I’ve given evidence to lots of select committees in the Commons and the Lords over the years, but last week was a first for me when I appeared before the House of Lords Youth Unemployment Committee. A first because Lord (Ken) Clarke was puffing away on his trademark cigars, presumably in his home office. I half-expected him to break out the whisky once the session reached noon, but maybe it was a little too early for that?
Lord Clarke was, of course, education secretary in the early 1990s and with Lord (Ken) Baker also on the committee, education secretary himself in the late 1980s, it was no surprise that the questions focused a lot on the education rather than employment system. Along with Sally Dicketts, chief executive at Activate Learning, and Neil Bates, chair at the Edge Foundation, we were asked our views on how well the education system equips young people for work and careers and what needs to happen to improve outcomes.
GCSEs: Calls for modular English and maths courses
Sally Dicketts: Are GCSEs right for a modern education system?
Background: For GCSE resit students, it is a bad case of déjà vu
Lord Storey opened the session asking the deceptively simple question of how clear the choices are for young people in education. “Very clear” was my answer “for those who are successful at each stage.” All well and good for those who reach the expected standard at key stage 2, because the vast majority will then smoothly move on to success in GCSEs at 16, A levels or other level 3 qualifications at 18 and a degree in their early 20s. That’s what the system is designed for and it works moderately well, notwithstanding the growing concerns about too many graduates not moving into so-called graduate jobs. That looks set, by the way, to be a big target for reform in the spending review as the government unveils its plans to implement the Augar Review recommendations.
GCSE resits are more of a punishment than a safety net
The problem is that there is no similar clarity for the 60 per cent who don’t achieve a level 3 by age 19. At every stage and transition point there are plenty of sharp cliff-edges for those who fall behind or who struggle, for whatever reasons. And there are plenty of reasons why some young people do struggle - personal health, mental health, family issues, disruptions, lack of motivation or interest in the GCSE curriculum, an assessment model that suits many but not all.
The sharp cliff-edges operate throughout education but arguably have most impact at age 16 and age 19. All 16-year-olds are expected to take a range of GCSE qualifications, for which their education has been pointing for at least five years broadly and two to three years precisely. The problem is that we know around 35 per cent will not achieve the required pass of a grade 4 in English and maths because they are norm-referenced exams. Research by Machin, McNally and Ruiz-Valenzuela - Entry through the narrow door: The costs of just failing high-stakes exams (2020) - shows that students on the wrong side of the grade 4 boundary, even by one single point, are more likely to drop out of education early and less likely to achieve a good upper secondary education because the available opportunities are insufficient.
Sadly, many of the students failing to reach the hallowed grade 4 move into post-16 education being asked to resit the same exam again and again often in vain hopes that they will reach the required pass. That’s not a safety net; it’s more of a punishment and it does not work.
Some young people do achieve the grade 4 requirement within a year and can then move on to a two-year full level 3 course. Most will be studying in colleges, often on technical and vocational courses, which give many young people the motivation and interest they need, particularly with work experience that can be eye-opening. Sadly, even for this group, the government has decided that their third year of study will be funded at a lower rate. That’s right, somehow it is deemed sensible to pay colleges 17.5 per cent less for those students who have struggled than for those who sailed through their GCSEs first time around at age 16. Baffling.
The future is even more challenging for those young people who struggle to achieve their English and maths in the year or two after leaving school. They will probably struggle in the labour market, with more and more jobs requiring intermediate and higher-level skills. The pandemic has made that worse, with reduced opportunities in hospitality and retail, where many lower-skilled young people have traditionally worked.
Where they do find work, it is unlikely to be with an employer who offers them an apprenticeship (the levy has seen more of those going to higher-paid existing employees rather than younger new recruits) or any proper training. Going back to college to learn can be impossible without the maintenance support that their higher-achieving peers enjoy in universities and besides, college adult funding has been cut by around 50 per cent over the past decade so the opportunities are harder to find now than they used to be.
This is not intended to be a story of gloom and hopelessness because lots of adults do find their way back into education, realise their talents and reap the benefits. For every one of them, though, it feels like it has been against the odds, rather than as a natural outcome of a system designed to meet their needs.
So, the question about whether choices are clear is probably a secondary one; the primary question is whether the system of education is designed to meet the needs of every young person (and adult). The answer to that must be an emphatic “no”. The current government reforms might help to provide a better route for adults but there is no reform planned to a system that annually fails around 35 per cent of the cohort. That is simply not good enough.
David Hughes is chief executive of the Association of Colleges
