer-led element in the structure of NVQs.
I end with a final, short point. I mentioned the structure of the relationship between LSCs and RDAs, but the matter goes much wider. There is a vast range of business support structures in the skills and training arena. The skills strategy has tried to resolve the question of how businesses relate to all the many organisations and opportunities by saying that the principle should be that there are no wrong doors. The implication is that skills and training are located in a world of virtual reality, where every door opens out on the right location.
However, I do not think that the real world works like that. If there are too many doors, brands, initiatives and structures, employers will simply walk away. We must ensure that the path is clearer and better organised, so that businesses can have confidence in the structures and the qualifications that are provided. Matters must also be kept simple, so that businesses can know how to proceed. For example, they must know that Business Link will get them to the training opportunities that they need for people entering employment through apprenticeships and the like. That is also important for raising the skills level in employment in places such as South Cambridgeshire, where there are relatively few people without jobs who want, and are able, to enter employment.
Raising the overall level of skills, principally among people who are in employment, is critical to our long-term economic performance. To make that happen, we must work primarily through the business community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |