Work experience before sixth form is dubbed waste of time

4th March 2011 at 00:00

Schools should stop organising pupils' work experience before they reach sixth form because "almost no young people" go into full-time jobs aged 16, the Wolf report recommends.

The review of vocational educational says the current legal requirement to offer 14-16 year-olds "work-related learning" should be dropped.

Instead it calls on the Department for Education to look at how employers can be "reimbursed" to offer 16-18 year-olds in full-time education "genuine work experience".

"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," the report says.

"The Government should correspondingly remove their statutory duty to provide every young person at key stage 4 with a standard amount of work related learning."

But Sarah Gibb, director of schools and work-based learning for Business in the Community, said it was better for pupils to get work experience pre-16.

"It is more inspiring," she said. "A particular example is girls - the earlier we can get to them the easier it will be to inspire them and prevent them from rejecting particular careers.

"Quality work experience increases your employability at any age but I would say the earlier the better if it is properly planned and structured.

"We still hear of pupils being put into shops to fold jeans for a week."

Last year a survey of employers by the CBI found that only 37 per cent of companies were satisfied with the work experience they offered.

Another of the report's recommendations could increase the wage bills of schools that want to use college lecturers as teachers.

It says qualified lecturers should be given exactly the same status of qualified teacher in schools.

Author Professor Alison Wolf, said: "This will allow schools to recruit qualified professionals to teach courses to school level (rather than bussing pupils to colleges) with clear efficiency gains."

The academic told The TES the discrepancy was "crazy", adding: "I can't see any justification for it. These are two nationally recognised teaching qualifications, they should be viewed as equivalent and they should be treated the same way."

She said: "It is not that you are (currently) forbidden to teach but you get offered some derisory amount; you are not treated as a qualified teacher."

Subscribe to get access to the content on this page.

If you are already a Tes/ Tes Scotland subscriber please log in with your username or email address to get full access to our back issues, CPD library and membership plus page.

Not a subscriber? Find out more about our subscription offers.
Subscribe now
Existing subscriber?
Enter subscription number


The guide by your side – ensuring you are always up to date with the latest in education.

Get Tes magazine online and delivered to your door. Stay up to date with the latest research, teacher innovation and insight, plus classroom tips and techniques with a Tes magazine subscription.
With a Tes magazine subscription you get exclusive access to our CPD library. Including our New Teachers’ special for NQTS, Ed Tech, How to Get a Job, Trip Planner, Ed Biz Special and all Tes back issues.

Subscribe now