Definitions of “Technical Education” and “Industrial Workers”.

 (An interesting definition of technical education given in the Technical Instruction Act 1889).

“The expression ‘technical education’ shall mean instruction in the principles of science and art applicable to industries, and in the application of special branches of science and art to specific industries or employments. It shall not include teaching the practice of any trade or industry or employment, but, save as foresaid, shall include instruction in the branches of science and art with respect to which grants are for them time being made by the Department of Science and Art (DoSA), and any other form of instruction (including modern languages and commercial and agricultural subjects), which may for the time being be sanctioned by that Department by a minute laid before Parliament and made on the representation of a local authority that such a form of instruction is required by the circumstances of its district.”

 

Reference: Extract from the Technical instruction Act 1889.

Samuelson stated in 1890 technical education was “everything which prepares a man and woman for then walk of life which he or she intends to pursue”.

These definitions even accepting their limitations was used extensively into the 20th century.

For example Millis stated in 1925 “that the objectives of technical education were to provide instruction in the principles of art and science applicable to industry and in the application of special branches of art and science to specific industries and employment”.

These definitions did not identify the relationship between theory and practice within technical education. In addition the dividing line between technical and vocational remained unclear. Clearly the teaching of technical education is equally applicable to the teaching for the professions and services. These definitions did not identify the problems and challenges of the appropriate learning environment and the differences between education and training.

As this history highlights the balance between the teaching of the general principles and practical and specific skills continues to be a problem and at times a very contentious issue across all the educational sectors.

An early definition of  recognised categories of  Industrial Workers.

The Department of Science and Art (DoSA) defined in its 1870 Science and Art Directory categories of persons who could be regarded as industrial students as follows:

  1. Artisans or operatives in receipt of weekly wages.
  2. Coast-guards, policemen, and others, who, though in receipt of weekly wages, do not support themselves by manual labour.
  3. Teachers in elementary schools in connection with the Education Department.
  4. Persons in receipt of salaries not large enough to render them liable to income tax, as some descriptions of clerks, shopmen, etc.
  5. Small shopkeepers employing no one but members of their own family, and not assessed to income tax.
  6. Tradesmen and manufacturers on their own account, supporting themselves by their own manual labour, not employing apprentices, journeymen, etc., and not assessed to income tax.
  7. The children (not earning their own livelihood) of all such persons above mentioned.

Further definitions:

Technology: the scientific study of the practical or industrial arts.

Craft: skill, art, ability in planning or construction; a calling requiring special skill and knowledge; especially a manual art, a handicraft.

We can, somewhat simplistically, identify two kinds of education and training namely technological and technical to the broad classes of occupations e.g.

  1. Unskilled occupations
  2. Semi-skilled occupations
  3. Skilled craftsmen and technicians
  4. Professional and managerial occupations – scientists, technologists, managers and executives.

“Technical” education and training is largely concerned with (c) and with (b) whilst “Technological education and training” is concerned with group (d). Clearly these are very crude mappings and distinctions as ultimately demand depends critically on the advancing nature of science and technology and its impact on industry and working practices in the future.

The increasing introduction of robotics and information communication technologies into the workplace will fundamentally change the nature of work in the future. These changes will in turn significantly impact on the technical and technological education and training systems.

 

 

Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes Examinations Papers

 These examination papers were kindly sent to me by Pam Cruise and were taken by her Uncle Alfred Edward Audas. The certificates gained by Alfred are shown in another biography on this web site. After graduating he worked as a draughtsman at ICI in Warrington (NW England). I am very grateful to Pam for her generosity.

An uncle to be proud of.

Below are examples of ULCI examination papers taken by Alfred for 1939, and 1940 for English, Practical Drawing, Practical Mathematics and Science. It is interesting and fascinating to note the content, the standard, the wording and the practical bias of the papers.

(A recent report in England showed the dramatic decline in standards in mathematics over the past decades e.g. a grade B currently awarded for GCE ‘A’ level in Mathematics would have gained an E grade 50 years ago.)

Left click to see the image more clearly.

Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes: Preparatory Senior Technical Course 1st Year in 1939 for English, Practical Drawing and Science:

English:

Exam E1ExamE2ExamE3 ExamE4

 

Practical Drawing: 

Exam5 Exam6Exam7Exam8

 

 

 

 

 

Science:

 Exam9Exam10

 

 

 

 

Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes: Preparatory Senior Technical Course 2nd Year in 1940 for Science, Practical Drawing and Practical Mathematics:

Science:

Exam11 Exam12   Exam13   Exam17

Practical Drawing:

Exam14Exam15    Exam16    Exam17

 

 

Exam18           Exam19        Exam20

Practical Mathematics:

 Exam21         Exam22        Exam23

 Remember to left click to view papers clearly.

A Perspective on the Industrial Revolution

The Industrial Revolution was a significant characteristic of life in Britain during the 18th century. Major rapid changes occurred across many areas e.g. machine-labour in factories took the place of hand-labour in people’s homes and large-scale agriculture based on scientific principles replaced the medieval system of tillage on small plots of land.

This Revolution was a process and not a single event, it had no sharply defined stages, and nevertheless we can say that it had taken hold by 1783 when it was being generally introduced and applied in most leading industries at the time. In 1784 the invention of the power-loom marked the application of water-power to weaving which was the last main process of the textile industry to be power-driven. In 1785 the application of steam for driving spinning machines foreshadowed the wider development of factories using steam-power which subsequently changes the face of Britain.

This revolution in industry had results that continued into the 19th century. The introduction of machinery which replaced hand-labour caused unemployment and the consequent distress. Unemployment coupled with low wages paid to the factory workers, because of the oversupply of labour enabled the employers to pay low wages. In addition child labour formed a significant proportion of the labour force the children working to supplement family incomes. Later with the expansion of international trade made Britain became very wealthy although this wealth was concentrated in few hands. The money was very often used to fund wars and subsidise her allies.

The rapid development of manufacturing produced dreadful and dangerous working conditions in the factories. In addition large numbers of people moved into the cities and towns in order to be close to their work place which created insanitary, overcrowded houses and slums. These slums continued to exist well into the 20th century in many cities and towns,

As a result of the creation of the manufacturing base for the country agriculture experienced major changes and challenges. For example to be profitable farming had to be a much larger scale. Consequently the yeoman-farmer i.e. the farmer who was neither a large land-owner nor a tenant of a farm owner and worked his own land was in most instances forced to give up his farm. He would then become a labourer for a more prosperous person who had been able to buy his farm or move to a town to become a factory worker or to join the ranks of the unemployed in the towns.

The disappearance of the yeoman was but one of the significant changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution.

 

Source: Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes Examination paper for English in March 1939.

Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes Examination Certificates.

These were kindly sent to me by Pam Cruise and gained by her Uncle Alfred Edward Audas. After graduating he worked as a draughtsman at ICI in Warrington. I am very grateful to Pam for her generosity. An uncle to be proud of.

Below are copies of certificates :

They provide a fascinating insight to how the examination board recognised achievement.

Institution of Mechanical Engineering Higher Grade awarded in September 1952:

Alfred studied for this award at Birkenhead Technical College.

(Click the thumbnails to view full-size image)

Certificate      Certificate2

Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes. Preparatory Technical Certificate 1st and 2nd Years

1939 and 1940:

(Click the thumbnails to view full-size image)

Certificate4      Certificate5

Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes.

Mechanical Engineering Course Certificates 1st and 2nd Year 1941 and 1942:

(Click the thumbnails to view full-size image)

Certificate6      Certifiate7

Union of Lancashire and Cheshire Institutes.

Mechanical Engineering Course Advanced 1st Year 1950:

(Click the thumbnail to view full-size image)

Certificate3

 

Richard Trevithick (1771-1833).

Richard TrevithickRichard Trevithick, (image shown opposite), deserves a place alongside the other pioneers of steam engine developments like Thomas Newcomen and James Watt. He is credited with inventing the first high-pressured steam engine and the first operational steam locomotive (1803). He was born in Carn Brea in Cornwall which was at the centre of the then thriving mining industry in the county. His father was a mine captain and whilst attending Camborne School Richard became fascinated by the industry. In 1786 there were 21 Boulton and Watt steam engines operating in Cornwall and he learnt how they were designed and worked. He was a very confident and enthusiastic individual and because of his height became known as the Cornish giant. He started work at the age of 19 at the East Stray mine near Camborne under the supervision of William Bull who manufactured steam engines which were different from Watts’. In order to avoid the inventor’s patent Boulton and Watt sued Bull over violation of the patent and Richard Trevithick appeared as an expert witness in opposition to Watt which increased the hostility between Trevithick and Watt.

During the late 18th century many engineers were trying to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of steam engines. Watt was very sceptical stating that they ‘were all on the wrong track’. Trevithick struggled financially but was supported by his cousin Andrew Vivian and gained a great deal of scientific guidance from Davies Gilbert the MP for Penzance and Bodmin. Gilbert offered advice of how the steam pressures could be best operated in regard to the pistons and the cylinders. Gilbert went on to be elected president of the Royal Society succeeding Humphry Davy – note again the Cornish connections.

In 1796 Trevithick constructed two steam engines, one to drive a locomotive, the second a free standing/static engine. These were much simpler than the Boulton and Watt engines and delivered greater levels of power. He further developed these engines to drive winding wheels at Wheal Hope mine and quickly realised their potential because of their relatively small size, lightness and power capability to drive vehicles. On 24th December 1801 he drove a single-cylinder steam engine called the ‘the Puffing Billy’ in Camborne for a distance of one kilometre. In-spite of the short distance the event proved a great success which heralded a new age of faster travel. Initially the distance travelled was limited by the great consumption of water but further improvements with his partner Vivian overcame this and other problems. A picture of ‘the Puffing Billy’ is shown below.Puffing Billy

In 1803 he decided to demonstrate his steam carriage in London when trials were staged at Lord’s cricket ground and then down New road and Gray’s Inn Lane. However these ambitious demonstrations had limited success which caused some of his financial supporters to doubt the engines true potential. Four fatalities occurred when one of his pumping engines exploded and this caused further reservations prompted by Boulton and Watt’s heavy criticism of Trevithick and his inventions – such was their hostility to him! A picture of the London Steam Carriage locomotive by Trevithick and Vivian that was demonstrated in 1803 is shown below.

Vivian and Trevithick locomotive 1803However again help was on hand when Samuel Homfray owner of the Pen-y-darren ironworks in Wales bought the rights to some of the patents. In 1804 a new more powerful engine was used to win Samuel Homfrays bet that the engine could pull ten tons of iron along ten miles of tramway. This and other successes allowed Trevithick to continue his work on improving the steam engines both static and for locomotion. These steam locomotives would ultimately transform steam engines and allow a faster and safer mode of travel. In addition he developed a wide range of static steam engines used in boring, crushing, dredger (1806), iron rolling and milling (1805), pumping, threshing machine (1812) etc. He also developed a marine engine to drive paddle steamers as well as telescopic masts, buoy and floating docks.

Successful as he was with his inventions he possessed poor business sense and financial skills and experienced a number of bankruptcies. Three years after bankruptcy in 1811 an order for his engines was made by a silver mine in Peru and he decided in 1816 to seek his future and fortune in South America. In South America he again showed his extraordinary ability and enthusiasm being prepared to throw himself into all sorts of challenges and projects. He was appointed as an engineer in Lima but then the war of independence broke out. He served in Simon Bolivar’s army and then travelled extensively in Colombia, Costa Rica and Ecuador hoping to develop mining machinery and identify routes to transport ore and equipment but the independence wars that were sweeping the continent greatly curtailed his ambitions and he returned to England in 1827 penniless only to find other engineers had profited from his inventions including George Stephenson. George Stephenson however recognised Trevithick’s achievements and petitioned Parliament to give him a pension but this request was refused – another example of the commitment by politicians’ to technical and industrial development! He died in poverty in Dartford on 22nd April 1833 and buried in an unmarked grave.

A truly remarkable individual who has not received the recognition he deserves. Having lived and worked near Carn Brea and Camborne in Cornwall I know how much he is revered.

There is a Richard Trevithick Society which publishes newsletters and journals on him and the mining industry.

References:

Burton. A. ‘Richard Trevithick: Giant of Steam ISBN 1-85410-878-6. London. Aurum Press. 2000.

Dickinson. H. W. and Titley. A. ‘Richard Trevithick.’ CUP. 1934.

Dickinson. H. W. and Titley. A. A Short History of the Steam Engine.’ CUP. 1938.

Osborne. R. ‘Iron, Steam and Money: The Making of the Industrial Revolution.’ Pimlico. 2014

 

 

Eleanor Marx (1855-1898)

E MarxEleanor Marx was a remarkable individual who contributed to a number of causes and influenced not only her own generation but later ones. She was the youngest daughter of Karl Marx, born in London on 16th January 1855. By the time Eleanor was sixteen she acted as her father’s secretary, accompanying him to international conferences on socialism. She contributed to many movements during her relatively short life in many campaigns including those associated with the creation of trade unions, workers education, working conditions in factories and female equality. Many of these campaigns were associated with the education of workers. She was a rare example of someone who was able to combine theory and practice. Below I will try and record some of her campaigns and achievements.

She was an exceptional researcher and translator spending long periods in the British Museum Reading Room but was not afraid to initiate and get directly involved and lead from the front in campaigns e.g. she was an active strike organiser and union administrator e.g. secretary of the National Union of Gas Workers and General Labourers of Great Britain and Ireland which later merged to form the General and Municipal Workers Union, and then became the GMB. Eleanor was very committed to the formation of trade unions seeing them as a positive mass movement representing skilled and non-skilled workers. Initially the trade union movement and membership was exclusively for skilled workers who were resistant and hostile to membership of non-skilled workers. In 1889-90 she supported and mentored the head of the National Union of Gas Workers and General Labourers during a crucial strike and established the first women’s branch of that union.

Her very detailed research led to many seminal lectures and pamphlets e.g. drawing attention to the ineffectiveness of the Factory Acts (1) which were supposed to improve the working and employment conditions in factories and provide basic education to young workers.

In 1884, Eleanor joined the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) and was elected on to its executive. Her involvement in the SDF played a key part in advocating and supporting workers’ education.

In 1876 Eleanor Marx became an active campaigner for female equality when she helped a female candidate win a seat on a London School Board. In 1886 Eleanor got involved with the Women’s Trade Union League. She also got directly involved in the Bryant and May match-girl strike and in 1889 she became involved in the Dock workers’ strike.

She served as an administrator and fundraiser for the Amalgamated Society of Engineers (ASE) and helped carry out the ASE’s campaign for the eight-hour day.

Her range of activities was remarkable she was a gifted speaker, writer and knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects particularly economics through her major editorial role for her father Karl Marx’s works. She was an internationalist, translator and interpreter in French, German, Russian and English, interested in literature as well as politics. Hers was the first translation into English of Gustave Flaubert’s French novel Madame Bovary and she taught herself Danish so that she could translate Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House.

What made her particularly a special and effective campaigner and activist was that she instigated and remained committed to the causes that she fought for.

She published a large number of books, articles and pamphlets covering a wide range of social topics including:

“The Woman Question: From a Socialist Point of View.” (1886).

“The Factory Hell” (1885).

“The Working Class Movements in America.” (1888).

“The Working Class Movement in England. (1896).

Before his death, Karl Marx had given Eleanor the task of preparing his unfinished manuscripts for publication. Eleanor also had the task of dealing with the English publication of Das Kapital . Eleanor was involved in translating and editing volumes of Kapital as well as editing Marx’s lectures   “Value, Price and Profit” and “Wage Labour and Capital”. She also contributed many articles for Justice a political journal. 1898.

  1. Factory Acts. See Biographies on this website.

References:

Excellent biographies of her life and accomplishments –

Holmes. R. ‘Eleanor Marx’. ISBN 9780747583844. Bloomsbury Publications Plc. 2014.

Tsuzuki. C. ‘The Life of Eleanor Marx 1855-1898. A Socialist Tragedy.’ Oxford Clarendon Press. 1967.

Kapp. Y. ‘Eleanor Marx.’ Two volumes. Lawrence and Wishart. 1972 and 1976.

 

I intend to expand this biography later.

The Factory Acts

 

The period of the Industrial Revolution witnessed unprecedented changes and transitions in society. Massive numbers of people moved from the country to the emerging industrial cities and towns. People who previously worked on the land or in cottage industries (e.g. hand spinning and weaving) became workers in factories undertaking largely non-skilled manual jobs. The Revolution brought about both positive and negative consequences including massive pollution and overcrowded and wretched living conditions for these workers. The phrase “dark Satanic Mills” is often used to describe the early Industrial Revolution and its destruction of nature and human relationships (although this interpretation is often disputed). As a result of these negative consequences a series of Factory Acts were campaigned for by workers themselves and their radical supporters and established during the 19th century. These Acts were passed by the UK Parliament and addressed the conditions that workers routinely endured in factories and other workplaces e.g. coal gas production, office, typists, India rubber processing. The working conditions during the Industrial Revolution were hideous because the main aim of employers was to maximise profits. Workers were exploited through very low wages, long working hours, dangerous working environments. The wide spread disregard for workers’ health and safety included conditions associated with poor ventilation, lack of accident prevention, medical facilities and sanitation.

Employment regulation, conditions, working hours and related laws were non-existent particularly for women and children and trade unions were still to become active and effective. In fact employers were very hostile to the creation of trade unions or any form of workers’ movements. Initially the membership of the first Trade Unions was exclusively for skilled workers and these were resistant indeed hostile to membership by non-union workers. Conditions of service were also unknown in regard to length of working hours, medical care and holidays. Analysing the impact of the successive Acts shows that they were largely ineffective and the legislative content took a long time to be fully enacted. The topics and themes addressed were very relevant and appropriate but as so often the major problems were in their implementation and arose largely because of indifference and hostility by employers

Reasons given for the slow implementation of the legislation were that the pace of the Industrial Revolution was so great that employers were able to ignore or circumvent any regulations and inspection regimes. Other commentators characterised it as a typical example of English practical empiricism. However in retrospect whatever the reasons any analysis highlights that the impact of the successive Acts were largely ineffective and the eventual legislative enactment did take a long time.

One of the first and articulate critics of the Factory Acts was Eleanor Marx in a series of seminal lectures and publications (1). She analysed in great detail the content and subsequent impact of successive Acts and starkly showed that the legislation was ineffective and mostly unenforced. She was a voice alone in highlighting and bringing these facts to the attention of the wider public. Eleanor was a leading figure in the creation of trade unions and advocate for the working classes including their education.

A Factory Inspectorate was finally established in 1833 but again had little impact until much later. It was only after the 1860s onwards that more industries were brought within the orbit of the Factory Act. In 1910 Sidney Webb, an influential economist, reformer and co-founder of the London School of Economics and active member of the Fabian Society stated that the Factory Act and its associated legislation had been ineffective and were only then becoming effective.

A list of some of the Factory Acts is given below with the remit:

Note: The early Acts mainly concentrated on regulating the hours of work and moral welfare of young children employed in cotton mills. Later Acts extended their remits to other industries and issues associated with factories and the workers including women and apprentices.

1802: Health and Morals of Apprentices Act. This limited the workday for apprentices to 12 hours.

1819: Cotton Mills and Factories Act. Cotton mills could not employ young people under the age of 9 and limited workdays for 9 to 16 year olds to 12 hours. Key figure Robert Peel.

1825: Cotton Mills Regulation Act.

1829: Act to Amend the Laws relating to the employment of Children in Cotton Mills & Manufactories.

1832: The first ‘Ten Hour Bill’ – Sadler’s Bill (1832).

1833: Labour of Children, etc., in Factories Act – Althorp’s Act. This extended the 1819 Act to all textile mills except silk and lace. No child worker under 9 years of age. Workdays for children 9-16 years old limited to 8 hours and for 13-18 limited to 12 hours. In addition children could not work at night. Interested to note young people under 13 had to receive education for 2 hours per workday, paid for by the worker. Employers were also required to have an age certificate for young workers and four factory inspectors had to be appointed to oversee the regulations and law.

1842: The Mines Act. Women and young people under the age of 10 prohibited from working underground.

1843/44: Graham’s Factory Education Bill. Act limited to textile mills. Workday for women and young people aged 8 to 13 limited to 6.5 hours a day. Young people had to receive a minimum of 3 hours education each day. Women prohibited to undertake night work and limited to 12 hours of work Women forbidden to do night work and limited to 12 hours of work.

1847: Factory Act. Workday for women and young people aged 13 to 18 limited to 10 hours a day or 58 hours per week.

1850: Factory Act – the ‘Compromise’ Act.

1853: Employment of Children in Factories Act. Young people aged 8 to 13 could not before 6 am or after 6 pm, or 2 pm on Saturday.

1856: Factory Act. National Association of Factory Occupiers to enforce adherence of the regulations and laws.

1867: Factories Act Extension Act and Hours of Labour Regulation Act: Extended earlier factory legislation to include non-textile factories and workshops. The Act prohibited the employment of young people less than 8 years of age. Young people aged between 8 and 13 had to receive a minimum of 10 hours of education per week.

1867: Agricultural Gangs Act. Prohibited the employment of young people under 8 and the employment of women and young people in a field gang that included men.

1871: Factory and Workshop Act.

1878: Factory and Workshop Act. Factory code applied to all trades. Compulsory education for young workers up to 10 years of age. 10 to 14 year olds could only be employed for half days. Maximum hours for women limited to 56 hours per week

1891: Factory Act. Raised working age from 10 to 11and introduced working conditions on women who were pregnant

1895: Factory and Workshop Act. Review the impact and effectiveness of the previous Acts.

As can be seen from the above detail successive Acts dealt with the same issues and in some cases reviewed the enforcement or lack of the legislation in earlier Acts. For example the various Acts often advocated education for children workers BUT did not say how this was to be operated or inspected.

  1. See biography on website .

I intend to expand this topic later.

 

 

The City and Guilds TechBac

 

The City and Guilds Institute of London (CGLI) has developed a new qualification namely a TechBac. Everyone interested in education knows that the current education and training system is failing to deliver the skills needed for employment and the workplace. There is now a consensus amongst educationists, employers, parents and students that the curriculum is too narrow and academic. In addition the curriculum is dominated by over assessment and examinations regimes which further deflect the teaching and learning process from its true purpose. A great deal of time is spent preparing for assessments and examinations and an obsession with national league tables. The curriculum is very much prescribed and allows teachers and students little freedom to explore wider issues. Little attention is given to the soft skills like, communication, managing one’s own learning, mentoring, numerical and financial literacy, problem solving, and working in teams. Also little opportunity exists for meaningful work experience programmes and hence the gaining of knowledge and the necessary skills required for the workplace. A recent survey of employers showed that 77% of them thought that a work experience prepared the learners to be more work ready. Previous attempts to introduce vocational elements into the curriculum have largely failed e.g. CPVE, GNVQs, vocational diplomas and the TVEI because they did not find favour with one government or another.

The development of a Baccalaureate type qualification in this country has had a chequered history. The proposed British Baccalaureate in 1990 promised much being sponsored by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) and a number of Labour politicians including Tessa Blackstone but was quickly dropped when the Labour party was subsequently elected in 1997. The debates after the publication of the British Baccalaureate centred on the sanctity of ‘A’ levels and as usual their supposed gold standards, and indeed those of the GCSEs which continued to reign supreme. The curriculum maintains its academic bias still today. Other attempts to introduce a baccalaureate failed (see article ‘The TechBacc- What Chance of Success’? (1)).

So it is with great interest that the City and Guilds (CGLI) are developing a new qualification for 14 to 19 year olds called the ‘TechBac’ and have argued that the award will create the technical and professional skills needed for the modern workplace. In addition the award will offer progression to apprenticeship programmes and to further and higher education and training. The Institute has worked closely with industry to gain endorsement of the award as well as helping to develop the specification to create the skills that employers want from their employees. Employer involvement has been significant at the design, recognition, and assessment stages which will engender credibility with employers, parents and the learners themselves. The award is available at level 2 and 3 with different sizes of units to fit the learner’s study programme and can be delivered in one or two years. The award has been approved by the Department for Education (DfE) and will attract UCAS points and will be published on national performance tables. The TechBac comprises two main elements: technical skills; and transferable skills and workplace behaviours. The technical skills have been designed to meet the latest industry needs and standards and to be rigorous and delivering high quality practical learning. The professional transferrable/workplace skills aim to develop, accredit workplace skills and help the learners to be more confident, competent and ready for employment in the world of work.

The award has also introduced a reduced assessment burden with an interesting grading profile namely grade 1: outstanding, grade2: good, grade 3: requires improvement and grade 4: inadequate. The Technical Certificate (TC) will consist of 360/450 Guided Learning Hours (GLHs) made up of 30/60 GLH units. A pass of the Technical Certificate (TC) will allow progression to an apprenticeship programme or onto a level 3 Technical Level Qualification (TLQ). The award comprises a set of mandatory content which must make up at least 40% of the qualification. A proportion of the awards will be assessed externally with a minimum of 25% for the Technical Certificate (TC) and 30% for Technical Level Qualification (TLQ).

The award will include a practical work experience programme which will allow the learners to monitor, evaluate their work placement and encourage the placement providers to improve the quality of future placements. In addition an assessed project qualification which will help to develop the learners’ independent study skills. Soft skills will also be assessed which are not currently accredited by other qualifications. The award will be available to schools and colleges and will offer provision for 14 to 18 yea rolds.
Clearly there are many challenges in introducing the award. It will face the same issues that have dogged previous attempts to introduce vocational elements in the curriculum. It must be strongly promoted and endorsed by the government, employers, customers and educationalists. Education and training providers must provide clear, honest brokership and open information, advice and guidance to prospective student’s i.e. articulate ambassadors to champion the new award. Hopefully it will succeed and realise parity of esteem with existing awards. It will be introduced in 2017.

For more information of the TechBac visit the CGLI website http:/techbac.com

References:

(1)   www.techedarchive.org

 

Summary of Progression Routes:

Possible choices:

Up to 16 >CORE +EBacc GCEs+3Technical Awards or non-core GCSEs +Additional GCSEs or Other qualifications.

16 to 18 >‘A´ levels/Applied Generals/Tech Levels/TechBac/Technical Certificates/Apprentices/Traineeships. Mixed programmes can also be taken i.e. blend of Applied Generals, ‘A’ levels and Technical Qualifications.

18+> Higher Education or Apprenticeship or Employment.

The above is a classic example of a clustered and confusing qualification landscape so typical of this country.

The Trailblazer Apprenticeship Programme – A Promising Initiative.

Apprenticeships still occupy a central part of the skills agenda, but will all this discussion bring about the high quality frameworks that are now urgently required? The main political drive seems to be to create large numbers of apprenticeships, but with little reference or debate about the quality and fitness for purpose of the programmes. These two elements are surely the most important and should not be subverted by political hype over the numbers taking them up.

Too often politicians get carried away quoting numbers, imagining the larger the number, more of the population will be conned into believing their commitment to an issue! It’s the old issue of quality verses quantity. Significantly, however, one aspect of the government’s namely the Trailblazer initiative, which was launched in March, looks promising and could create effective apprenticeship programmes. A number of key professional bodies have been very actively involved with the initiative including the Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering (CIPHE). Other Trailblazer programmes will be launched over the next few years and will represent other profession and trades.

Colleges and college lecturers want to play a key part in developing and delivering high quality apprenticeships, working closely with employers and the relevant professional organisations. The CIPHE has led the way with involvement in the Trailblazer initiative, which allows employers to be involved in designing the programmes and equally important, directly defining and developing the skills that their workers need now and in the future.

The success of the Trailblazer initiative highlights the importance of networking across a wide range of stake holder’s e.g. professional bodies, employers, awarding bodies, colleges and training providers and standard setting organisations. This is but one element of the programme that promises much for the future. The programme is set at Level 3 with an entry Level 2 in English and Mathematics and is delivered over 48 months, with an opportunity for the assessment/accreditation of prior experience and learning (APEL), for candidates with relevant previous experience. A comprehensive set of units both general and specialised provide all the necessary knowledge and skills for the practitioner including health and safety, dealing with customers in order to understand the complexity of the profession

The knowledge, skills and behavioural specification is comprehensive and provides a strong foundation for practitioners of the future. The specification fully recognises the importance of mathematical, scientific and equally important the practical and behavioural skills needed

along with the wider core/soft skills.

Finally on graduation a clear progression career route is defined by the award of EngTech, accredited by the Engineering Council in association with CIPHE. This sets the scene for practitioners to progress to higher professional memberships e.g. Incorporated and Chartered Engineer following work experience and Continuous Professional Development (CPD). It is hoped the Plumbing Trailblazer programme will be formally launched in 2017.

I am relatively optimistic about the initiative and hope that colleges will be significantly involved in the delivery and further development. This development will benefit the students, employers and colleges and raise the profile of the professional status of plumbing and heating engineering.  Hopefully other professional and trade associations will develop their apprenticeship programmes.

 

The British Problem – Productivity and Manufacturing!

 

(Productivity is a measure of the efficiency with which available resources are used in production).

Current debates about rebalancing the economy and the ability of the country to compete in the global market constantly highlights the low current productivity levels in the manufacturing industry. The need to increase exports significantly in the future is crucial to this endeavour. International surveys over many years have shown consistently that we lag well behind most of our international competitors. For example for the G7 nations Britain was on average 17% less productive and an often quoted statement is that France is 20% more productive than this country i.e. they achieve in four days what we do in five.

The OECD report in 2014 also highlighted that the country had become even less productive, decreasing by 3% per hour between 2007 and 2012. Even accepting the complexities associated with the factors in play when defining and measuring productivity and the confusing array of the resulting statistical interpretations, the reality is that the country is performing poorly.

A recent report has identified the need to increase exports to £1 trillion by 2020, but the indications already show this target is unrealistic and is very unlikely to be achieved falling short by at least 30% There are a wide range of complex and interconnected causes in play creating these problems, including low investment in research and development (R&D) and poor innovation and creativity skills. The solutions will take a long time to reform and implement and will require radical approaches, free from political dogma and micro-management. One essential element is the need to develop high quality technical education and training following these reforms and again the FE sector must be significantly involved.

So what are the factors that have created low productivity? As already mentioned there are many dimensions, including the inadequate resourcing and support of technical and vocational education and training. The country operates a low skill/ low wage/high employment policy, which increasingly depends on immigrant workers, who are prepared to work for low wages. Other factors include workers’ motivation, the work environment, pay, conditions of service, the paucity of CPD and the quality of leadership and management. Recent surveys show that a large number of office workers spend a great deal of the working time using the internet, Facebook and twitter for their own purposes. This is a very sad statement about the workers commitment and loyalty to the company and also reflects poor management and supervision. This contrasts with the China when a recent survey showed that 60% of the Chinese workforce work overtime voluntarily.

Many commentators argue that to maintain a productive industrial base, some unemployment is necessary but also underpinned by an effective and efficient technical education and training system. Investing in our own education and training system is essential. After all, I would argue that taking people from abroad can be seen as unethical, where often poorer countries have invested in their own people and then to see them poached by richer countries. I accept that social and economic mobility is a fact of globalism, but there has be an understanding of the wider issues in recruiting overseas people including the ethical ones.

Clearly if a reformed and effective manufacturing base is established by this government, then the issue of low productivity must be addressed recognising the complex mix of factors that creates it. This would also have significant impact on the technical and vocational curriculum in FE colleges which will require colleges to inform students of the issues involved: the rationale for greater use of work experience programmes and the creation of realistic working environments in colleges would provide students with a greater understanding of the work place and the factors that contribute to low productivity and how they can improve it.

Again this puts Further Education Sector and apprenticeships centre stage in producing the qualified and informed workers of the future.

Some comments on competitiveness:

Britain is at present the fifth-largest economy but is tenth in competitiveness according to the World Economic Forum –  a figure that is continuing to decline.

Britain invests far less in training than its European counterpart and cuts back even further during recessions.

Poor quality management and leadership in manufacturing further weaken competitiveness and undermines any chance of improvement.

Productivity and competitiveness are very important contributing factors for  success in the global economy.

Evidence, both national and international shows that Britain does not have an effective strategy on manufacturing.