Beyond competence: the development of technical skills teaching 

This blog was kindly authored by Maureen Graham, Senior Lecturer in Initial Teacher Education, University of Hertfordshire.

‘A new broom sweeps clean’ they say, and Andy Burnham’s new UK government has wasted little time in announcing radical educational reforms. After only two weeks in office, plans are being made to move away from the current “one size fits all” system of secondary education and introduce alternative technical education pathways for pupils from the age of 14.

The rising number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEET) provides a compelling reason to think differently, and many teachers and parents will already recognise that not every young person thrives in an academic environment. Giving pupils the opportunities to develop vocational and technical skills alongside the core subjects of English, mathematics and science could provide meaningful, alternative routes into employment.

 No details have as yet emerged on the exact role that schools will play; however, given that all pupils attend mandatory school education until 16, the school curriculum in terms of offering and uptake will inevitably be affected. Changing what young people learn inevitably raises questions:

 Who will teach the new subjects?

What happens to those subjects struggling in an already crowded curriculum?

What might these reforms mean for higher education institutes educating many of England’s future teachers?

Shrinking pools

Recent government data show a longer term upward trend for exam entries at both GCSE and A Levels. However, even with a rise in pupil numbers, these headline figures conceal considerable differences between subjects. Geography, Biology, Chemistry, Physics, French and Computing have experienced declining exam entries for reasons beyond pupil preferences, such as curriculum structures and specialist staff availability.

Pupils opting for new technical pathways may result in even smaller cohorts in some subjects, including those core sciences. Over time, this could reduce demand for specialist teachers. Whilst this could alleviate England’s struggles to recruit sufficient teachers, smaller cohorts mean reduced university enrolments and reduced income. At what point does a small subject cohort become financially unviable?  There is already a wider backdrop of financial instability across UK higher education, and if teacher education cohorts continue to contract, how many universities will continue to regard small, specialist teacher-training programmes as sustainable? Teacher education programmes cannot be switched on and off in response to short-term fluctuations in pupil numbers. If university provision in a subject closes, expertise, experienced teacher educators and school partnerships may also disappear. Should demand increase, rebuilding that infrastructure may prove harder than dismantling it. However, technical education needs teachers too.

Who will teach these new pathways?

Engineers and builders could bring valuable professional knowledge into schools but trade expertise does not necessarily equate to teaching expertise. Understanding how to sequence learning, explain complex ideas, assess understanding, respond to the very different needs of 14-year-olds (a current government focus) whilst maintaining safeguarding protocols requires pedagogical  and professional expertise as well as technical skills.In England, established routes into teaching normally involve Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), requiring trainees to demonstrate that they meet Teacher Standards. Teacher training is also underpinned by the government’s Initial Teacher Training and Early Career Framework (ITTECF), which sets out a common entitlement to knowledge and practice in areas including subject and curriculum knowledge, classroom practice, assessment, adaptive practice and behaviour.

So where will technical teachers sit within this professional framework? Will industry experts be expected to train towards QTS and the same professional standards as other teachers, or will alternative routes be developed? If industry specialists are to become technical educators, who will support them in transforming occupational expertise into knowledge that can be taught effectively to young people?

There is a potential paradox with these reforms. A more diverse curriculum could require a broader range of specialist teachers and greater, not less, expertise in teacher preparation. Yet this is happening at a time when university-based teacher education is already experiencing considerable change and, in some cases, contracting provision.

There may also be a longer-term ripple effect. If fewer pupils pursue particular academic subjects at 14 and 16, fewer may progress to university to study them. University departments could face declining numbers in the disciplines from which future specialists are drawn. This raises a problematic question: in expanding technical choice, how do we ensure England retains sufficient academic pathways and disciplinary expertise for those young people who wish to pursue them? How might these changes then affect the breadth of academic study available to English pupils compared with their peers internationally?

A new broom may indeed sweep clean, and providing young people with meaningful alternatives to traditional academic pathways could be an important and overdue reform. But before we sweep too vigorously, we might want to consider what we keep.

The bigger question is whether policies are being considered collectively. Curriculum reform changes what pupils study and to what level; which affects the teachers needed; which affects recruitment into teacher education; which affects universities’ financial stability. Universities need undergraduates; their entry depends on subject A levels; which are dependent on school provision, which responds to demand.

 Policies may seem perfectly reasonable when considered individually; but combined, their consequences look rather different.

Government should therefore:

• Undertake an impact assessment that models not simply the number of technical teachers required, but the potential displacement of existing subjects;
• Forecast subject-specific teacher demand over perhaps 5-10 years;
• Examine the impact on university teacher education provision and the consequences of losing it;
• Consider how industry specialists will acquire pedagogical expertise;
• Bring schools, universities and employers together into workforce planning before, rather than after technical skills are rolled out.