Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-189)
CARMEL GALLAGHER,
DAVID ROBB
AND COLIN
WILLMAN
11 JUNE 2008
Q180 Chairman: That is not actually
true. In my experience of a very average constituency in England—Huddersfield—we
still have apprentices in the traditional way. I gave prizes to
all the engineering apprentices—450 people got their three-year
apprenticeship awards. The limiting factor is the number of engineering
businesses out there that take apprentices. That is crucial. These
young people have chosen a vocational course. They value it highly,
as do their parents, and it is there. It is the same in textiles—it
is a much smaller sector than it used to be, but it is there.
Is it that your members do not articulate clearly enough what
sorts of opportunities there are for young people, and what the
routes to being a valuable employee are? It happens in engineering
and in textiles, why cannot it happen with more of your small
business members?
Colin Willman: I agree. We are
taking steps to help. We are producing a booklet that will be
sent out—hopefully by the end of the month—to all
our members, showing them how they can get engaged with schools
through the organisations that are already there, so that the
businesses can go in. We cannot expect headmasters to organise
a plethora of small businesses to go along; that is another burden
on them.
Q181 Chairman: But there is a massive
expansion of apprenticeships across retail, wholesale and engineering.
The difference is that most of the people going into retail and
distribution do not earn anything like the salaries that we used
to pay—and still do—in engineering and manufacturing.
It is hard to make a good life on the £13,000 a year that
Tesco pays.
Colin Willman: There are a few
problems at the front end of apprenticeships. People want to study
something, but they have to go and find the employer. There is
very little employer engagement out there. When you are running
a small business, there is no time to read everything. The information
about apprenticeships is not very clear or prominent, and employers
are not always aware of it. They may be looking for somebody,
but the poor student needs to go and find the employer to get
the qualification. There needs to be an interface to help.
Carmel Gallagher: And other ways
of getting the apprenticeship. There is a dearth of businesses—many
young men want to be electricians and plumbers, but they cannot
get a small business to sponsor them. There have been schemes
whereby they can have a full apprenticeship in an FE setting.
We need to do more of that.
Q182 Paul Holmes: We have moved on
from a very elitist academic education system whereby 40% of people
sat O-level but only 75% passed and 25% failed. A much smaller
number sat A-levels, and, under the norm referencing that used
to happen, before the start of your chart here as it starts to
go up, 30% would fail every year. It did not matter how well they
did in their exam, 30% would fail. Only 10% would get grade A
because it was norm referenced. We have moved on. Do we need to
look at our university system and whether that should move on?
We are about the only western country that has compact three-year
degree courses. For example, we were in California some years
ago talking to people in universities and businesses. Some 60%
get degrees in California and the chamber of commerce said, "It's
not enough, we need more." I talk to American interns who
come and work for me through the year as Hansard scholars, and
they have a much broader education at school. When they are in
their first year at university, they are really doing the same
as our A-level students, and the universities deliver that. Can
we have a system that educates everybody instead of the small
minority that it used to educate, and still have intense three-year
degrees?
David Robb: We do not do many
three-year degrees at Imperial—most of ours are four years
and medicine is six years. I said earlier that the change in background
knowledge means that we have had to extend most of our courses
from three to four years. Some of the first year is spent bringing
students up to the level that they should be at and, hopefully,
making them aware of their ability to survive outside a school
environment, where they are spoon-fed. The first year is settling
in. We welcome the four-year degree because it gives us more time
to develop the students.
Q183 Paul Holmes: So would you recommend
that to all maths and science courses?
David Robb: Most science and engineering
courses are going to four years, if they have not already done
so. The professional institutions and engineering require four-year
degrees as their standard route.[14]
Q184 Paul Holmes: But does that include
one year as a "sandwich course", as it were?
David Robb: No, this is four years
at university. As well as academic training, students require
two years of industrial training—that can be done through
various sandwich schemes. However, the degree is four years full
time at university.
Q185 Paul Holmes: Would you say from
your experience at one of the best universities for this area
that that is a good move rather than a distortion of the education
curriculum for the whole population?
David Robb: Yes, absolutely. I
see the move at 16 from GCSE to A-level as when the schools and
careers advisors start saying, "Okay, we are selecting now
the ones that we want to go on to university," then they
can go further academically, rather than everyone trying to do
the same thing. There would be a big tail who were not interested,
and the bright ones would be bored stiff. One size does not fit
all—to use that awful expression.
Chairman: Yes, that is a replacement
for an even worse expression.
Q186 Mr Heppell: I have two questions,
one for Colin specifically. I get the feeling that you are unhappy
with the National Curriculum in terms of young people not getting
the mobility needed in employment. You talk about giving teachers
more independence and getting rid of prescription, and, at the
same time, the need for a dedicated percentage of the curriculum
to be spent on enterprise and employability. It is almost a case
of, "Let's give them freedom, but let me put my bit in."
With David, I am getting the feeling that somehow the National
Curriculum is failing you. It that the case? If so, what do we
do to put it right? We drifted away from just talking about the
National Curriculum
David Robb: I do not think that
the National Curriculum has failed. As an end user, I am finding
that one effect of the output is that we can no longer differentiate
the good and the very good. That is a concern. One advantage of
a national curriculum is that at least we have some idea of what
our students' backgrounds are, and we can build on that. In most
of our courses, we build on their previous knowledge, and we need
to support that. I am conscious that time is moving on.
Colin Willman: I was trying to
say that we do not consider the targets by which the curriculum
is measured as appropriate to the needs of business and the growth
of the individual as a person.
Q187 Mr Heppell: Okay, but how can
the independence of teachers help that? I am trying to find out
how inhibiting the National Curriculum is.
Colin Willman: I described it
as a framework. I think that, sometimes, the more you regulate
something, the more regulation you need to regulate it. You should
give a bit more freedom and measure people on results. Rather
than another path, I was saying that there should be a different
choice. The pupils should have a choice between a vocational stream
and an academic stream.
Q188 Mr Heppell: I just have a worry.
I have people coming to me from, for example, the credit unions,
trying to get into schools to teach people about financial stuff,
who say that the heads block them dead and say, "We don't
need our kids to learn that. It's not part of the National Curriculum
and we don't want to do anything like that." I have a feeling
that, if it were left to teachers, they would feel the same about
some of the things you mentioned. They would probably say, "That's
not what we're about."
Colin Willman: I find the heads
very receptive and supportive to the sort of things that we intend
to offer. So, far from that, they are seeing a way of actually
dealing with the new Diplomas.
Q189 Chairman: Last word to Carmel—do
you want to come back on what John has said?
Carmel Gallagher: Thank you. I
just want to say that, within our framework, we have employability
and enterprise as a key element, so that all subject teachers
are aware that they should be teaching kids about what skills
and qualifications they need for various careers, of course, but
also the potential within their subject to contribute to enterprise
activity. For example, as a history teacher, I never really thought
about the role that history plays in the built environment and
the economy, and the extent to which it contributes to the tourist
industry. That is a whole new dimension. It is about making all
subject teachers aware of the part that they can play in developing
kids—giving them the skills for employability and the qualifications
for employment, but also an awareness of entrepreneurial opportunities.
Chairman: This has been a very good session.
We have only scratched the surface in many ways, but will you
remain in contact as this is an inquiry that will go on for some
time. Carmel, Colin and David, thank you very much for your contributions.
14 Note by witness: This statement was misinterpreted
by the Press Association. For clarification about 3 and 4 year
degree courses: Engineering: Most Universities offer both
3 year B Eng and four year M Eng degrees. To be considered for
Chartered Engineer status, for many years the Engineering Institutions
have required students to complete a four year M Eng degree plus
engineering training and experience. Sciences: Most Universities
offer both 3 year B Sc and four year M Sci degrees. The M Sci
courses are generally designed for those who wish to become career
scientists and possibly continue towards PhD research. Of the
99 undergraduate level (excluding medicine) courses available
at Imperial College, 33 are three years in length, 63 are four
years and three are five years in length. We have no intention
to make all our courses 4 years. Back
| 
