Qualifications not duration key to education

David Willetts, Tory education secretary

Monday, 11, Jun 2007 12:00

David Willetts, the Conservative shadow education secretary, warns forcing young people to stay in education will not guarantee they gain valuable qualifications, urging the government to tackle underachievement at every stage.

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have made education policy and youth unemployment a focus of the Labour government for the past 10 years. It is therefore depressing that the number of 16-18 year-olds not in education, employment or training (the so-called 'NEETs') has risen from 160,000 in 1997 to 220,000 in 2005. Labour's recently published Green Paper is trying to respond to this failure by proposing to raise the leaving age for compulsory education or training from 16 to 18. Despite the good intentions, this could end up letting young people down. Why?

Let us start by looking at what has actually happened over the past 10 years. Gordon Brown has brought more teenagers into post-16 education, but has taken them from employment not unemployment. Why has the increase in the number of teenagers in education come at the expense of jobs, not NEETs? The root cause is a problem with educational standards in Britain. Many teenagers have been failed by the school system which means they lack the qualifications required to gain a job or stay in education. For example, 30 per cent of young people who had gained fewer than 5 GCSE grades D-G turned into NEETs aged 18. Moreover, Labour has spent a lot of effort getting such teenagers onto schemes that aren’t working, such as the New Deal.

We are sceptical about simply forcing young people to stay in education or training until 18 because this does not of itself improve the education of young people, raise their skills or increase their chances of getting a job. In fact, it runs the danger of keeping teenagers in education, but not giving them a qualification. Even if they do gain qualifications, these may not improve their career and earnings prospects, since some NVQs have a negative value for their holders. And if they want to work, teenagers may be priced out of a job market because some employers will simply stop hiring 16-18 year-olds if they have to train them. Labour ignores that being in employment itself improves employability and social mobility.

The government needs to explain what compulsion would really mean. Will non-complying teenagers be jailed? Or their parents? Alan Johnson has spoken about the potential withdrawal of benefits for non-compliance, but would strict enforcement of compulsion to 18 really be feasible? Also, this comes at a time when Labour considers dropping compulsion from the New Deal programme which was once considered integral to its success.

Instead of conscripting teenagers into education and training until 18, we should address the problems of NEETs and educational underachievement at each stage of young people’s development: school, career choice, vocational training and support for getting into work. First, we should raise standards in our schools by introducing synthetic phonics in all primary schools and promoting greater use of setting in secondary schools. Rigour needs to be restored to school exams and league tables should focus on the core subjects. Second, we should introduce a more effective careers service in schools so pupils can make informed career and training choices. For example, advising pupils choosing their GCSEs at 14 will help them to avoid picking subjects that are unsuitable to the kind of job they would like to do later in life. Third, we need to improve the quality of apprenticeships and NVQs, for example by making sure their curriculum teaches what employers really need. Fourth, we need to reform the New Deal to ensure participants don’t immediately slide back into benefits once they leave the programme.

I fear compulsion to 18 would not work if all the chancellor offers young people is inadequate schooling, virtual apprenticeship and training schemes that don’t boost employability. Instead, we need better schools, better vocational training and apprenticeships that employers really value. That is the only way to reverse the dramatic increase in the number of young people not in education, employment or training.