TOM DOWER, PRINCIPAL AT UTC SOUTH DURHAM – SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN EVIDENCE (YUN0075)

Youth Unemployment Committee inquiry

Thank you for inviting me to contribute to your evidence session on 24th June.  It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience.  You asked for further information on the following two areas; my opinion on T-levels and further information on the impact of UTCs on students with protected characteristics.  I have given answers to these two areas below, though the latter requires further analysis on my part.

However, I wanted to start by highlighting a simple example of the power of a UTC-style education in avoiding youth unemployment.   On the afternoon of the committee session, I received an email from the parent of a student who has just left Year 12.  Kyle completed his GCSEs with us and then a one-year practical engineering course involving the core units of a level 2 apprenticeship and resitting GCSE English and Maths.  He has now started an apprenticeship with a local fabrication company, having completed a two-week trial period with them.  She is happy for me to pass on her message and asked me to keep their names included (the only alteration I agreed with her is to remove the name of his former school from her original message).

Dear Tom and your team

I hope you are all keeping well.

I wanted to send an email to you all today as we approach the end of Kyles journey at UTC South Durham to express my sincere thanks to you all and your colleagues for supporting Kyle on his learning journey to a position whereby he has secured himself an apprenticeship at BS Fabrications.

I am sure most of you got to know Kyle initially for the wrong reasons. He joined UTC having had a difficult time, some might say, at his previous school and this I am sure for a while this extended into his time at UTC South Durham.

UTC never gave up on Kyle, embracing him and finding a spark in Kyle for learning that was not there previously. In my opinion this is because the staff have taken time to understand and know Kyle in order to untap his potential, increase his confidence and ability and set him on his way in to the real world. I genuinely believe without UTC Kyle would not be in the positive place he is now, having really turned things around for himself with a future ahead of him.

I am a huge advocate for your college, and I cannot speak highly enough about it. I only wish Kyle could have come to you earlier!

Thank you for everything, especially to Nicola for what was once almost daily calls

Best wishes

Beckie

She is in no doubt that Kyle would have been unemployed and struggling emotionally if he had not had the style of education we have given him over the last three years.  Some of this is down to pastoral support through tough moments and our tenacity in supporting him – any school or college should be doing that.  Some of this is down to the technical focus, which has given him the skills and experience to find a path.  However, the biggest factor by far is that he was treated from the moment he arrived at the UTC as a young professional, with a career focused, forward-looking education.  This meant that he understood why his education was important and where it could lead, felt respected by staff and, after a shaky start, rose to the challenge of taking responsibility for his future.  She has pointed out to me before that waiting until he’d finished his GCSEs before taking on a different education path would not have worked for Kyle – he would have disengaged completely by then. 

I hope that this serves to illustrate the points I was making in the session about the importance of employability skills and professional and career experiences alongside academic and technical learning, particularly from a young age.  I do firmly believe that the dominant focus of schools on academic qualifications as measured by exam success, and the league table and Ofsted pressure which drives this, needs to change.  I am encouraged in this regard by the focus of your committee and your lines of questioning.

T-levels

UTC South Durham is in the planning phase as part of the first wave of delivery of Engineering T-levels.  The content and assessment details are still not clear, though our Director of Engineering is a member of one of the panels designing the curriculum.  However, we see the aims of the T-levels and the content of the courses to be compatible with our current delivery.  The Engineering T-levels will demand a high academic entry level (grade 6s in Maths and Science) and provide a balance of academic, technical and workplace education which is to be applauded.  

I expect that we will be able to deliver a high quality experience for students, with robust maths and physics underpinning the technical learning.  It is excellent to see the requirement for significant work experience as part of the ambition for T-levels; I share concerns expressed by others in the sector and by businesses about the practicalities of securing high quality experiences for all students with companies.  I suspect that some flexibility in the design and delivery of this work experience will be needed in practice but the principle should be maintained.

My three concerns are related and are about their positioning within the education landscape and their credibility with universities and therefore students and parents. 

Firstly, there is a significant question about whether all universities will accept T-levels as meeting the entry requirements for degree qualifications (feedback from university colleagues locally has been very mixed).  This will make or break the credibility of T-levels with ambitious students and parents as a viable route to keeping options open in the future. 

Secondly, the binary choice of A-levels (mostly delivered at a 6th Form) or T-levels (mostly delivered at an FE College) reinforces the academic v vocational split which already exists, and which we spoke about at the session in June.  Most bright young people, faced with the choice (and guided by careers advisors and parents) will continue to choose A-levels and miss out on the value of the T-level experience.  UTCs have demonstrated very clearly that a blended academic, technical and workplace education sets young people up brilliantly for their careers.  The binary choice at 16 has to change.

Thirdly, the entry requirements of 6s are too high for many young people coming out of their GCSEs.  The introduction of a Transition programme is welcome as a preparation year but the level of academic requirement is still going to be beyond many young people for whom the experience of a T-level will otherwise be perfect.

My suggested solution is to have the option within a T-level programme of two levels of academic challenge.  Those students with top GCSEs, who are looking to degree courses and degree apprenticeships, could undertake full A-levels embedded within the T-level programme (in the case of Engineering that would be A-levels in Maths and Physics).  This would ensure that universities looked positively at T-levels and remove the fears of students and parents.  For those who are not at that level and have achieved 4s and 5s in their GCSEs, they can still undertake the bulk of the maths and physics required for an engineering career but at a lower level than the full A-level.  This would allow access to significantly more young people who would be extremely well set up for higher apprenticeships or foundation degrees.

Students with protected characteristics

I have attached a presentation prepared by Simon Connell, CEO of the Baker Dearing Trust, who facilitate the 48 UTCs across the country.  This has details on a variety of group characteristics and the analysis of UTC cohorts and destinations.  I appreciate that this does not cover a full coverage of the characteristics, but it does crucially look at their destinations and those in danger of becoming unemployed (NEET).  Data is based on 2020 UTC leavers.

I’d like to pick out the following aspects:

Disadvantage students make up a smaller proportion of UTC students than the national average.  Year 11 at 23% (compared to 27% nationally), Year 13 at 15% (compared to 18% nationally).  In my experience this is to do with the costs of being at a UTC (e.g. travel, uniform) or lack of understanding or support for a brave educational choice (the benefit of moving schools and taking on a longer working week with extra travel time).  However, of UTC leavers from Year 13, 60% of disadvantaged students go to university compared to 46% nationally and 9% to apprenticeships compared to 6% nationally.  Only 1% of disadvantaged students are classified as NEET after a UTC education compared to 12% nationally.

Ethnic diversity varies widely across the UTC programme depending on location and UTC specialism.  The information I have been able to find is on students classified as BAME.  These students make up 23% of Year 11 in UTCs (compared to 22% nationally), and 35% in Year 13 (compared to 22% nationally).  Of disadvantaged BAME students completing Level 3 qualifications, 72% from UTCs go to university, compared to 59% nationally.

SEND students make up a higher proportion of UTC students than other schools; Year 11 at 20% (compared to 11% nationally), Year 13 at 13% (compared to 11% nationally).  I don’t currently have destination figures for this group compared to national average but will analyse this information further based on the latest statistical release.

21st July 2021