Science and TechnologyWritten evidence submitted by E4E—Education for Engineering

Does the current engineering skills base meet the needs of employers?

1. This is a challenging question as engineering skills are highly valued across many sectors, not just those directly or indirectly involved in engineering. They also exist across many qualifications levels so the picture is complex.

2. The Technician Council reports a shortage of 450,000 level 3+ technicians by 20201 while the Royal Academy of Engineering in its recent analysis2 estimates that 820,000 SET professionals will be required by 2020 with 80% of these required in engineering.

3. The engineering community has worked hard to better understand the potential supply of and demand for labour for engineering and technology roles. However, we are hampered by lack of disaggregation of engineering from “SET” in high-level SOC category estimates of demand and, in estimating supply, there is a lack of interconnectedness of datasets from schools through FE to HE and on, at all phases, to the workplace. There is a particular need to improve the collection of data on employment by discipline and degree class following higher education. Current data gives scant information on which to base policy. We would urge the Committee to examine the case for matching datasets of learners throughout the education and training system and for improving data collection of employment of graduates.

4. At Appendix 1, we provide a snapshot of data on engineering-related qualification achievements in England.

5. Supply and demand is discussed in Section 5 of the recently published report Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) Technicians in the UK Economy.3 This study throws light on a range of important data and issues, not least that “level of certification” and “skills” and “occupations” cannot be simplistically aligned. For example, in some SET skilled trades (technician roles) the graduate share of jobs is now as high as 15%—and 27% in some associate professional roles4 (also technician roles). This may or not reflect requirement of the jobs and may be building up problems as full-time engineering undergraduates are not trained to be productive in these employer-specific practical and commercial roles.5

6. Regarding the current situation (SET technicians), Mason (2012:33) comments:

“There are currently just over 1.5 million SET (science, engineering and technology) technicians in employment in the UK, about 30% of whom are in associate professional occupations while 70% are in skilled trades occupations. In 2010 almost three quarters (73%) of SET technicians were employed in SET production, construction and service sectors with a further 17% in non-SET private sector activities and 10% in the public sector. A key characteristic of the SET technician workforce is that it is ageing fast, with as many as 31% of SET skilled trades workers and 23% of SET associate professionals aged 50 or older in 2010.”

7. From January 2012 the Talent Retention Solution (TRS) became entirely industry funded6. TTRS continues to support skills and jobs retention in the Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering (AME) sector through proactive redeployment of people “at risk” of redundancy into other skilled jobs. Through this approach the intention is to provide a UK wide platform to maintain and enhance the AME skills-base across the UK. Initiatives like this are welcome.

Do employers in the engineering sector prefer an academic or a vocational profile?

8. The distinction between academic and vocational is not useful and we are concerned that undue focus on this is a distraction. The concern should be with whether a qualification and experience profile is fit for purpose.

9. Engineering employers require a broad range of skills, from technician level roles (QCF level 3) to post-doctoral specialism (QCF level 8).

10. Employers want competent engineers and technicians. In the UK engineers and engineering and ICT technicians cannot be registered until they have sufficient working experience to demonstrate competence. Competence is developed through doing the job, underpinned by theory (“academic” or “vocational” learning though not necessarily certificated). It is this integrated learning which develops competence.

11. To become registered as Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer, Engineering Technician or ICT Technician the applicant has to demonstrate competence at or above a threshold level defined by the UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC). Registrants must also commit to continual professional development. The Engineering Council Registrant Survey 2010 indicates that 57% of registrants have their subscription and registration fees paid by their employer.7 It could therefore be inferred that at least 57% of employers value competent engineers very highly. This has, however, a hierarchical skew in that Chartered Engineers are more likely to have their fees paid (61%) than Incorporated Engineers (51%) and Engineering Technicians (43%)—and Technicians often earn least.

12. Paths taken to professional engineering include:

Work-located training—eg Advanced Apprenticeships—an integrated vocational and work-located learning path.

FE college-based vocational education/training—vocational learning path—which may be classroom based learning only—plus working experience.

University-based education—general or “academic” path—which may include a “sandwich” working placement—plus working experience.

Non-formal and Informal learning;.

A combination of the above over a working lifetime.

13. Alongside there are also integrated opportunities such as the flexible work-based route to professional qualification, Engineering Gateways.8

14. Periodically, the Engineering Council surveys employers to ascertain if UK-SPEC remains in line with employers’ needs. The most recent survey in 2007 involved 830 employers. These employers were selected as representative across engineering sectors, size and so forth from 8,755 firms in the filter phase. The report concludes:9

“5.1 The most valuable finding from this study was that UK-SPEC largely reflected employer competence needs, the additional competences identified as desirable being mentioned by only small percentages of employers (the highest being 7% for IT skills).

5.2 Organisations with registered staff tended to require higher standards than those without registered staff at the same level, suggesting that the presence of registrants “raises the bar” in terms of valuing areas of competence. This was particularly true at Engineering Technician level.”

15. The Royal Academy of Engineering has undertaken a number of major studies into how best to prepare engineering undergraduates for industry. The reports10 ^, 11 highlight the importance of providing students with real-life problems to solve and to develop greater links with industry for the teaching of engineering at university. Initiatives such as the Academy’s Visiting Professors scheme where industrialists lecture to students at university and explain current practice and the challenges being faced by engineering companies have been shown to add real value to undergraduate provision.

What impact will recent changes relating to engineering qualifications in England have on the uptake of technical subjects and the skills base needed by the engineering sector?

16. E4E members (Appendix B) have been consistent in not encouraging pre-16 pupils to specialise. A broad and balanced general education is necessary for the formation of engineers and technicians. E4E puts emphasis on the importance of mathematics and on making learning links across technical subjects—mathematics, sciences, D&T and computing. Art & design, the humanities and performing arts and languages are also important formative components for many engineering disciplines.

17. E4E welcomed much of Professor Wolf’s report, particularly as it considered 14–19 as a raised-participation-age phase where the vast majority would be expected to achieve mathematics at QCF Level 2 by the age of 19. This would open the door to Advanced Apprenticeship entry (in engineering, construction, IT etc.) for many more individuals. Progression in engineering is highly unlikely without a reasonable level of mathematical ability.

18. E4E supports the shift towards seeing 14–19 as a phase and post-16 as a more appropriate point for young people to take up full time vocational courses, combine general and vocational learning or to start out on an Intermediate-Level or Advanced/Modern Apprenticeship in employment.

19. The Government’s implementation of Prof Wolf’s recommendations has contributed to demise of the 14–19 Diploma as a “programme”. However, we welcome John Hayes MP taking a lead in addressing the future of the Principal Learning component. On behalf of Baker-Dearing Trust, the RAEng and UTC representatives are now examining how to split the single Principal Learning qualification into smaller qualifications, each with a size value similar to one GCSE.12

20. The recent changes to engineering qualifications are not a new or surprising phenomenon. However, our concern is that qualifications continue to be changed without due regard for lessons learned from evaluation of the past and often without piloting of new qualifications. Tracing the detail of some engineering qualifications even from the pre-2000 is nigh impossible (the Register of Regulated Qualifications only goes back to around 2002 and the AFO Archive to only relatively recent frameworks).

21. Qualification development and regular revision is however important if we are to keep pace with what might be valuable learning for the individual, employers and the economy. The QCF is very helpful in this respect because it enables unit revision, deletion or addition without necessarily changing the overall integrity or title of a qualification. QCF ensures titles and purpose categories are consistent and are more likely to describe what is in the qualification.

22. E4E welcomes the introduction of University Technical Colleges (UTCs). They can act as a means of demonstrating deep employer engagement—important for an authentic engineering experience. If a high quality experience of technical areas is provided in UTCs then this will be a good outcome for future engineering skills supply as well as for other progression paths.

23. The revised and more transparent FE post 19 funding system (England) may help to encourage learners to strive to reach QCF Level 3 by age 24. New post-16 qualification suites are appearing in the market and parental and learner appreciation that there are traditional and well-respected alternative roads to higher level learning and skills in engineering appears to be regaining traction.

24. The BTEC suites are regularly reviewed by Pearson/Edexcel with stakeholder consultations which include professional bodies and we are usually happy with how they operate. BTECs have represented a degree of continuity—ONC (now in the form of BTEC Level 3 (QCF)) has been around since 1921. The qualifications are well understood by employers in our sectors and evolve over time and in response to changing skills needs.

25. However, we are very concerned about reports that the revised “Next Generation” BTEC at Level 3 will be an NQF, not QCF, model—designed for schools, more like an A level—no credit, and not occupationally-grounded. Currently, BTEC Level 3 (QCF) is the only stand-alone qualification exemplified in the Engineering Technician section of UK-SPEC. It is also the qualification most usually used by the Engineering Council to exemplify meeting the qualification requirement of the Dublin Accord13 (Technician level mobility). The European Credit Transfer System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) requires a credit system (as does the SCQF).

26. The BTEC Level 3 (QCF) is also a component of many SASE/W compliant Advanced Apprenticeship frameworks in the engineering and construction & built environment sectors.

27. The potential loss of the BTEC Level 3 (QCF) qualification may therefore have a range of undesirable impacts.

28. We also have concern about the impact of the English Baccalaureate on general technical qualifications. The introduction of the E-Bac has caused many schools to reduce subject options for pupils and the Design and Technology Association reports that schools are cutting back on D&T provision. We are pleased that DfE have proposed that D&T should remain a requirement in the Primary curriculum, but it must also remain a requirement at Secondary phase. D&T is the most popular non-compulsory GCSE with some 250,000 entries in 2011 although we expect the introduction of the E-Bac to significantly affect entries in 2012.

29. Yet D&T is an important subject at A level for engineering. UCAS data14 shows that the engineering subject group15 was the second most popular destination for pupils with D&T A levels, accounting for 15% of the total of applicants with D&T A level—Creative Arts and Design16 being the highest with 25% of the total. D&T has been identified by Russell Group universities as a “useful” A level and around a quarter of students accepted onto engineering degree courses in the UK had an A level in D&T. This was across universities from all mission groups. In some subjects it was significantly higher, eg 74% of students accepted onto Production and Manufacturing Engineering degree programmes had D&T A level.

30. E4E welcomed the Education Secretary’s announcement to disapply the ICT curriculum from September 2012 as it may have been discouraging pupils from progressing in computing. We welcome also that ICT will remain in the national curriculum for all key stages with new statutory Programmes of Study.17 We support the work of the Computing at School group and their curriculum for Computer Science at school. BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT (an E4E member) has been pressing the case with government to include Computer Science as a fourth science GCSE in the E-Bac. Enabling subjects such as D&T also help to broaden the scope of computing in schools through D&T systems and control and electronics. It is in D&T that pupils can most readily develop real-life applications and embed computing into products and systems.

Could the Government and others do more to raise the status of technical subjects?

31. The Government has an ambition for growth which rebalances the economy in favour of productive industries. All government policy should be supportive of that ambition.

32. We support the Technician Council and the establishment of the new Registered Technician register for Science. We ask government continue to promote the value of professional registration.

Schools

33. The Education Secretary should make public his support for high-quality technical education in schools, in the way he did for Music. His announcement should include D&T, ICT with emphasis on Computer Science and engineering-related qualifications valued and respected by employers which lead to progression to further learning and employment.

34. Engineering suffers from a lack of visibility in the classroom. Better careers guidance would help in this regard. Schools’ duty to provide careers IAG for young people should be extended to year 8 and to post-16 provision. We will watch with interest the development of the National Careers Service and welcome the newly formed National Council for Careers. We ask that government view STEM careers initiatives like the Big Bang as a key contribution to building skills for growth rather than “marketing”.

Post 16 Education

35. There has been significant improvement in FE in the last few years. Increases in high-quality Apprenticeships across all sectors are welcome, as is the intervention of John Hayes MP to ensure all Apprenticeships are minimum 12-month duration.

36. Some major engineering employers have suggested to us that Apprenticeship funding should go directly to the work-based trainers (employers, GTAs etc).

37. To incentivise technician supply, the FE sector funding revisions will need to ensure there is sufficient weighting given to “strategically important” yet high-cost technician training. A much higher cost is associated with training in engineering, construction & built environment Apprenticeships, over and above other Apprenticeships. Attracting expert training staff and the cost and maintenance of up-to-date equipment/materials—as well as the longer training periods usually involved—can be very high.

38. We are concerned that post-16 funding and the Academy-conversion process encourages schools to set up sixth forms, which will primarily focus on delivering classroom-based subjects, and that this is already affecting FE vocational qualification enrolments. We have also noticed a marked decline in part-time achievements at level 318 and would welcome more discipline specific information. Experience tells us that once workshops and plant are lost, they do not reappear.

39. We are unsure how the revised FE sector funding/loans arrangements (post age-24) will impact. While it is clear that employers and individuals should contribute beyond the level 2 threshold, it currently seems that if a learner were required to fund a VRQ plus NVQ programme themselves, the cost to them could be around £21,000.19 Given the much lower lifetime returns to individuals from vocational/occupational qualifications we suspect that individuals might feel more incentivised to take an HE route thus depleting the technician pool further.

Higher Education

40. We remain concerned about the future of engineering higher education in the wake of funding reforms. The best graduates are those who have authentic experience-led learning programmes and employer engagement. These programmes require significant additional resources.

41. We are also concerned that the new fees regime will discourage students from undertaking Integrated Master’s Degree programmes because of the cost of the extra year of study and attendant cost of living.

42. We are concerned that Home Office policy on non-EU immigration may be discouraging many overseas students from applying to UK universities.

What more should be done to attract and retain a more diverse technically skilled workforce?

43. This is a hugely important issue and is worthy of an inquiry by the Committee in its own right. We feel unable to do justice to this issue here but highlight some key points:

44. Analysis of sciences and mathematics subjects at KS4 in England shows that a higher proportion of females achieve A*-C grades in at least two science GCSEs and in mathematics GCSE compared with males. Yet, only around 20% of the cohort for physics A level are female. At Higher Education, the proportion of women in engineering subjects falls to around 12%. The issue therefore appears to be one of interest rather than ability.

45. There is considerable variation in participation and attainment in sciences and mathematics at KS4 across different ethnic groups. For example, there is under-representation of Black pupils in high-attaining maths/science cohorts at GCSE while there is substantial over-representation of Chinese/Asian pupils in high-attaining science and maths cohorts at GCSE.

46. Our analysis of DfE Data20 shows that Socio-Economic-Status is the underlying driver for participation and achievement in sciences and mathematics, but it is not the only factor. And even where there is attainment, there is still a lack of progression to STEM post-16.

47. There are deeply embedded cultural factors at play here; public (and media) perceptions of what engineering is21, early gendered role-stereotyping, a strongly class-based society.

48. The answer to the problem is complex, multi-faceted and efforts to date have not made significant impact. However, it seems likely that the culture of education and training in engineering and in engineering workplaces and the lack of diverse representation provides little “pull”. Additionally, lack of retention of engineers/technicians from diverse backgrounds that do make it to the workplace may indicate poor quality business practice in too many organisations that employ engineers and technicians.

49. The Royal Academy of Engineering is taking a lead for BIS for improving diversity in engineering. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the work being carried out by the RAEng and our Profession on this issue.

Appendix A

Supply of engineering skills

We provide data on STEM education and training in England to provide a snapshot of potential supply for engineering employers.

STEM in Schools

This data is from a forthcoming report22 on participation and attainment in science and mathematics subjects at Key Stage 4 in England through analysis of the DfE National Pupil Database.

Science and Mathematics at the end of Key Stage 4:

The size of the cohort at the end of Key Stage 4 in 2009/10 in schools England was 633,50023. Of these:

16% (101,500) achieved A*–C Grade in Mathematics GCSE and A*–C Grade in Triple Science (individual Physics, Chemistry, Biology) GCSEs

In total, 49% (313,500) achieved at least two science qualifications at A*–C Grade (or vocational qualifications at level 2, equivalent to two GCSEs) and Mathematics at A*–C Grade

23% of the cohort (145,000) achieved A*–C grade in Design and Technology GCSE

For Principal Learning qualifications, the following achievements were recorded for 2010 and 2011

Year	2010	2011
Engineering	1,550	2,600
Construction and Built Environment	700	1,000
Information Technology	1,200	2,000
Manufacturing & Product Design	0	100

A levels:

The cohort taking A levels in 200910 in schools was 407,000. Of these:

21,500 achieved a combination of mathematics and physics A level.

27,400 achieve three or more STEM A levels.

68,500 achieved Mathematics A level.

127,500 achieved STEM A levels.

280,000 achieved A levels not in STEM.

STEM subjects in Further Education

STEM Qualifications: This data is from the FE STEM data project24. FE Data is collected by qualifications achieved, not on learners. Learners are therefore estimated from FE STEM data analysis. In 200910:

943,000 STEM qualifications were completed by 16–18 year olds

202,000 Engineering qualifications achieved

121,200 qualifications at level 2 and below.

80,800 qualifications at level 3 and above.

235,000 Technology qualifications achieved

164,500 qualifications at level 2 and below.

70,500 qualifications at level 3 and above.

The 934,000 STEM qualification achievements are estimated as:

150,000 Level 2 STEM learners.

75,000 Level 3 STEM learners.

33,000 Level 2 STEM apprenticeships completed.

29,000 Level 3 STEM apprenticeships completed.

Apprenticeships: Latest figures from the Data service show there were:

457,000 apprenticeship starts in 2010–10

49,000 Engineering and manufacturing technologies (29% increase on 2009–10).

28,000 Construction, Planning and Built Environment (11% increase on 2009–10).

19,500 ICT (55% increase on 2009–10).

10 Science and mathematics (no previous apprenticeships in 2009–10).

133,000 Business, administration and Law (75% increase on 2009–10).

102,000 Retail and commercial enterprise (67% increase on 2009–10).

For the above data, we are including all levels, while the engineering profession is predominantly focussed on levels 3 and above. The business and retail apprenticeships are included to provide comparison with engineering.

Engineering in Higher Education

Applications: Latest data on applications to HE from UCAS shows that as of 31 January 2012 there has been an 8.7% decrease in applications to all HE Institutions in the UK across all subjects. England suffered the worst decrease at –9.9%.

By subject groups the picture is more varied:

Physical sciences subject group (JACS F) saw the smallest decrease at –0.60%.

Engineering subjects (JACS H) saw the second smallest decrease at –1.3%.

Technology subjects25 (JACS J) exhibited a very large decline of –17.8% (albeit from a small baseline.

Trend analysis shows that engineering subjects have relatively flat growth over the seven years. However there have been significant variations across the different sub-disciplines. Civil Engineering and Chemical, Process and Energy Engineering have seen significant growth while Electrical and Electronic Engineering and Production and Manufacturing Engineering have seen substantial decline.

Subject	2009–10 Achieves	Change over one year	Change over seven years
General Engineering	1350	-4.9%	-21.1%
Civil Engineering	2640	5.0%	70.2%
Mechanical Engineering	2980	3.0%	13.1%
Aerospace Engineering	1000	-4.7%	-1.3%
Electrical and Electronic Engineering	2765	-0.1%	-29.9%
Production and Manufacturing Engineering	735	-2.5%	-41.2%
Chemical, Process and Energy Engineering	690	18.9%	29.2%
Total Engineering	12,165	1.5%	-3.8%

Engineering and Technology achievements alone make up 6% of all degrees. We included Physical sciences, Mathematics, Computing and Biological Sciences in the data as, like engineering graduates, people with these qualifications may use their skills and knowledge in a wide variety of sectors including engineering.

First degrees achieved. Figures for 2009–10 graduates are as follows:

Engineering and technology—21,955.

Physical sciences—13,795.

Computer science—14,255 STEM proportion of all degress—25.3%.

Mathematical sciences—13,795.

Biological sciences—32,185.

Total STEM—88,660.

Total Degrees—350,860.

Appendix B

About E4E

Education for Engineering (E4E) is the body through which the engineering profession offers coordinated advice on education & training to UK Government and the devolved Assemblies. It deals with all aspects of learning that underpin engineering.

It is hosted by The Royal Academy of Engineering with membership drawn from the professional engineering community including all 36 Professional Engineering Institutions, Engineering Council and EngineeringUK.

We trust that, in assessing submissions, you will ascribe appropriate weight to E4E’s response in view of the wide range of contributing professional engineering institutions and organisations listed below.

BCS—The Chartered Institute for IT	Institution of Chemical Engineers
British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing	Institution of Civil Engineers
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers	Institution of Engineering and Technology
Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineers	Institution of Engineering Designers
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management	Institution of Fire Engineers
Chartered Institution of Institution of Highways and Transportation	Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers
Energy Institute	Institution of Lighting Professionals
Engineering Council	Institution of Materials, Minerals and Mining
Engineering Professors Council	Institution of Mechanical Engineers
Engineering UK	Institution of Railway Signal Engineers
Institute of Acoustics	Institution of Royal Engineers
Institute of Cast Metals Engineers	Institution of Structural Engineers
Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate Management	Institution of Water
Institute of Highways Engineers	Nuclear Institute
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology	Royal Aeronautical Society
Institute of Mathematics and its Applications	Royal Institution of Naval Architects
Institute of Measurement and Control	Society of Environmental Engineers
Institute of the Motor Industry	Society of Operations Engineers
Institute of Physics	The Royal Academy of Engineering
Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine	The Welding Institute
Institution of Agricultural Engineers