I’d just like to sincerely thank everyone who’s read my blog this year (it’s particularly great to hear from you – do keep ‘em coming!) and extend season’s greetings to you all.

I’ll be back again in January for what will be a very exciting and important start to the year for Edge, as we face a General Election. We’ll be doing everything we can to ensure our Six Steps To Change appear in party manifestos and encouraging everyone (and that means you!) to ‘Have your say’ on the UK’s education system at www.edge.co.uk/haveyoursay

Happy holidays!

Test emotional and practical abilities as well as academic ability

I was involved in a meeting recently where two CEOs of major UK companies commented privately to each other that, whereas 80% of their recruitment was based on IQ, 80% of promotion internally was related to ‘EQ’ or emotional intelligence. This summarises the problem.

The story probably comes as no surprise to anyone. As well as the basics – reading and writing and good communication skills - employers say they are looking for people who turn up on time, have a positive attitude, initiative, are keen to learn, can get on with other people and work in teams, understand about the world of work (particularly as it applies to their type of organisation or sector), and have the confidence to look customers in the eye. They also say that there are too few young people with these qualities at present, whatever their formal qualification.

So, we have two problems to solve if we are to make young people more attractive to hirers. First, encouraging and enabling young people to gain these skills and attributes and to develop their EQ. And secondly, making it easier for employers to know to what extent a potential recruit has them.

Most of the skills and attributes mentioned above are not best gained in the classroom or through reading about them – they are learned through doing, and reflecting on that practice. It therefore follows that all young people should be given far more opportunities throughout their formal education to do things for real, work with experts, and combine theory and practice – ‘the other half of the curriculum’. In Edge’s surveys, over 70% people consistently support this – whether employers, parents, teachers or young people themselves. The main thing that needs to be done is to remove the barriers that currently make this difficult. From a government and system point of view in particular, this means changing people’s view of ‘success’ and how success is measured. Numbers of GCSE and A-level grades are no longer fit for purpose.

The next issue is how to assess whether someone has these skills. The acquisition and retention of knowledge and the ability to provide written analysis is very simply done through examinations. We are used to this. We have elaborate systems whereby certain organisations are licensed to develop syllabi, set and mark exams, and award qualifications. Actually, as the two CEOs tacitly acknowledged, we are also very used to assessing peoples skills, attitudes, competences – call them what you will. We do it at work all the time through observation and performance reviews.

The point is that we now have the technology to enable this to happen throughout people’s lives, don’t we? There are many paths to success and we can all record what we have done in various ways, gaining references and comments from those peers and seniors and experts who have observed us. All young people could - and should - be guided in recording and reflecting on what they have done and gaining the views of others; whether that be within holiday jobs, work experience, hobbies, or their own family. How they have been creative? How they have shown initiative? How they have supported others emotionally?

The only part of the jigsaw left is the validation of these experiences and references. This of course is what Awarding Bodies should be doing, in the same way that they validate examinations. And employers should be able to gain this assessment from licensed Awarding Bodies, rather than having to judge the relevance of endless finely-crafted CVs telling tales of being School Prefect, and Duke of Edinburgh’s Gold, and Rugby Captain, and Grade 8 on the Cello. If Awarding Bodies are not prepared to make the investment (probably because there is so much money to be made from the boom in examinations), then government should step in with some commercial partners and make it happen.

Same old 'academic is best'

First, thank you for all the positive responses regarding my last blog on Reform’s research. This week yet another think-tank piece of research with negative ‘vocational’ undertones hits the media – this time from Civitas, entitled “The Secrets of Academies’ Success”. Today’s Telegraph and BBC news online both cover the study stating that academies are aiming to gain good grades and higher rankings in league tables by entering pupils into “easier” vocational courses. It claims that pupils are being “short changed” by Academies who are not prioritising rigorous education. Here we go again!

The study looks at why Academies are succeeding (purely using GCSE equivalent results as the definition of success!), and the hypothesis is that Academies may be dropping academic subjects for ‘educationally weak but statistically strong’ vocational courses. The conclusion: “Nevertheless, even if the ‘gap hypothesis’ [basically that Academies’ league table results are boosted by students being entered for more vocational subjects] itself is spurious, the fact remains that any significant disparity between the headline figures of Academies and those of mainstream schools itself warrants investigation.” Wow – that was worth 69 pages then!

It’s so disappointing. By all means explore vocational and practical qualifications: Which are really good quality and which are not? Which contain strong hands-on learning and are taught by experts using appropriate facilities? And why have some proved so successful in terms of confidence and motivation as well as ‘exam results’? You only need to go and talk to young people doing Young Apprentices to find out about that one. And by all means explore the evidence relating to the quality of children’s education in Academies as opposed to other types of school - for example, do they include more enterprise and real-world learning than other schools? But please do not lend credence to the view that ‘academic is best’ in order to gain publicity.

What those such as Civitas consistently refuse to recognise publicly is that there are many talents and paths to success, and some young people do not enjoy "academic" styles of learning. Many young people are motivated by practical and vocational learning. As a result of being better engaged in their subjects, young people are more likely to do well in their exams – and are therefore more likely to stay in education or training after the age of 16.

Detailed analysis of successive cohorts from the Youth Cohort Study shows that the single biggest influence on post-16 decisions is the young person’s level of attainment in school. And staying on after 16 is important because research (such as the report prepared by Edcoms for the Department for Education and Skills) shows that people’s chances of success in adult life are greatly improved by developing skills and knowledge throughout their teenage years, not just up to 16.

Edge’s newly-opened academies in Nottingham and Milton Keynes provide a curriculum rich in practical, vocational and academic learning. They’re aiming to provide a broad range of options which we hope will enable all pupils to discover their individual strengths, gain recognition for their achievements and be inspired about their futures.

Practical and vocational qualifications provide a sound education route for many young people - and should not be repeatedly disparaged by those who like to suggest there is only one legitimate path to success …or who are simply looking for media coverage.

A bit of a backlash?

I was interested to read a couple of articles relating to a new report by Reform, the alleged independent non-party think tank, which advocates a return to greater and more stretching academic study for all students (see, for example, the Guardian) The report is called ‘Core Business’. So I asked a research colleague to review the report; his conclusions:

“It pretends to be based on evidence, and there are hundreds of references to source material to lend a tone of academic rigour. Sadly, many people will be fooled by it. But the ‘evidence’ has been selected very largely on the basis that it supports the argument, not whether it stands up to scrutiny. Evidence that does not support the argument is ignored.”

I thought I better read the report myself to check it out. My colleague was right. I was shocked actually, it was so clearly a statement of beliefs bolstered by spurious argument and arbitrary evidence. Maybe the growing support for ‘many paths to success’ and the appreciation of the importance of more practical and ‘real world’ learning is causing a backlash. It’d be nice to think so – a sign of success!

If you want to read a proper piece of research that includes trenchant analysis and challenging conclusions, albeit based on a clear ideological stance, then you should get hold of the latest work of Alison Wolf, ‘An Adult Approach to Further Education’, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs. I won’t say more because I’m still reading it … and thinking about it!

Talking of Alison Wolf, she also appeared recently in an interesting article in the US that debated whether people should go to college or not - it's well worth reading.