Flowers in the Rain

14002202159_553f9d815a_k

This week it’s the unusual turn of Alan Titchmarsh to provide the provocation for the latest missive from All Change Please! In his recent Telegraph article he begins in potential prize-winning petunia fashion:

“It is surprising, but there are still some people in this world who think of apprenticeships as second-best, as a career path to be followed only by those unlucky enough to achieve grades that will not win them a place at university. It is a sentiment that is as inaccurate as it is flawed, and it has resulted, over the past 30 or 40 years, in a completely unbalanced workforce: a workforce lacking in practical skills and overpeopled by those with academic qualifications that have no relevance to their eventual employment.”

But then unfortunately his article starts to sprout a few weeds: “I bemoan the general lack of respect today for those who are good with their hands.”, which is followed later by references to a bouquet of “horticulture, thatching, building and wood-carving“.

It’s great that he is promoting the need for a drastic increase in the number and range of apprenticeships, but a shame that he mainly presents them in a 19th century way, associating them with rural crafts as activities that have always been portrayed as being essentially mindless and thus more suited to the non-academic amongst us: our hands do not work independently from our brains and our senses, but in close connection and interaction with them. Meanwhile in today’s world it’s the ability to create and communicate using the latest in material and production technologies that is the most sought after, alongside the ability to continually learn and update our skill-sets as things rapidly change.

What’s currently missing in education is a ‘Third Way’ that combines intellectual and practical creative and technical problem solving skills with an understanding of how the real world works – things that neither academia or many traditional purely craft-based apprenticeships currently provide. Such studies are not the most appropriate for everyone, but there are a sizeable number of bright and able, but non-academic, children who are going to miss out if – as appears to be happening at present – it becomes a two-way choice. Courses in Design and the Creative and Performing Arts used to provide such experiences and opportunities, but their second-rate valuation within the EBacc system and their increased academic content is diminishing their accessibility.

Surely we want all the plants and flowers in our garden to grow and bloom? And to do that we need to account for the fact that each variety develops and matures in different ways, at different times and in different conditions.

And here’s a post from someone who agrees!

https://designfizzle.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/the-apprentice-too-little-too-late/

 

Photo credit: Flickr / Tony Hammond

Hancock’s Half Hour

2385282543_9c4abd7d2f_b

Talk about taking one step forward and six steps Baccwards…

All Change Please! can report that the other day Skills and Enterprise Minister Matthew Hancock spent his Half Hour announcing further details of the new TechBacc.

Teenagers-to-sit-tough-new-Tech-Awards-to-learn-a-trade 

tech-awards-to-boost-vocational-education-for-14-to-16-year-olds

On the one hand was the laudable statement that “From 2015, all practical qualifications for 14- to 16-year-olds will be forced to meet rigorous new standards… to put them on par with academic qualifications”.  Now if All Change Please! didn’t know better it might believe the DfE really did know what they’re talking about this time, but as soon as it read “Previously, young people were encouraged to study meaningless qualifications completely unrelated to their lives or the rapidly changing world of work”, its suspicious were quickly aroused. The statement continued:

Previously, the development of practical skills for 14- to 16-year-olds was too narrowly focused on abstract theory. This has changed so that pupils could now:

  • in woodwork, measure, cut, joint and finish their own piece of furniture – previously they may have just studied the design of a chair

  • in textiles, students may now design and make an outfit from start to finish using a range of dressmaking or tailoring techniques – previously they may have just analysed the impact of changing technology on dress making

  • in electronics, use motion detectors, batteries and microprocessors to wire movement-controlled lighting – previously they may have just analysed a light to see how it functions.

Given that vocational courses are generally aimed at those who find abstract theory difficult to grasp and write academic essays about, it seems rather unlikely that any previous vocational qualifications were awarded simply on the basis of studying the design of a chair, analysing the technological history of dress-making, or describing how a light works. And of course designing and making furniture or an outfit from start to finish, or designing with electronics have long been a feature of GCSE D&T courses.

It rather seems that the DfE have followed Michael Gove, slipping down some sort of mysterious worm-hole time-warp and have found themselves stranded in a make-believe wonderland back in the 1950s where youngsters who are good with their hands end up learning a really useful trade that will see themselves through life, help them set up and maintain their nice new council house and have something nice to wear to church on a Sunday. What appears to be on the horizon is a return to woodwork for the boys and dressmaking for the girls, or as it used to be called in the good old 1950s, ‘Homecrafts’. Not that there’s anything wrong with learning these things, it’s just not even going to match up to the future needs of the ‘white heat of technology’ envisaged back in the 1960s. Somehow it sounds more like a preparation for life on benefits or the minimum wage.

And whatever happened to good old ‘social mobility’? Over the last thirty years the whole argument against these sorts of courses has been that they did not contain enough academic content to enable children who used to be called ‘late-developers’ to change their ‘learning pathway’ and gain entry to University. So how is that going to be resolved? Exactly how will the standards be equated with academic qualifications? It all sounds like another case of something the DfE have not thought through properly, but that doesn’t matter provided it gets some positive spin in the Daily Mail.

Meanwhile these days simply having specific ‘practical’ skills, while better than nothing, is not enough to ensure worthwhile 21st century employment. For example, to have any relevance at all, the ‘woodwork’ course will need to offer a much broader based experience, from wood crafts, coppice management and sustainable forestry, through construction carpentry and joinery, to automated wood fabrication techniques and modern engineered cellulose materials derived from wood products. And the content will also need to ensure that students have a wider understanding of the nature of business and the expectations of the workplace.

And anyway, if we’re going to have a TechBacc, isn’t it also time we had an ArtsBacc?

In other news… an article by Liz ‘No support’ Truss Britain-needs-a-revolution-in-the-classroom claimed that teaching was now the preferred option for Oxford graduates. And that’s the problem: academics are simply breeding more academics – education is little more than a self-perpetuating academic renewal device completely unconnected with the real world.

She’s right of course in one respect, Britain does need a revolution in the classroom. Just not the one that she has in mind.

And finally… some breaking news… Apparently:

Alan Milburn, the Government’s social mobility tsar, says that schools are “wasting young talent on an industrial scale” as figures suggest 2,000 bright pupils from poor backgrounds never reach their potential.

Meanwhile yet another spokesperson from the DfE said: “Improving the life chances of children from disadvantaged backgrounds and closing the gap between the rich and the poor is our overriding ambition.”

By ‘potential’ Alan Milburn means attending a leading academic Russell Group University and doubtless ending up with a job serving coffee at Starbucks, or, of course, teaching. As opposed to the quite unthinkable alternative of following a technical or vocational course and setting up a successful business. Provided that is it’s not in woodwork or dressmaking of course.

 

Image credits: Flickr  Philip Howard    /  Britt-Marie Sohlström