Skip to main content

Three FE myths that put dogma ahead of data

The new government would do well to steer clear of a series of false assumptions now established as ‘fact’, says the University of Westminster's Peter Urwin

News article image

The new government would do well to steer clear of a series of false assumptions now established as ‘fact’, says the University of Westminster's Peter Urwin

In the last few frenzied weeks of election campaigning, politicians from all parties were accused of playing fast and loose with the facts. In such a charged environment, it is easy for a myth to develop a life of its own and end up being unquestioningly accepted as fact. Many would argue that this has long been the case with FE policy.

Last year saw the publication of the Post-16 Skills Plan, outlining significant reforms to technical qualifications. More recently, the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 has come into law. And, of course, the system for funding apprenticeships has undergone a complete overhaul.

Underpinning all of these changes have been a number of myths that have crept, almost unnoticed, into being widely accepted as fact.

Having conducted major research, which drew together data from three government departments for the first time to compare qualifications gained with subsequent earnings and benefits claimed, my view is that these “facts” are no such thing.

If our next government is to ensure policy-making is grounded in data rather than dogma, here are three myths that it would be well advised to steer clear of.

1. ‘Technical education has failed students’

Survey-based academic studies have suggested a large number of vocational qualifications were providing little or no return.

This evidence underpinned suggestions in the 2011 Wolf Report that some 350,000 16 to 19-year-olds get “little to no benefit” from the post-16 education system. This has become an important driver of subsequent technical education rationalisations.

However, since then, I have been involved in a series of investigations using matched administrative data that challenges the survey-based findings. These data studies, commissioned by the former Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) – now the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) – shed new light on the value of technical education in England, uncovering much more favourable estimates of returns to learning.

2. ‘Technical education is not an effective pathway to social mobility’

Many individuals who enter FE have left compulsory schooling with few qualifications and are predominantly from poorer backgrounds. The prevailing consensus in Westminster has been that these learners were most likely to end up on courses identified in studies as providing poor wage returns.

Admin-data findings present a strong challenge to previous conceptions of low quality. Survey-based studies were unable to fully capture the extent of disadvantage among FE learners, driving estimates of poor returns.

Technical education takes the most disadvantaged on the longest educational journeys because they have “low” starting points. This significantly boosts productivity and acts as an important pathway to social mobility.

3. ‘Employers are unhappy with the current system’

A key recommendation of the Richard Review of apprenticeships, in 2012, was the desire to put “employers in the driving seat” of a new system of apprenticeship standards, replacing frameworks.

Despite an implicit recognition from the Sainsbury panel that there are potential downsides from an “employer-as-driver” model, the sentiment voiced by Doug Richard – that many employers felt “apprenticeships were not consistently delivering high-quality outcomes” – seems still to be driving policy.

One would expect strong empirical support for such a widely-held sentiment. But the 2015 BIS apprenticeships-evaluation employer survey results suggest that 87 per cent of employers were satisfied with their main level and framework, 88 per cent with the quality of assessment and 86 per cent with the quality of training.

Some employers may be dissatisfied with the apprenticeship system, but the suggestion that employers as a whole are unhappy is not supported by the evidence.

Professor Peter Urwin is director of the Centre for Employment Research at the University of Westminster.

This is an edited version of an article commissioned by the Federation of Awarding Bodies, which appeared in the 9 June edition of TesSubscribers can read the full story here. To subscribe, click here. To download the digital edition, Android users can click here and iOS users can click here. Your new-look Tes magazine is available at all good newsagents.

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES FE News on Twitter, like us on Facebook and follow us on LinkedIn

Log in or register for FREE to continue reading.

It only takes a moment and you'll get access to more news, plus courses, jobs and teaching resources tailored to you