House of Commons - Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education

Educating tomorrow's engineers: the impact of Government reforms on 14-19 education - Science and Technology Committee Contents

3 Engineering education (14-19 years)

21. A key decision point in a young person's education comes at around 14 years, or entry into level 2 qualifications in England and Wales.[54] At this stage of the curriculum, students choose to study optional subjects alongside compulsory subjects such as mathematics and English, usually GCSE qualifications. Additionally, the option to study engineering as a discrete subject is often first presented to students at this age.[55] Our inquiry focused on 14-19 education, or Level 2 and 3 qualifications (equivalent to GCSEs and A-levels in England and Wales). However, we recognise the importance of inspiring younger people to consider engineering study and careers before reaching this stage of education, and we address this issue in more detail in the next chapter.

22. There are many ways of becoming an engineer. Education for Engineering (E4E) summarised the different paths to professional engineering:

a) Work-located training, for example Advanced Apprenticeships (an integrated vocational and work-located learning path);

b) Further Education (FE) college-based vocational education/training (classroom-based learning, possibly including working experience);

c) University-based education, which may include a "sandwich" work placement and/or work experience (general or "academic" path);

d) Non-formal and informal learning; and

e) A combination of the above over a working lifetime.[56]

Examples of qualifications that can lead to careers or further study in engineering include science GCSEs (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), diplomas and apprenticeships.[57] Figure 1 illustrates the different career routes into engineering in England.

Figure 1: Career route map for engineering in England[58]

23. When embarking on this inquiry we asked whether employers in the engineering sector preferred an academic or a vocational profile. The response affirmed that employers want engineers with both practical and theoretical skills. National Grid emphasised that engineering is, by its nature, both academic and vocational, and provided an example to illustrate the point:

Consider a technician with the problem of 'how can I make this motor run better?' It is useful if he/she starts with an understanding of the basic parameters that determine how a motor works—the academic knowledge [...]. He or she might then assess how these parameters could be varied in the situation at hand and then choose an option.

However, the outcome is likely to be better if he/she also has an appreciation of the practicalities of the tools and test equipment at his/her disposal, how to interpret drawings and data sheets, how to select components from standard ranges, and the likely time and cost of each option. Ideally he/she would also then have the practical skills to carry out some modification. It is this combination of academic understanding and practical application that delivers efficient solutions.[59]

Education for Engineering (E4E) stated that "the distinction between academic and vocational is not useful" and "the concern should be with whether a qualification and experience profile is fit for purpose".[60] National Grid considered the distinction to be "almost always unhelpful as it often implies a different standard of attainment: academic is somehow 'cleverer'".[61]

24. As good engineers need theoretical knowledge and practical skills to enter the profession at any level, engineering education and training must provide both.

GCSEs and the English Baccalaureate

25. On 20 January 2011, the Department for Education (DfE) announced a review of the National Curriculum in England.[62] It was the Government's intention "that the National Curriculum be slimmed down so that it properly reflects the body of essential knowledge in key subjects and does not absorb the overwhelming majority of teaching time in schools".[63] The Review, covering Key Stages 1 to 4 (ages 5-16 years), "is considering which subjects beyond English, mathematics, science and physical education, if any, should be part of the new National Curriculum from September 2014".[64] In September 2012, the DfE also launched a consultation on Reforming Key Stage 4 Qualifications, reflecting the DfE's ambition "to restore rigour and confidence to our examination system at age 16".[65] The rationale for reform was explained in the consultation document, which stated:

GCSEs were introduced with good intentions. In particular, they introduced the concept of an almost universal qualification that would allow students of all abilities to sit examinations in core subjects, and would provide them with a grade which recognised the progress they had made. [...] That principle of universality is one that we are determined to maintain.

However, there is clear evidence that the standards of our examinations have fallen over time, and that the expectations they set for our students are now below those of our international competitors. [...] Employers, universities and colleges are dissatisfied with school leavers' literacy and numeracy, with 42% of employers needing to organise additional training for at least some young people joining them from school or college.[66]

The DfE's proposals included a new title for the qualifications, and stated that "given the extent of differences [...] between current GCSEs and our new qualifications, we do not believe it would be fair on students if we continued to use the title 'GCSE'".[67] The new qualifications would therefore be called English Baccalaureate Certificates (EBCs), and achieving EBCs in English, maths, the sciences, history or geography and a language would result in attainment of the full English Baccalaureate, a performance measure for schools and not a qualification in itself.[68] Schools would start teaching new qualifications in English, mathematics and the sciences from 2015, with students first entering the new exams in the summer of 2017.[69] The timetable for the introduction of qualifications in history, geography and languages will be determined following the Government's consultation.[70] The consultation document also stated that "there will be a separate consultation on reforms to the school accountability system" later in 2012 although the Government had not announced further details by the time this Report was published.[71]

26. The concept of the English Baccalaureate (EBac) already exists; the EBac was introduced as a performance measure in the 2010 performance tables. Currently the EBac is a means of recognising where students have achieved a GCSE grade C or above in the subjects outlined in the previous paragraph. Under the Government's proposals, EBCs would replace the GCSEs counting towards the EBac, but other GCSEs would continue to be provided. The core subjects were selected on the basis that they were "facilitating subjects" for progression to university, as identified by the Russell Group of universities.[72] They are also intended to "encourage students to keep their options open for longer".[73] The EBac "is intended to give pupils greater opportunity to study in and beyond the vital core of English, mathematics and the sciences" and "has a particular focus on key subjects which have, in the past, been withdrawn from Key Stage 4 by some schools, even where pupils might benefit from them".[74] The Government argued that "the EBac also provides a firm basis for a wide range of technical routes post-16".[75] The EBac has so far only been applied to a small percentage of the Key Stage 4 cohort: the table below shows entry into and achievement of the EBac since it was introduced. Figures for 2011/12 are provisional.
Table 1: Entry into and achievement of the English Baccalaureate (2009/10 to 2011/12)[76]

Pupils entering the EBac Pupils achieving the EBac

Number % of KS4 cohort Number % of KS4 cohort

All Schools[77]

2009/10 140,551 22.0 99,652 15.6

2010/11 148,986 23.8 110,374 17.6

2011/12 155,839 25.0 113,101 18.1

State-funded Schools[78]

2009/10 126,172 21.8 87,518 15.1

2010/11 122,524 21.6 87,090 15.4

2011/12 129,248 23.0 89,923 16.0

As the EBac was announced in 2011 and retrospectively applied to 2010 figures, students who achieved the EBac in 2009/10 and 2010/11 could not have planned to do so when making GCSE choices. The 2011/12 cohort of students and schools was the first that was able to make subject choices in the knowledge of what contributed to the EBac. The data shows that there was slight increase in the percentages of students entering the EBac in that academic year compared to 2010/11.

27. We heard mixed views on the impact of the EBac on engineering education. There was some support for the EBac, for example the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire Local Enterprise Partnership stated that "some aspects [...] will be welcomed by engineering employers, particularly the emphasis upon raising the standard of Mathematics, English and Science".[79]Richard Earp, National Grid, stated "we have always looked for GCSEs in maths, English and science" and added "I am not really too bothered about which GCSEs they have, beyond [this]".[80] Others expressed concern that the EBac performance measure would cause schools to place less focus on provision of non-core EBac subjects, some of which provide routes into engineering. The Open University was "particularly concerned that the English Baccalaureate downgrades exposure to technologies in general and ICT specifically".[81] Jim Wade, the Principal of the JCB Academy, considered that:

The move towards a more 'classical curriculum' as envisaged with the English Baccalaureate has led to a warping of the courses followed by young people in England. This has seen a move towards English Baccalaureate subjects and a move away from those subjects which have a technical bias.[82]

Worryingly, OCR, a qualification awarding body, stated:

There is evidence of schools switching large numbers of students away from Product Design, Engineering, Manufacturing and Applied Science GCSEs, including examples of this happening when students are already six months into these programmes. It would appear that decisions are being made to increase the number of students following the portfolio of EBac subjects. A number of schools reported that this was beginning to affect uptake at A Level and may in the longer term lead to a decline in the take up of Engineering degrees.[83]

National Grid expressed the strongest criticism of the EBac and stated that it "seems to be at best irrelevant to improving the UK's engineering skill base" and "at worst it may exacerbate negative perceptions of engineering careers [...] and discourage schools from offering technical subjects".[84]

28. Two key subjects were identified as crucial to engineering but outside the EBac: Design and Technology (D&T) and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). D&T is important for engineering because "design processes and design skills are an integral part of the engineering ecosystem".[85] E4E stated that "D&T is an important subject at A level for engineering" and it "has been identified by Russell Group universities as a 'useful' A level".[86] E4E added that "around a quarter of students accepted onto engineering degree courses in the UK had an A level in D&T" and "in some subjects it was significantly higher, e.g. 74% of students accepted onto Production and Manufacturing Engineering degree programmes had D&T A level".[87] One student at the JCB Academy, told us that she had "always loved design and technology at school" and said that winning a design and technology award had "spurred" her on to continue with studying design and engineering.[88] The Design Council stated that "the EBac provides little space for students to take additional subjects beyond a prescribed core" and endorsed the view that "an additional 'creative' subject, such as D&T or Art & Design, should form part of the performance measure the EBac is aligned [to]".[89]

29. Design and Technology is currently a compulsory National Curriculum subject, with a statutory Programme of Study, at Key Stages 1-3.[90] The majority of respondents to the Government's National Curriculum consultation (78 per cent) supported the retention of D&T as a National Curriculum subject.[91] However, only 41 per cent of these respondents considered that D&T should be retained at Key Stage 4.[92] The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) stated that "the possible removal of D&T as a compulsory subject in the upcoming National Curriculum Review has also raised concerns within the automotive industry" and added that "early exposure to engineering disciplines, such as those experienced within the study of D&T, is crucial in engendering enthusiasm for careers in manufacturing, and therefore for developing and sustaining a strong engineering base in the UK".[93] The importance of D&T to the UK's manufacturing base and economy was also emphasised by 11 per cent of respondents to the Government's consultation.[94]

30. ICT education was also a cause for concern: Dr Bill Mitchell, Director of the BCS Academy of Computing, explained the skills gap:

There are lots of shortages of skill in the IT world. Probably one of the most alarming is that 90% of companies cannot recruit people who can deal with cyber-security. That is a big problem. [...] There was a report by Demos last year that included a quote from one of Tech City's entrepreneurs: "There just aren't enough Computer Scientists in the UK. And we need Computer Scientists, we don't need—what do they call it—ICT trained people. We need real Computer Scientists who do software engineering and programming." [...] If you also look at data from BIS, it shows that the number of jobs that are going to require specialist IT skills is increasing at four times the average rate of other jobs in the economy. That suggests that there is a growing skills gap in the IT profession.[95]

The BCS has been pressing the government to include Computer Science as a fourth science GCSE in the EBac.[96] ICT is also currently a compulsory National Curriculum subject, with a statutory Programme of Study, at Key Stages 1-4 and the majority of respondents to the Government's National Curriculum Review (77 per cent) supported this, including strong support for ICT to remain a National Curriculum subject at Key Stage 4.[97]

31. The EBac subjects do not comprise the entire curriculum: Carole Willis, Chief Scientific Adviser, DfE, clarified that "the EBac is only supposed to cover part of the curriculum. It leaves about 30% or 40% of time in the curriculum for studying other things".[98] Ms Willis considered that "as a route into engineering, [the EBac] is quite powerful" and explained that:

The rationale for setting up the EBac was partly around international evidence that other high-performing jurisdictions were asking their students to study a similar range of core academic subjects up to the age of 16, before they went on to specialise in other things, and the fact that the progression rates for the EBac subjects were particularly high. I know that there are lots of other vocational routes to HE and to other engineering occupations, but to the extent that the acquisition of maths and physics A levels are important, the EBac students are much more likely to go on to study science A levels than pupils getting five good GCSEs including English and maths, for example.[99]

When we put the criticisms of the EBac to Elizabeth Truss MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Childcare, she stated:

What we have seen since we introduced [the EBac] is that the number of students studying single sciences has gone up, and obviously physics and maths are key underpinning subjects for engineering, so what the English Baccalaureate does is highlight the importance of rigorous science subjects. That is positive. The number of pupils taking GCSE triple science has gone up from 48,000 in 2007 to 152,000 in 2012, so we have seen a strong increase in the number of students taking science subjects, which is an important background to engineering.[100]

Indeed there is some evidence that the EBac has correlated with a greater uptake of science GCSEs: 93 per cent of GCSE students are due to take double or triple science GCSEs in summer 2014, which is the highest proportion for at least two decades.[101] Between summer 2010 and summer 2014, the proportion of students taking double science GCSE is set to increase by 28 per cent and to increase by 113 per cent for students taking triple science GCSE.[102]

32. The Education Committee commented in its 2011 report on The English Baccalaureate that the "choice of subjects included in the EBac has been one of the most controversial aspects of its creation".[103] However, the EBac is intended to provide students with a solid grounding in key subjects, and it appears that there has been a greater uptake of science GCSEs since the performance measure was introduced.

33. We welcome the EBac's focus on attainment of maths and science GCSEs, which are important precursors for further study and careers leading to engineering. However, we are concerned that important subjects such as Design and Technology (D&T) are being adversely affected as schools focus on the EBac. Although the EBac leaves curriculum time to study other subjects, schools are very likely to focus on the subjects by which their performance is measured and less on non-EBac subjects.

34. We recommend that Design and Technology should remain in the National Curriculum at Key Stage 4.

35. The consultation on Reforming Key Stage 4 Qualifications closed before this Report was published but we expect the Government to take into account our views when deciding the future of Key Stage 4 Qualifications. In addition, the Government must consider how to reward schools and recognise performance in non-EBac subjects when it reviews on the school accountability system.

Vocational education

36. In September 2010, the Government asked Professor Alison Wolf to conduct an independent review of vocational education, stating:

For many years our education system has failed to value practical education, choosing to give far greater emphasis to purely academic achievements. This has left a gap in the country's skills base and, as a result, a shortage of appropriately trained and educated young people to fulfil the needs of our employers. To help support our economic recovery, we need to ensure that this position does not continue and in future we are able to meet the needs of our labour market.[104]

Professor Wolf was asked "to consider how vocational education for 14-19 year olds can be improved in order to promote successful progression into the labour market and into higher level education and training routes" and to provide "practical recommendations to help inform future policy direction, taking into account current financial constraints".[105] The Wolf Review of Vocational Education was published in March 2011 and the Government response was published in May 2011.[106]

37. The Wolf Review stated that "performance measures should [...] reinforce the commitment to a common core of study at Key Stage 4, with vocational specialisation normally confined to 20% of a pupil's timetable".[107]The Review recommended that:

a) The DfE should distinguish clearly between those qualifications, both vocational and academic, which can contribute to performance indicators at Key Stage 4, and those which cannot; and

b) Non-GCSE/iGCSE qualifications from the approved list should make a limited contribution to an individual student's score on any performance measures that use accumulated and averaged point scores.[108]

In response to these recommendations, the Government stated that it wanted "the vast majority of 14-16 year olds to be taught an academic core, which can then be supplemented by a vocational element".[109] Preferred qualifications for the 14-16 age group would therefore "be of an appropriate size to complement the academic core for the majority of students".[110] The Government stated in its written submission to this inquiry that:

Following the reforms [of vocational education], there are 140 high quality qualifications which will count as equivalent to one GCSE in the 2014 Key Stage 4 performance tables. Of these, nine are in engineering. These include the two 'Principal Learning in Engineering' qualifications at levels 1 and 2 which represent the core of the current Engineering Diploma.[111]

THE ENGINEERING DIPLOMA

38. The Diploma in Engineering is a qualification for 14-19 year olds and has been available in schools and colleges since 2008.[112] It is available at 3 levels: Foundation, Higher and Advanced, and sits alongside the traditional educational pathways of GCSEs and A Levels (see Figure 1 on page 15). We were told by the Department for Education that the Engineering Level 2 Diploma is equivalent to 7 GCSEs. The Principal Learning Component (core of the Diploma) currently counts as equivalent to 5 GCSEs and is the size of 3.5 GCSEs. It offers students classroom-based learning combined with work-related practical experience.[113] However, following the Wolf Review, the Government introduced reforms to vocational education that meant the Engineering Diploma would be equivalent to one GCSE in performance tables, despite requiring curriculum time equivalent to several GCSEs.[114]

39. Newstead Wood School, a specialist engineering school, stated "the Engineering Diploma Level 2 is [...] more than a vocational STEM course" as "the level of mathematical and scientific knowledge it requires to work at its best is GCSE A grade".[115] The Engineering Diploma was developed with engineering employers; the Engineering Employers Federation (EEF) stated that "the Diploma is widely recognised by the industry as a route to providing young people, the next generation of engineers, with the skills they need for the future".[116] An important point was made by Lyn Tomkins, SEMTA, who highlighted that the diploma "is also attracting a significantly high number of girls".[117]

40. National Grid expressed concern that following vocational education reforms, "the Engineering Diploma will become a less attractive qualification to schools".[118] Newstead Wood School stated that "the skills and scope [of the Diploma] range beyond those of a single GCSE".[119] The EEF stated "the downgrading of Diplomas has not sent out the right signal to both employers and young people that Government is serious about the status and value of vocational education" and added that "the impact of these changes will undoubtedly be a reduction in the number of schools offering the Diploma as the additional support needed to offer such a course would not be reflected in league tables".[120] The change to the value of the Engineering Diploma was described by the SMTT as "a retrograde step, out-of-sync with government's stated intentions to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing"[121]and by EDF Energy as "detrimental to the recruitment of young people into the sector".[122] However, EADS UK stated that "the changes will probably have a detrimental effect on [...] the Engineering Diploma but will not adversely impact the very important STEM subjects" and that therefore "it should have little or no effect on the skills base needed by the engineering sector".[123]

41. We asked Dr Matthew Harrison, Director of Education, Royal Academy of Engineering, what the impacts had been, and he responded:

We see its impact in the numbers. We never had the time for the diploma in engineering to prove itself, because it was only in its second year when the Diploma Aggregation Service was removed. The diploma stopped at that point. We do not know where it would have got to, but it was climbing rapidly. It hit a peak, and now it is clearly dropping off.[124]

We took evidence from two students currently studying the Engineering Diploma and sought their views on whether changing its GCSE equivalence would influence subject choices amongst students. Both students considered that they might still choose the diploma, but one stated that "maybe the quantity of GCSEs won't be enough for some people" and another added "there were 16 people in our class and 13 of them took the diploma because it was worth that many GCSEs [...] Taking it down to one GCSE would stop people from taking it".[125]

42. The engineering community had already started discussions with Government over how to adapt and develop engineering qualifications in light of the reforms to vocational education, before our inquiry commenced. On 8 May 2012, at a roundtable meeting chaired by John Hayes MP, then Minister for Skills, engineering organisations agreed with awarding bodies to develop new qualifications that reflect the quality and attractiveness of the Engineering Diploma and its Principal Learning component.[126] Then in a November 2012 speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Engineering Diploma would be "reworked".[127] The DfE stated that "the Royal Academy of Engineering will work with employers, professional bodies and schools to design the qualifications and they will be available for students to sit as early as 2014".[128] Dr Harrison explained how the engineering diploma would be redesigned:

Principal Learning, the main technical core of the diploma, is still available now [...] schools will continue work with it while we, as a broad coalition across the profession, including employers and teachers at colleges and schools, look at producing a more flexible alternative. We are taking the large qualification, retaining its content, retaining the deep employer engagement and retaining its progression value [...] We want to preserve all of that, while giving schools the opportunity to offer all four of these linked qualifications, or perhaps three or even two, very much alongside the core subjects, and alongside the English Baccalaureate if that is what they want to do [...] We will finish our work in May 2013, so it will be available for first teaching in September 2014.[129]

Mr Hancock, Minister for Skills, stated that the reworked diploma "won't be a diploma" but "four separate qualifications".[130] He hoped "that the sign-off will be in November 2013, to be taught from the following year".[131] When we asked whether it had been a mistake to downgrade the diploma, the Minister stated:

I would not describe it as being downgraded. The system was brought in with the overall goal of ensuring that valuable and high-quality vocational qualifications were recognised as such. One of the rules within that system to make it work was that each qualification could count for no more in terms of equivalence than one GCSE. I know that a strong argument was made that the Principal Learning component and the Engineering Diploma should count for more. When I arrived in this job in early September, one of the first things that I did was to get on the phone to the Royal Academy of Engineering and talk about bringing in what look likely to be four separate qualifications that both fit within the accountability structure and are rigorous and employer led.[132]

When pressed further, the Minister added that working with the Royal Academy of Engineering to redesign the diploma "sends an extremely strong signal about [...] the value that we attach to engineering".[133]

43. The Engineering Diploma was a qualification regarded highly by schools, employers and students, combining theoretical knowledge with hands-on practical skills. The Government's reforms to vocational education meant that Level 2 of the Engineering Diploma could not count as equivalent to more than one GCSE despite requiring curriculum time and effort equivalent to several GCSEs. The change in GCSE equivalence of the Engineering Diploma following vocational education reforms potentially sends a poor message from Government about the value of engineering education, which is at odds with the Government's frequently stated emphasis on the importance of engineering to the UK, and may lead to the Diploma being a less attractive qualification to schools. The change was, in our view, made in haste and we feel the Government should have fully developed its plans for a redesigned set of engineering qualifications before announcing what was perceived as a downgrading of the Engineering Diploma. We are pleased the Government is now engaging with the engineering community to address this.

44. We recommend that where the Engineering Diploma or its successor is taught, it should be included in performance measures for schools alongside the EBac .

TECHNICAL BACCALAUREATE

45. A Technical Baccalaureate (TechBac) is being developed by City and Guilds, the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, University Technical Colleges (UTCs) and other educational institutions.[134] In December 2012, Lord Baker of Dorking, founder of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, announced plans for a TechBac that would combine technical qualifications with English, Maths and ICT at levels 2 and 3.[135] The TechBac would be a performance measure similar to the EBac.[136] It is intended that the TechBac will be available from 2013 with the intention of provision on a wider basis in 2014.[137] Some, such as the Association of Colleges, have welcomed the concept of a TechBac.[138] However, the Education Committee noted concerns that the "EBac will be for the bright kids, and the TechBac will be for the less bright kids" and stated that it did "not recommend the creation of such a baccalaureate at this time".[139]

46. The proposed TechBac has attracted the support of both the Opposition and Government.[140] In December 2012, the Minister for Skills stated that:

World-class vocational education is vital for a world-class economy, so we are bringing rigour to vocational education by recognising the best qualifications, strengthening apprenticeships and introducing a Tech Bac to reward and celebrate stretching occupational education. [...]

The Tech Bac [...] is one of the things we will do to ensure higher quality occupational and vocational qualifications and more respect for them. I look forward to consulting widely and will set out more details in due course.[141]

47. We look forward to the Government's proposals for a Technical Baccalaureate with interest. If the TechBac is to be a success, we consider that the following conditions must be met: (i) its structure should reflect our observations in paragraph 24 of this Report; (ii) while offering a more creative and technical curriculum, the TechBac should offer a broad base of education to facilitate a wide range of further study and career options; (iii) the Government must endeavour to ensure that the TechBac does not suffer from the cultural misperception that plagues vocational education, namely that it is for less bright students; and (iv) schools must be incentivised to focus on the TechBac. To achieve this, the TechBac should be equivalent to the EBac in all respects.

Work experience

48. As discussed previously, the best engineers have both theoretical knowledge and practical skills. The value of work-based experience was regularly stressed to us during this inquiry and it was highlighted by the students we talked to at the JCB Academy as a rewarding and valuable part of their study. Steve Radley, EEF, stated that "if young people have that opportunity to learn about work at first hand through work experience, that is absolutely vital".[142] Richard Earp, Education and Skills Manager, National Grid stated that "the best thing you can do in promoting engineering as a career is good quality work experience".[143] Ms Luff, Newstead Wood School, confirmed the importance of work experience in promoting engineering as a career with a personal example:

Until I did my work experience and saw what a work placement was like in an engineering company, I just thought I wanted to take an engineering degree because I liked the subjects and topics covered but I don't want to be an engineer. I would rather use my skills maybe to go into the City and make loads of money. But it turns out that engineering is what I like. [...] Work placements, for me, are the things that open people's eyes.[144]

However, employers find that these practical skills are often lacking, as highlighted by British Airways[145] and National Grid.[146]

49. The Wolf Report examined work experience and recommended that:

DfE should evaluate models for supplying genuine work experience to 16-18 year olds who are enrolled as full-time students, not apprentices, and for reimbursing local employers in a flexible way, using core funds. Schools and colleges should be encouraged to prioritise longer internships for older students, reflecting the fact that almost no young people move into full-time employment at 16; and government should correspondingly remove their statutory duty to provide every young person at KS4 with a standard amount of "work-related learning".[147]

In response, the Government decided to "seek to remove the statutory duty to provide every young person at Key Stage 4 (14-16 year olds) with work-related learning" adding that:

We anticipate that the duty will be removed from the start of the academic year 2012/13 and release support for more work experience for older pupils. However, schools will still be free to determine whether and how work experience for young people at Key Stage 4 is provided.[148]

50. We heard mixed views about the removal of compulsory work experience at Key Stage 4. Mr Earp, National Grid, emphasised that "one of the worst things you can do is bad quality work experience" and that therefore he was "not sure that [he] support[ed] a blanket requirement for two weeks' work experience".[149] Yet many more appeared to hold a less favourable opinion of the change. For example, Mr Radley, EEF stated that the change was "regrettable" and that EEF "would like to see that reversed".[150] Jim Wade, Principal of the JCB Academy, stated that "it has been an error".[151] The JCB Academy stated that "many schools in our local area will not be offering work experience to students from next year"[152] and Mr Wade explained that:

[Schools] have financial pressures [...] [they] have league table pressures and organisational issues. To do work experience is a difficult, time-consuming and costly thing for a school. Therefore, some schools will make the decision that, if youngsters want to do it, perhaps it is up to their parents to do it in the holidays, but it is not an entitlement.[153]

Maggie Galliers, President of the Association of Colleges (AoC), added that "it is not just some but many schools who are cutting back now on work placements"[154] and Liz Allen, Headteacher, Newstead Wood School, added:

What are we educating young people for if it isn't preparing them for the workplace? It would be utterly ridiculous if they didn't have that experience as part of their learning package, but I say that as a school that is confident and philosophically inclined to do it. Many schools don't have that privilege.[155]

The Education Committee added its voice to these concerns and recommended in January 2013 that "the Government's statutory guidance to schools is strengthened to require schools to provide careers education and work-related learning as part of their duty".[156]

51. We asked Ms Willis, DfE on what evidence the decision to remove the statutory duty on schools to provide work experience had been based. She explained that:

[Wolf] concluded [...] that work experience is really important. It is a very valuable way for young people to attain the kind of skills that employers need in the labour market [...]. The rationale for her recommendation that that duty be removed from Key Stage 4 is that it was better undertaken at Key Stage 5. The study programmes that the Department is working on at the moment expect all young people, unless they are doing an apprenticeship that has that core employment component in it already, will be undertaking some form of work experience, and we shall be piloting that; indeed, we are in the process of trialling the best way to do that with an independent evaluation.[157]

52. However, Ms Willis was not able to inform us of any evidence (or research undertaken by the DfE to produce evidence) that supported the change to work experience requirements other than the Wolf Report.[158] When we asked if the DfE intended to gather evidence about the effect that lack of work experience may have on children at Key Stage 4, she responded:

The main way in which that would be monitored is in terms of the progression rates for young people. We have just introduced—this year—a new set of destination measures, so we will be looking at those quite carefully. Those are broken down by institution, and they look at what routes young people go on to once they have left that particular institution.[159]

53. We asked the Ministers why the requirement for pupils to do a standard amount of work experience at KS4 was being removed and Mr Hancock stated:

The study programmes that we are introducing from 16 to 18 require work experience. The problem with the 14 to 16 requirement is that it was extremely highly specified, and it did not always work. In many cases, it led to people doing work experience-like activity, but the problem with that is that there is nothing like work experience except work experience. The way that it was designed was complicated and top-down, and it led to a poor-quality experience. Instead, we have freed up the curriculum to make sure that there is the flexibility to provide it. For 16 to 19-year-olds, we are requiring it as part of the programmes of study.[160]

54. Although the Government's rationale appeared reasonable when applied to work experience generally, the postponement of engineering work experience from KS4 to post-16 study will pose particular problems. Mr Earp, National Grid, pointed out that:

The biggest loss of people for the higher skilled STEM careers occurs with their post-16 choices. If they are not going to see the world at work or experience good quality STEM employers before choosing which A-levels or level 3 subjects to do, then we have a real problem. We have to show them during key stage 4 what it is all about.[161]

55. Good work experience is an important part of engineering education. It puts classroom learning into context, provides inspiration and is a source of career information. In addition, work experience can provide students with valuable practical skills.

56. Recognising the challenge of providing quality work experience at Key Stage 4, the Government decided to remove the statutory duty on schools to provide work experience altogether and place greater emphasis on work experience in post-16 study. However with regard to engineering we recommend: (i) STEM work experience should take place before 16 years, before students make choices about study or work post-16; and (ii) that despite the curriculum and league table pressures a degree of compulsion should exist. There are already anecdotes suggesting that many schools are cutting back on provision of work experience and we are concerned about the impact of this on the provision of future engineers.

57. The evidence we have received suggests that work experience is important for engineering education. We endorse the recommendation of the Education Committee that the Government's statutory guidance to schools should require them to provide work-related learning. Careers advice is further explored in paragraph 70.

58. We are concerned that the DfE has accepted the Wolf review's recommendation without appearing to attempt any assessment of its own on the impact of removing compulsory work experience at Key Stage 4. We will address the DfE's use of research and evidence in Chapter 5 of this report.

University Technical Colleges

59. University Technical Colleges (UTCs) are "a new concept in education", offering 14-19 year olds the opportunity to take a full time, technically-oriented course of study.[162] UTCs integrate national curriculum requirements with the technical and vocational elements and are heavily influenced by local and national employers who also provide support and work experience for students.[163] There are five UTCs: the JCB Academy in Staffordshire opened in 2010, the Black Country UTC in Walsall opened in 2011 and a further three opened in September 2012 (Aston, Central Bedfordshire and Hackney). The Government is committed to opening at least 24 UTCs open by 2014 and is planning 34 in total.[164]

60. The engineering community universally welcomed UTCs: the Royal Academy of Engineering stated that "UTCs provide an exemplar of what excellent 14-19 technical [...] education looks like".[165] Some have suggested that there should be more: for example, the Baker Dearing Education Trust suggested that the Government "set an immediate target to open at least 100 UTCs before the next general election".[166] However, there were some concerns about UTCs. Newstead Wood School cautioned "they will not provide national coverage and there will remain a need for Secondary Schools to be committed to engineering learning programmes".[167] National Grid was "a strong supporter of the UTC movement" but added "it is the take up and standard of technical education in mainstream schools that will provide the broad foundation for STEM skills that the UK economy needs going forward".[168] Industry witnesses broadly shared concerns that the reach of UTCs would be limited by their number and geography.[169]

61. Jim Wade, Principal of the JCB Academy (the first UTC), had concerns about the Government's targets:

like any Government policy, it can't be that the target is to open this number by this date, because it is about making sure that the quality of the experience for those young people is fantastic [...] If you set a target of having this number by this date, the danger is that you run for the target rather than ensure you have the quality. [...] Another small caveat is that we had 20 months [to set up] [...] That is not the funding they are getting to set up UTCs at the present moment.[170]

62. We asked Ms Willis, DfE, what evidence had been gathered on the effectiveness of UTCs and she responded:

There are only five open at the moment, as you will be aware, and we do not have any results from them yet. We will have results from the two that opened in September 2011[171] when we have developed performance tables at Christmas, or finalised them. I shall be looking very carefully at the attainment within those different institutions. What we collect is quite a lot of information on background pupil characteristics, through the school census. I shall be looking to undertake analysis, controlling for the background characteristics of the pupils entering those kinds of institution, and comparing them with similar attainment levels in other sorts of institution to see whether, and the extent to which, those organisations are adding value.[172]

When we asked for evidence behind the Government's ambition to open 34 UTCs, Ms Willis stated:

There are a couple of things. The university technical colleges partly grew out of the city technology colleges, which have been open for a longer period, and some of the promising results in those organisations. But [...]the core rationale behind those UTCs is to have active engagement from employers and universities to help ensure that the programmes of study that are being completed can enable young people to have the best possible chance of going on to HE and some form of employment. There is that particularly valuable aspect, and that degree of engagement with such organisations.[173]

In effect, Ms Willis was not able to demonstrate any evidence base for the target to open 34 UTCs. We asked the Minister for Skills, who stated:

There are 28 UTCs in the pipeline in addition to the five that are already open [...] Of course we will keep measuring their success as they come along, but it takes quite a long time to get measures of success. You have to wait to get a full measure of success, because you have to wait for children to go through, but you have to look at all the indicators that you can. We are keeping a very close eye on them, but so far the feedback has been extremely positive.[174]

We note that the Minister indicated that there were 28 UTCs "in the pipeline", a figure that appeared to be at odds with the target of opening 34 UTCs.

63. University Technical Colleges (UTCs) are a welcome development and the limited evidence that is available suggests that they are effective providers of engineering education. However, the network of UTCs will not provide nationwide coverage and the Government must also focus on good engineering education in schools and colleges.

64. The Government and all partners involved in the establishment and operation of UTCs should focus on quality not quantity. This includes being flexible if a new UTC needs more time or resource to establish itself, for example. The quality of education offered must not be sacrificed for the sake of political deadlines.

65. The Government must clarify its UTC targets and how it will measure success. First, it must clarify the rationale behind the target number. Second, it should be clear about what it expects UTCs to achieve and how performance will be monitored. Third, the lessons learned from opening the first five UTCs must be shared with those involved in establishing new UTCs, including engineering employers.

54 We focus on England and the UK Government Department for Education as education policy is a devolved matter. England, Wales and Northern Ireland have historically had similar qualification systems whereas the Scottish education system is different. Back

55 For example, the GCSE or Diploma in Engineering Back

56 Ev w37 para 12 Back

57 "Some examples of qualifications for careers in Engineering and Technology", Tomorrow's Engineers, www.tomorrowsengineers.org.uk Back

58 "Career Route Map for Engineering in England", Tomorrow's Engineers, www.thebigbangfair.co.uk; Career route maps for Wales and Scotland are also available. Back

59 Ev 54 para 4.8-4.9 Back

60 Ev w 37 para 8 Back

61 Ev 53 para 4.10 Back

62 "Review of the National Curriculum", Department for Education, www.education.gov.uk Back

63 "Review of the National Curriculum in England FAQs", Department for Education, www.education.gov.uk Back

64 "Review of the National Curriculum in England FAQs", Department for Education, www.education.gov.uk Back

65 "Reforming Key Stage 4 qualifications: consultation", Department for Education, www.education.gov.uk Back