Science and TechnologyWritten evidence submitted by the National Grid

1. Summary

1.1 Engineering is at the heart of National Grid’s business. As we transition to a low carbon economy the need for people with engineering skills to develop, deliver and utilise new technology is becoming more acute. This need is shared across the UK and global energy industry. In response we are investing significant resource to address skills issues and playing an active role through engagement with schools in encouraging young people to consider careers in engineering.

1.2 There is need for a strong Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) skill base foundation in schools, colleges and universities. Like many engineering companies, National Grid has a strong need for skills ranging between Level 2 and graduate level. We see many examples of good practice in engineering education, but we are concerned that there is not sufficient “strength in depth” in the UK’s STEM skill base.

1.3 We note that work experience for Key Stage 4 (pre 16) students is no longer a requirement of schools. We would encourage policymakers to ensure that pre-16 students do get opportunities to see industry at first hand—particularly STEM-based occupations—in order to ensure that students form an accurate picture of careers like engineering, ahead of making A Level and/or other post 16 choices.

1.4 We are concerned that a decision was taken to equate the Engineering Diploma Principal Learning with just one GCSE. In was our view the Diploma was one of the better engineering qualifications and when well taught alongside mathematics and science, is a good foundation for entry into employment, or progression to engineering courses in FE or HE. Looking ahead we are concerned that the Engineering Diploma will become a less attractive qualification to schools as the course requires time equivalent to several GCSEs but will only count as “one” success in performance tables.

1.5 National Grid is a strong supporter of the University Technical College movement. We want these schools to develop innovative technical curricula and to set a standard in technical education that will help all schools to improve. As exemplars they are important and we welcome the Government’s investment in them.

2. About us

2.1 National Grid owns and manages the grids to which many different energy sources are connected. In Britain we run systems that deliver gas and electricity across the entire country. In the North East US, we provide power directly to millions of customers. We hold a vital position at the centre of the energy system. We join everything up.

2.2 That puts National Grid at the heart of one of the greatest challenges facing our society; supporting the creation of new sustainable energy solutions for the future and developing an energy system that can underpin our economic prosperity in the 21st century. First and foremost this is a scientific and engineering challenge. Decisions around the future of our energy infrastructure—it’s cost, local impacts, objectives and risks—will of course involve most of society, but whatever the energy policy choices we make, we will be dependent on engineering skills to implement them. Engineering education is therefore an issue of strategic national importance, and something National Grid continues to invest and involve itself in.

3. National Grid’s Investment in UK Engineering Skills

3.1 Engineering is the creative and practical application of science and mathematics, and is increasingly vital, both to support the Government’s policy of re-balancing the economy and as a pre-requisite for modernising the nation’s infrastructure.

3.2 National Grid takes the skills agenda seriously and a number of senior personnel lead or contribute to external working groups in order to share our thoughts and develop skills policy. The groups we have contributed to include the CBI’s education and skills policy group, Royal Academy of Engineering working parties, the IET’s Education Policy Panel, the National Skills Academy for Power and Energy and Utility Skills. We liaise with several qualification Awarding Bodies, providing advice and an employer’s perspective on curriculum content and qualifications.

3.3 At Board level, National Grid CEO Steve Holliday chairs the Business in the Community Talent and Skills Group and was the inaugural Chair of The National Technician Council, a body designed to promote and recognise the status of technicians, and their essential role in delivering growth and innovation for “UK plc”. Nick Winser, Executive Director, chairs the IET Power Academy.

3.4 National Grid is also providing financial support to the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering to recognise and celebrate the best in engineering achievements, to bring the excitement of modern engineering to the fore and inspire the engineers of tomorrow. The Prize is supported by all of the main political parties.

4. Questions Posed by this Inquiry

Does the current engineering skills base meet the needs of employers? Do employers in the engineering sector prefer an academic or a vocational profile?

4.1 National Grid is currently recruiting more than 450 people per year with engineering skills, around half of which are trainees entering our apprentice, foundation degree and graduate training schemes. We are able to fill our vacancies currently, but this does not mean that we are generally satisfied with the adequacy of the engineering skill base in the UK. We currently screen some 25,000 applications in order to get some 280 trainees. Our observation is that the number of applicants with the competence and qualities we seek is not appreciably greater than the number we recruit, which implies a significant underlying weakness in supply for the skills we require.

4.2 Generalisation about the weaknesses we see is difficult, but the most common comments from our assessors include lack of required, basic qualifications (eg mathematics and English); lack of evidence of technical skill, particularly technical skill applied in a real, practical situation, and lack of evidence of “employability” skills such as teamworking.

4.3 Our observation is that applicants may have formal qualifications, but are unable to evidence the ability to apply knowledge to new situations, or to demonstrate any experience of working with others to solve technical problems. Again, generalisation is difficult, but it seems to us that school and college leavers have often been taught how to pass narrow exams, but have too little ability to “join up” learning from more than one subject area, or to work from first principles to solve a novel problem.

4.4 National Grid also works extensively within schools to help explain and promote engineering as a career choice. Our programs1 last year allowed us to have meaningful engagements with some 3500 school students and through this work we also gain an insight into the processes and priorities driving education. Our observation is that engineering is seldom taught or represented well in schools, and that this is a direct consequence of the way in which curriculum and qualifications are organised. Very few schools seem to join up the components of engineering, ie mathematics, science (particularly physics) and design/technology. These are usually taught as separate, isolated subjects rather than the complementary disciplines that are required in real-world engineering projects.

4.5 Despite some notable exceptions, it seems to us that where “engineering” does appear on a school timetable, it is too often the fallback option for apparently less able students, more often male, who do not engage well with traditional classroom teaching of mathematics and science. This observation leads us to the second part of the question relating to academic vs vocational approaches.

4.6 Engineering is both academic and vocational. Increasingly we require new employees, at all levels, to have a good understanding of the mathematical and scientific principles behind the technology they are working on. It is this basic knowledge that allows new technology to be selected, understood, operated and exploited properly, and for new problems to be solved from first principles if necessary. This learning—usually called “academic”—is often weak in students who opt for “vocational” courses.

4.7 Of course academic knowledge alone is not enough. There is a large gap between the theory taught to “academic” pupils and practical applications. Bridging that gap requires experience of equipment, tools, testing, instrumentation and the practicalities of safe and economic design and operation.

4.8 For example, 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 that the force developed depends on electrical current flowing, the magnetic field strength inside the machine, and that friction and air resistance detract from performance. He or she might then assess how these parameters could be varied in the situation at hand and then choose an option.

4.9 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.

4.10 From our point of view, the distinction between “vocational” and “academic” is almost always unhelpful as it often implies a different standard of attainment: academic is somehow “cleverer”. There may well be a need to distinguish between learning styles to suit different groups of student—some need to learn through a more immediate “hands on” approach—but the distinction should be about the route taken to attaining competence, not the final destination.

4.11 Our comments above relate mainly to the generality of the skills base being laid down in mainstream schools. We do see exceptions, and there are pockets of excellent practice. These are too few though: the average standard, and in our experience the “strength in depth” available, is not what we perceive the economy needs going forward.

4.12 Our observation is that students from college and university have had more opportunities to combine academic and practical work, often through projects required as part of their course. This is valuable and does help them when applying for jobs. Improving the engineering skills base probably requires these approaches to be applied earlier and more widely in a student’s educational journey.

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?

4.13 The impact remains to be seen, but we are concerned that the balance of impacts will be negative.

4.14 We agree with many of the reforms proposed by the Wolf Report, and indeed with many aspects of the Government’s broader education reforms. We want to see schools delivering high standards in mathematics, English and science, and we agree that qualifications that are not respected and valued by industry and/or HE should have no place in schools. We do believe that most students benefit from a broad education, and we recognise the value of an appreciation of languages, geography, history, sport and broader school learning such as PHSE. We would like to see more students studying STEM subjects, but these should be high quality with a balance of academic and practical skills as described above.

4.15 If the impact of some of reforms is to reduce the number of qualifications (but not learners) associated with “engineering”, particularly those lacking a reasonable academic content, then this is welcome. We generally prefer a simple, clear qualifications system with fewer, meaningful qualification titles. The Baker Dearing Trust’s Respected document2 is a good basis for a new focus on the best engineering qualifications.

4.16 We believe that the decision to equate the Engineering Diploma Principal Learning with just one GCSE was wrong. The Diploma was one of the better engineering qualifications and, when well taught alongside mathematics and science, was a good foundation for entry into employment, or progression to engineering courses in FE or HE.

4.17 Our concern with the decision is twofold: firstly it seems inconceivable that many schools will continue to offer a course that requires time equivalent to several GCSEs but will only count as “one” success in performance tables. Downgrading the Diploma seems likely to eliminate a respected and valued qualification in a subject vital to the nation’s future.

4.18 Secondly, and importantly, we are concerned at the general message this sends about the engineering sector and technical learning. Our observation is that schools’ decisions are driven very heavily by Ofsted frameworks and/or performance tables, both of which are steered by government policy priorities. The Government may intend that schools freely choose curricula and qualifications best suited to their particular students, but in the short run at least, “top down” messages are very significant, and the Government should be seen to be 100% behind engineering education.

4.19 Looking ahead, we urge Government to do more to ensure engineering is represented well in mainstream schools. We would like to see a positive momentum for change, led from the top, similar to that seen with ICT. Government have rightly recognised the weakness of much current ICT provision and the contrast with the need for more rigorous computer science. Engineering needs similar treatment signalling both its priority and the need for a substantial raising of standards.

4.20 The English Baccalaureate seems to be at best irrelevant to improving the UK’s engineering skill base. At worst it may exacerbate negative perceptions of engineering careers (see below) and discourage schools from offering technical subjects such as Design Technology and electronics. We understand the Government’s argument that E.Bacc will not be a performance measure and that schools will be free to offer a range of subjects to suit their students’ needs. However our observation is that schools’ decisions are heavily influenced by top-down signals and we see no merit in risking E.Bacc incentivising a shift away from technical subjects.

Could the Government and others do more to raise the status of technical subjects? What more should be done to attract and retain a more diverse technically skilled workforce?

4.21 We think these two questions are strongly linked.

4.22 Our 2009 Report Engineering our Future3 described issues relating to perception of engineering and engineers, and the impact this has on young peoples’ career choices. One of the main findings was that young people struggle to visualise themselves as engineers, either because they have no idea what being an engineer involves or, worse, they have an impression that it is a menial job, typically for men in overalls. A particularly worrying finding was that too often teachers are no better informed, and may even reinforce negative stereotypes.

4.23 Raising the status of technical subjects requires effort to change perceptions about where those subjects may lead. If we can do this then technical education becomes inherently worthwhile and appealing to a more diverse range of students.

4.24 We believe the employers have a duty to help schools explain engineering and to show students the positive opportunities that a technical education can open up for them. National Grid does this and we would encourage all STEM-based companies to work more with education.

4.25. Employer engagement with schools is a two way process. We find that most schools are willing in principle to engage with employers, but in practice many do not make the time to do this well. As discussed above, schools focus first and foremost on the priorities set by Ofsted and the performance tables. Allowing opportunities for employers to showcase engineering and technical subjects is not seen as a priority. Government could help by ensuring that curricula and/or Ofsted frameworks do incentivise schools to make the effort needed, for example, to take students on visits to company sites.

4.26 We note that work experience for Key Stage 4 (pre 16) students is no longer a requirement of schools. There may be good pragmatic reasons for this, but we would encourage policymakers to ensure that pre-16 students do get other opportunities to see industry at first had—particularly STEM-based occupations. Students do not get an accurate picture, a visualisation, from media and popular culture, and poor choices of A levels or other post-16 options can effectively rule out a STEM-based career. Choices at 16 represent the biggest narrowing of the engineering skill base of any stage in a student’s educational journey.4 It is vital that those choices we well informed and that employers have the opportunity to contribute.

4.27 We are a strong supporter of the University Technical College movement, and have been actively involved with the JCB Academy, Aston University Engineering Academy and the recently-approved Warwick Manufacturing Group (Warwick University) UTC. We want these schools to develop innovative technical curricula and to set a standard in technical education that will help all schools to improve. As exemplars they are important and we welcome the Government’s investment in them. However 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.

June 2012