Usually, I’m not in agreement with Woodhead, but I think he’s got the right idea here, even if he has poorly thought it through.





It’s an interesting idea, and one which was pretty much killed by the Tories in the 1980s. My dad, who was a woodwork/metalwork teacher when he started his career in the 1960s taught proper practical skills that the trade needed. In Birmingham, he taught tin plating as part of his lessons. In Watford, he taught woodwork and metal work - he taught the skills needed by industry. He didn’t get many academic stars, but I think he got his fare share of practical talent. One runs a flute making company now, and my dad was sent a rather nice penny-whistle type instrument by that ex-pupil on his retirement.

Later on in his career, my dad was pretty much forced to stop the practical side of the job, and teach theory - design theory. He said at the time he could teach children to pass exams without going near a workshop. In fact this was happening in pretty much every secondary school, and they were closing down workshops, gutting equipment and converting them into product design studios.

Woodhead is partly right - we should not be focussing on pure academia. Not every kid is going to be a rocket scientist. A lot will end up in offices, doing plumbing, bricklaying. Some may even end up doing bespoke cabinet making. Education is far too focussed on getting kids into University these days and chasing league table results. Schools should be providing the foundation that all children need for a successful working life. If that means vocational subjects taught with going straight to industry or a work place, then it should be done. And, as a necessity, school leavers who get a job placement through such lessons should be classed as successes just as much as those who go on to university.

Non streamed GCSE classes will do well for this.

For eample. My GCSE geography lessons were 50 minutes long. About 30 of them were spent watching the teacher trying to control the knobheads.
In this scenareo, they'd have quit at 14 and we'd have had better lessons.

Whilst I agree that we shouldn't force kids to stay in school/further/higher education, I disagree about the age limit. At 14, most people have no clue as to what they want to do. GCSEs were supposed to provide a minimum education platform from which to go forth and I still think this is reasonable. Beyond this, I have no desire to force kids to do something against their will - many would be better off learning a trade rather than waste time in a classroom.

My view would change if there was a new minimum educational criteria at age 14, so that not everyone went on to do GCSEs. But then it would be the new GCSE level, just at a different age.

a fathers example

my eldest daughter not only came top of her year but top of the area that the school resides in
and is enjoying staying at school to 18 and beyond

my youngest daughter is very clever but at school she fails every time
but when it comes to work for pay, she is there every time, working her guts out
(baby sitting, paper round etc etc etc)

my eldest can leave at any time my youngest, who doesn't wish to remain in school, can not leave until 18 (14 at this time)

the system is wrong ...

I thought you could leave after GCSEs? i.e. at 16.

Did I get that wrong?

It's recently changed. You have to be in full time education until 18. Though that includes school, college and (I think) appreticeships.

No what will happen is that you can leave school at 14 but must have an apprenticeship otherwise you do some vocational college. So a 14 year old non academic if they cannot get an apprenticeship will be allowed to do a vocational course instead of staying at school till 18. Some people know what they want to do, even younger. Though I had no idea till I was 18 and then was clueless. Also think about it from the schools perspective, if a kid is not academic then they will not enter them for exams because they affect the league table results. So the kids leave school with nothing. They also have lowered self esteem and become troublesome for years. Letting them find something that they are good at would be much better. It would boost their self esteem and have substantial long term benefits. Imagine if Wayne Rooney, who we all know is not the brightest tool in the box had been allowed to leave school at 14 do a football apprenticeship. He could be even better at football.

I think in that respects, it's worth considering. I must admit, I was thinking from my POV when I was at school that even the "dumb" ones managed to leave with some GCSEs. Honestly hadn't occurred that some may not even be allowed to sit them.

I still think there should be a minimum standard of Maths and English - I'd be worried if my mechanic read something incorrectly due to literacy and something happened.

Why Major was allowed to do away with Polytechnics I'll never know.

I think I agree with this, though does everyone need a half-GCSE in R.E., another one in design, another two/three in subjects you can pick from a list the school provide...?
I think that some people would be better of getting the basic GCSE's (English, Maths, Science) and taking the rest of time out of school to concentrate on skilled jobs. They'll see the practical side of Maths and Science, and hopefully have to communicate with others both verbally and through writing, which should hopefully spur them on in their compulsory studies.

Because their arguably more useful and practical degrees were at risk of supplanting the prestige of the useless ones (e.g. Cambridge)

There may have been some of that, but I think in general it was a more commercial imperative. The University sector had just started expanding rapidly, availability of places was ballooning and students were finding they could pick and choose where they studied much more. And a lot of students were choosing rubbish universities rather than very good polytechnics, simply because going to 'a polytechnic' was seen as a second class option. The polytechnics weren't getting the students they needed and some very bad University courses were churning out graduates who weren't actually much use.

So they did the quickest, easiest thing they could to level the playing field - they let the polys call themselves a University. They set criteria for entry of course. Criteria most of the best polytechnics were more than able to meet already. Always know the answer before you ask the question, as Sir Humphrey would say. The problem was they set the bar too low and some of the best technical colleges were able to meet the criteria as well. I worked at a technical college a couple of decades ago that could easily meet the criteria but was always refused University status. It was plainly a farce - they taught the students, they examined the students, they passed the students but the student's degree certificates had the name of another University on them, one they'd made an agreement with to validate their certificates provided they met the criteria every year, which they always did. Yet every year despite meeting the same assessment standards as existing Universities, they were refused a University charter.This went on for years, in the end being decided by a judicial review, which they won. So now they're a University, despite only having a few hundred students and mostly teaching vocational qualifications rather than degrees. But the degree they do teach, within the relevant industry, are very highly regarded.

The government started off with good intentions but they screwed it up. Badly. Hands up who didn't see that coming.

Jon

Yes but maths and english could still be taught but more tailored to their future career. So it would not be abandoned. With the fact that it would be more useful for the apprentice then it would be studied more intently as it would actually be of some use to them.

because they wer lobbying for degree awarding powers and wanted it, plus it made good political milage thus all parties were happy.

I can agree with cutting out general literacy and numeracy classes, if the kids are already capable by that age.

My nephew was put on an academy course at 14, by his school. It was targetted learning of sorts, and some were arguing that it amounted to little more than pigeon-holing kids. I disagree. In his case it was exactly what he needed, and he was much more engaged in his final two years.

He now has an apprenticeship of sorts, three days a week at college and two days working.