Get ’em young…

At the launch of a recent skills consultation, Charles Clarke, the then-education secretary, seemed like a groom who’d turned up to the wrong wedding. “I, er, can’t answer any questions,” he told an audience of training heads. “I’m due back at Whitehall in 10 minutes for a briefing on vocational education.”

It’s this kind of cack-handed planning that threatens to undermine the government’s attempts to reform the UK’s skills training. The Tomlinson Report, published last October, outlined proposals for an overhaul of education for 14 to 19-year-olds, with a specific drive to reform and raise the profile of vocational training in subjects such as construction. The white paper is expected to go before parliament within the next few weeks. It’s an opportunity for which the industry has been clamouring for years: it is 300,000 workers short of full capacity, and must recruit 88,000 people each year for the next five years if order books are to be completed. The skills crisis is getting worse, and something must be done to turn the tide before it is too late.

Nobody is better positioned to understand what changes are needed to recruitment and training than those at the heart of construction: clients, contractors and construction skills bodies. Mike Tomlinson’s report to the government recognised this: the former chief inspector of schools laid out the requirement that any overhaul of vocational subjects must only be performed with the full involvement of the industries in question.

And that’s the challenge. If construction, acting as a whole, can decide what it wants done to the training process, and prove it is committed to seeing this achieved, the government says it will do everything in its power to implement the changes. As Ivan Lewis, the skills minister, told delegates at a joint meeting of industry bodies SummitSkills and ConstructionSkills in November: “The industry needs to develop a structured, coherent and feasible skills programme that meets its training needs for young people. If it can do that, the government will put its full weight behind the proposals. But if you cannot provide us with that framework, we can’t help you.”

Unfortunately, there is little consensus within this fragmented industry on what it wants. Disagreement over levels of commitment, over the possibility of working productively with schools and government, and most fundamentally, over what type of training should be offered, threatens to bring progress to a halt.

Little workers or well-rounded students?

At the heart of the debate on skills is the question of what type of training should underpin construction subjects taught in schools. The industry is torn on this crucial issue. Some, including Sheila Hoile, director of training strategy at CITB-ConstructionSkills, feel that the way to encourage more people to join the industry is to emphasise its most advanced occupations. “It’s not just about putting people through craft-related courses,” she says firmly. “It involves teaching about design and familiarising people with the top end of the industry.”

Many disagree with Hoile’s assessment, claiming instead that the focus should be on manual trades. These skills form the backbone of the industry, and also account for its most acute labour shortages. Supporters of this view include Chris Humphries, who worked on the Tomlinson Report and is the director of skills body City & Guilds. Humphries also sat on one of the report’s main working groups. He insists that the report’s ethos – widening opportunity to areas not catered for under formal education – means focusing on manual trades.

“The school years are too early to focus on the business and technical sides of the industry,” he says. “Trying to teach project management to a pupil of 16 would be ridiculous. We have to give students a vision of how far they could progress in a career down the construction pathway, but the most important thing is to get a practical experience of the industry. That’s the way to maximise options.”

However, Humphries is equally critical of industry representatives who want to see pupils emerging from school as fully competent tradespeople. He believes that such specialisation denies pupils the chance to broaden their learning, and so contradicts the central aim of Tomlinson’s proposals. He stresses: “Turning out plumbers or electricians aged 16 defeats Tomlinson’s point of widening the choice available to students. We have to make sure the feeling pupils get of an industry is genuinely grounded in a trade or craft, but that doesn’t mean we have to drive them down a single route.”

Yet this fast-track approach is favoured by many employers and workers’ groups, who see it as a quick fix for problems in the labour market. Bob Blackman of the T&G union is among its strongest supporters. “If I had my way, I’d like to see 75% of all training courses focus on manual trades,” he says. “That’s where the real problem lies.”

No place for kids

The Tomlinson Report says that a school should not offer a practical course unless there are opportunities available locally for students to undertake work experience. Construction has historically suffered in this area: one of the major failings in the NVQ system is that students are delayed in achieving the qualification because they cannot find employers willing to take them on placements. Humphries admits that the report’s demands for practical work may be unachievable.

“I agree with the final report that it’s important to offer work experience,” he says. “But in fact for most small employers that is cloud cuckoo land. They simply don’t have the resources. I don’t think anyone has actually sat down and thought about how this would happen in practice.”

It’s not just small employers that are reluctant to offer places. Larger companies are often at the mercy of their clients’ contracts when it comes to letting young people have access to site;

high-profile bodies such as London Underground will not allow a person younger than 18 to work on their projects. This is partly due to the extremely strict European Health and Safety law that governs young people at work. Many clients and employers are not willing to risk the severe penalties that could follow if an accident did occur. Further, given the complexity of legislation, insurance providers are often reluctant to offer protection to companies that allow young people to work on their sites.

“Many companies won’t be able to retain their corporate insurance if they allow kids to undertake placements”, says Humphries. “It’s not just a legal issue, there’s a huge cost involved. How many companies can afford to take that chance? Employers will not co-operate unless the government and EU offer them proper protection. We need a workable system, or all the wishing in the world won’t make employers take young people on.”

Humphries’ stance is backed by Nick Mead, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ chairman of industry, education and training. Although consulting engineering practices and M&E contractors do take in work experience students from schools, Mead claims there are many factors that dissuade companies from offering placements. “On site work experience is not always practical,” he says, “due to the amount of staff time required for support and mentoring and the need to observe health and safety procedures.”

Mead suggests that if the number of students needing experience at any one time were reduced, companies may find the task less overbearing. “If small groups of students are given work experience throughout the academic year, rather than in one specific week as often occurs at present, then it may be more viable.”

Faking it

The potential volume of students taking up construction courses may mean that it is not enough simply to rotate them between the number of placements currently available. It is estimated that about 1 million extra students a year could follow vocational courses under the new system; and it’s thought that the majority of these could be lured to the industry. If that happens, the government may have to accept alternatives to genuine site experience.

CITB-ConstructionSkills’ Hoile recognises this: “We have to find other ways of giving people the experience they need without necessarily relying on traditional practices such as site experience. We would all agree that certain kinds of experience are unsuitable for young people. Our challenge is to discover innovative ways to provide work experience in an exciting but safe environment.”

One solution, already practised in pockets across the country, is to offer specially built centres that allow younger students to practice skills in a mock workshop environment (see box above). Some are run by employers – and this has fuelled concern over the increasing integration of private business with schools from educationalists already troubled by private-sector involvement in teaching at PFI academies. But there are advantages to such a close relationship between businesses and education, as Mitie director Adrian Dawson points out. “The real benefit of the scheme is our integration with the school, which is a long-term involvement that benefits both parties.” He is willing to defend his system against centres such as LETS Build: “Sending the kids off to a converted warehouse is better than nothing, but it’s far from the ideal solution.”

It’ll cost you

But training centres may also hold the key to meeting another of the Tomlinson Report’s requirements. The report claims that training should only be offered where the appropriate facilities and expertise can be guaranteed. Local centres mean that an area can pool its resources: if a facility is open to a number of schools in the region, an education authority needs to find less money for staff and equipment. But even with this partnership arrangement, there are still huge costs involved.

Tomlinson seems to have glossed over this fact. In his report, he states that “additional costs [to provide appropriate facilities] should not be substantial”. Humphries believes this is a huge oversight. “Funding is the one issue over which I fundamentally disagreed with Tomlinson,” he says. “What he says just isn’t true.” Humphries is right to be sceptical. To keep up with industry standards, construction tools must be replaced roughly every three years. “At the moment centres can’t afford to maintain their equipment or to update that often, so they go into decline,” says Humphries. Other costs would be transporting pupils between venues and paying appropriate salaries to experienced tutors.

So money is needed, and it has to come from somewhere. Humphries believes the government should bear the burden. “The UK spends a significantly lower percentage of its GDP on 14-19 education than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average,” he says. This is lower than most of its established competitors in the labour market. “If we want the economy to grow, we can’t do it by making a lower payment

per capita than everyone else. We must up our expenditure on training, and accept that’s part of the price for greater economic security in the future.”

Humphries is also aware that this could mean withdrawing financial support from more academic courses. “It may mean the government has to make a tough choice over higher education funding,” he warns. “It may have to redirect resources to those subjects that add economic value, and let those who want to do other forms of study pick up bigger shares of their own cost.”

Most construction groups claim they are prepared to foot their share of the expense, but not without government backing. CIBSE’s Mead emphasises the need to strike a balance: “Companies need to invest in their staff and their future but government must offer incentives similar to the earlier apprentice schemes of the 1970s and 80s.” He suggests that a waiver of National Insurance and tax relief on fees would help attract sector support.

The Construction Confederation is slightly more confrontational in its demands. A spokesperson says: “The industry sees the funding of training as an important investment for the future and will continue to make a substantial contribution reflecting this approach. However, it is important to recognise that high quality, practical, vocational courses are notoriously expensive to deliver and the government funding available needs to reflect this.” The spokesperson also challenges Whitehall to prove its commitment to change: “Funding would be the clearest indication that parity between academic and vocational training and qualifications is being taken seriously.”

Who’ll teach the teachers?

The most sophisticated construction course in the country will not attract pupils unless headteachers and careers advisers are made to promote the subjects as a viable option for pupils of all abilities, not just the less academic students. Bringing about this cultural change may be the toughest challenge facing reformers.

“Whether or not headteachers will view the courses as a good option for students is the $64,000 question,” says one education expert. “That is the fundamental challenge if Tomlinson’s report is to be realised. It’s not just about tweaking existing values, it’s about bringing a huge overhaul of perception.”

Tony Willson, a training adviser who has visited schools to promote the industry, says that in his experience many headteachers are willing to discuss the option of vocational courses, but hold on to a deep-rooted belief that they are a second-rate option. As one Cambridgeshire technology tutor put it: “It’s a generation thing. Most teachers are from an era where academia was seen as the golden standard, so it’s difficult to see that stance changing.”

There are some teachers who recognise the benefits of construction training. Brian Conway, head of design and technology at Hammersmith’s Cardinal Vaughan Memorial School, is amongst them. “I feel that vocational subjects such as construction are a real option for both weaker and stronger pupils,” he says. “Vocational learning gives the more able students the freedom to push themselves and try their hands at incredibly demanding tasks.”

However, Conway warns that other schools remain sceptical about the value of work-based learning. “Some schools, particularly the more traditional ones, might have concerns about vocational courses,” he says. “We are a progressive comprehensive school with a track record in finding courses to suit pupils, but some schools may not be as receptive to practical subjects.”

Real change or a passing phase?

Disagreements, of course, can be resolved. The Tomlinson Report, which gives 10 years before proposals have to be implemented, gives time for discussions to progress. Some say too much time, if groups are not prepared to make concessions progression will be blocked by a sense that issues are going round in circles. As one education specialist recognises: “The 10-year timescale is good in the sense that it means there won’t be a quick-fix approach, but it’s also dangerous as there’s a lot of time for people to lessen their commitment to the changes.”

If that happens, don’t expect the industry to be given another chance.