Few would disagree that high-quality further education (FE) and skills development are critical, particularly in the current climate. Unfortunately, due to poor policy memory, education professionals also often bypass opportunities to learn from past successes and failures. To tackle this, on March 9th, Edge hosted a webinar exploring the history of education policy in England. 150 attendees evidenced the fact that there is a clear appetite among education professionals to learn more about this topic. Chaired by Jonathan Slater, former Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education, here’s a taste of the discussion.
Andrea Laczik, Head of Research at the Edge Foundation, kicked things off by exploring Edge’s recent Learning from the Past policy review series. This explored past policy initiatives ranging from young apprenticeships to 14-19 Diplomas. While the reviews reveal insights into specific policy successes and failures, taken together, they also highlight some more general themes, which Andrea outlined. She noted, for instance, the importance of providing sufficient time to pilot and evaluate initiatives before rolling them out nationally.
In addition, to deliver meaningful change, she explained that we must consider local contexts and partnerships, and the critical roles of funding and resources. To drive effective, evidence-based policymaking, ensure stability and continuity, Edge’s broad recommendations include establishing longer-term objectives, using clear success metrics, placing more value on subject matter experts, and co-develop policy that can be implemented and delivered.
Next, Ewart Keep, Chair in Education, Training, and Skills at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, reflected on his experiences of change within FE policy over the past 40 years. He noted that the sheer volume of policy churn often disguises longer-term shifts, of which many have been seismic. One example is incorporation, which marked a shift from localised FE to the current centralised national system.
With the accompanying dissolution of intermediary bodies such as the Learning and Skills Council, England now has a highly top-down approach to FE, making it unique in developed countries. There has also been a drift away from the emphasis on adult education, despite FE colleges historically serving these learners. Furthermore, mass participation in Higher Education has squeezed FE funding and student supply, further driving its uncertain status in the overall spectrum of educational provision. Moving forward, important questions to ask about FE should relate to its role and purpose, and its relationship with higher education, employers, and the state. Exploring past policymaking could help with all these issues.
Sue Maguire, Honorary Professor at the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath, highlighted that the past 50 years have seen little consistency in training for young people. While we have seen many programmes designed to address cases of rising youth unemployment, she said there has been little long-term planning or synergy between youth unemployment and education policy. In particular, she noted that the cohort of young people affected by education policies has expanded from those aged 16-17 in the 1980s to those aged 16-24 (and beyond) today.
Unfortunately, because spending has not grown accordingly, policymakers are often forced to reinvent past policies for larger cohorts but with lower funding. Furthermore, success is often measured using metrics like youth
employment figures, rather than digging into issues like job quality or skills development. Ultimately, the biggest problem is a lack of ownership over the youth agenda. Different government departments – even nations – provide varying yet uncoordinated policy initiatives. If nothing else, what we can learn from the past is that this approach offers unequal learning opportunities.
Next, Prue Huddleston, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Centre for Education and Industry at the University of Warwick discussed policymaking in direct relation to the FE curriculum. She explained that the term ‘curriculum’ describes more than just a course or qualification. Rather it describes something with overarching aims, values and pedagogies, as well as a link between teaching and assessment. A particular challenge is that the FE curriculum must cater to the broad needs of learners aged anywhere from 14 to 60+.
Unfortunately, because colleges serve so many masters – Ofsted, local authorities, combined authority areas, the DfE, and competing national, regional and local priorities, to name a few – it’s difficult to create a curriculum offering that satisfies all. Prue suggested that what we can learn from the past is that qualification reform alone will not resolve this issue. Instead, she proposes empowering those responsible for developing the curriculum to create offerings that prioritize individual, local and societal needs.
Our final perspective came from Jonathan Mitchell, Deputy Director, Portfolio and Partnerships at the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE).
He acknowledged that short-term pressures and the brevity of the political cycle mean that policy history often takes a backseat. However, IfATE is keen to change this and is taking steps to do so. They are prioritising the recruitment of domain expert staff, for example, and have developed an education knowledge training programme for all personnel. IfATE also hosts regular expert speakers and is improving record keeping to ensure future policymakers can understand why decisions were taken. While IfATE is just one institution, their work is a hopeful sign that public bodies, government agencies and departments are beginning to recognise the value of having a strong policy memory.
Watch the full recording…