The Milburn review is a watershed moment for FE

The prime minister referred to the Alan Milburn review into young people and work as “sobering”. My own reaction was nothing less than jaw-dropping; to see the failure of historic education policy laid bare in such stark terms was certainly not what I expected.

The report points to many factors contributing to a situation where over a million young people are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Milburn sees it as “shameful” that so much was spent on welfare support for young people compared with getting them into jobs. The world has moved on; entry-level jobs are no longer in such plentiful supply. What employers require and what the education system provides are in many ways poles apart, and the ability of employers to respond to the changing needs of this young generation is a key challenge.

The review is being described as a “landmark” and appears to present a watershed moment, perhaps as consequential as the Tomlinson and Dearing reports or, in time, more so. Yet this is “only” an interim report. It sets out the current situation and evidence. A sequel later in the year will provide a suggested direction of travel.

At this stage, here are my takeaways:

First, the acknowledgement that vocational and technical education has been subject to continued policy churn (unlike academic education) must be taken seriously as a core contributing factor to why young people, employers, schools and parents struggle to navigate the system. As far back as I can remember, every successive government has vowed to simplify the landscape and create clarity. Instead, they cause further confusion and unwittingly ensure that further education remains “close to impassable”.

The obsession that traditional sixth form and university education is the golden ticket to success and that alternatives like apprenticeships and technical education are “for someone else’s child” is so deeply ingrained in the psyche of this country. This risks making so many thousands of young people feel second best. It is hard to see how this narrative can change, but it must.

Second, we need to avoid the temptation to rush to piecemeal solutions. As the report suggests, countless initiatives that appear reactive and have effectively been sticking plasters have not worked. In recent memory, I can think of traineeships and Kickstart, now we have foundation apprenticeships and the youth guarantee.

Apprenticeships themselves, arguably the gold standard in getting young people into work, have seen starts for this age category reduce by 40 per cent. Pledging 300,000 new work placements is now the latest well-meaning response. To raise the profile of technical education in schools, we are seeing calls again for colleges to provide day release opportunities – when many cannot accommodate demand for 16–19-year-olds. I’m not saying we shouldn’t do any of these things, but my reading of the report is that we need a fundamental rethink and a much more coordinated approach to how we address youth employment.

Third, the review must lead to a debate about some of the current activities colleges are required to do. There is reference in the report to maths and English re-sits and surely the time is ripe again to discuss the merits of ploughing massive resource and cost into a policy for a return of one in five students being successful. Years of following this policy clearly hasn’t helped more young people into employment. The report’s acknowledgement of the significant strain due to college and school support for mental health and deficiencies in social work must be recognised more fully.

We should also start a conversation that focuses on the “engagement” of young people, broader than the blunt instrument of classroom-based attendance. As a colleague recently said to me, we could have attendance rates that satisfy policymakers and regulators far better by not taking on those who have struggled with this at school – but that’s not who we are, and we meet people where they are.

Finally, there must be reflection on the report’s claim that FE has been made weaker and hollowed out by the lack of adequate funding over a sustained period of time.

Yes, the current government has started to right this wrong. Yet, stark inequalities still exist across the wider education system and in terms of addressing the most disadvantaged young people, including those most likely to become NEET, the report states that FE isn’t some “marginal landscape” but “it is the landscape”. However, it is a landscape that needs more flexibility, parity of esteem with other parts of the education system and demand-led funding to meet the challenge.

The suggestion that funding should be outcomes (i.e. destinations) based needs a cautious response and careful thought – but there is no denying that greater accountability for where students go as opposed to just “bums on seats” and qualifications passed should be treated seriously.

It’s great we’ve been able to demonstrate greater numbers of young people into bricklaying and electrical courses, but how many are we actually progressing into the industry? It’s time to shift the conversation.