Post

I admit to signing up and paying the £4.50 just to annoy myself before going to the pub. But I ended up agreeing with a lot of this. Certainly I agree that a big problem is employers and that devolution is the best way to fix this.

Sam Freedman@samfr.bsky.social

New post just out: "Burnham's first mistake" Splitting 14 year olds into academic and vocational paths seems intuitive. But it's a terrible idea that risks increasing inequality, and closing down options for the young people that need them most. (£/free trial) open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/b...

6 reposts51 likes

There is nothing wrong with offering a wide range of options to 14yr olds and taster sessions for those who want them. I had to choose which 'O' Levels to take at 14, ie mostly science or mostly not. It's not a new scary "mistake"...

I am an employer. We have had good apprentices before. It works if the system is pretty stable, and there is a person at the local council or combined authority and at the relevant local colleges to guide you through it and that is so eroded now we just can't make it work. Which is a shame.

People like me who are big supporters of devolution should be honest about the drawbacks. If UTCs have a bad record,... but the trustworthy people who put the hard work in to non-academic education in Leeds mostly supported UTCs,... then I as a devolutionist back UTCs in Leeds. Even if it's wrong.

That's part of the messy part about building local coalitions of responsibility and accountability and agency that ultimately get me as a business offering places for people from non-academic routes. And get local people providing the colleges and courses. And kids choosing them. It's messy.

The thing that keep me on Andy Burnham's side (certainly not without criticism) on this is that I don't see of an understanding of where the last three decades of education reform in England have performed poorly. There's just so much celebration. But the picture is much less good for very many.