In his first weeks as Prime Minister, Andy Burnham has promised a fundamental change to England’s education system.
His government wants young people from the age of 14 to have early access to technical education, skills training, work experience and local employers. Schools, colleges, mayors and businesses would work together to create clearer routes into skilled employment, while Ofsted would be expected to recognise the quality of technical education alongside more traditional academic outcomes. The stated ambition is to begin rolling out the new pathways from September 2028.
The principle behind these reforms is an important one. Technical and vocational qualifications have been discussed as alternatives for young people who are considered not to have succeeded academically for a long time.
A university degree has often been presented as the most prestigious route, while apprenticeships and occupational qualifications have traditionally been treated as second choices. This is a hierarchy that needs to change.
From my own experience as a teacher, there are some young people who know from an early age that they are interested in a practical field, such as engineering, construction, healthcare, technology, etc. These students should not have to spend years following a form of education that feels disconnected from their interests simply because it is regarded as the conventional route to success.
However, Andy Burnham should understand that creating more pathways is not the same as creating more freedom.
Unless the reforms are designed carefully, there is a danger that an attempt to dismantle one educational hierarchy could create another: a system in which some young people retain a broad education and the freedom to decide later, while others are encouraged to narrow their options at 14.
More choice cannot mean earlier limits
It’s important to keep in mind that schools are not currently organised exclusively around university entry. Under existing provider access legislation, governing bodies must ensure that pupils in Years 8 to 13 receive at least six encounters with providers of technical education or apprenticeships, and careers guidance must also be impartial and include the full range of education and training options.
That does not mean the present system is working perfectly. Awareness of a route is not the same as having meaningful access to it, and a handful of careers encounters cannot by themselves overcome entrenched attitudes towards different qualifications.
However, it does mean that the next stage of reform must go beyond simply telling young people that alternatives to university exist.
The more difficult question is how schools, families and policymakers will prevent unconscious assumptions from influencing which children are encouraged to follow each route.
There is a real risk that pupils from more affluent or professional families will continue studying a broad range of academic subjects before deciding what they want to do, while pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are asked to make occupational choices earlier.
A young person who is struggling with examinations at 14 may be encouraged towards a tightly defined technical pathway. Yet that same person might thrive academically at 18, 25 or 40, when they are learning in a different environment and have a clearer sense of purpose.
I understand that from my own experience. From a relatively undistinguished school career, I went on to achieve a first-class degree in Biomedical Science. That qualification helped me begin a career in the NHS, move into teaching and eventually work in higher education and teacher development.
Had my ability been judged too narrowly at an earlier age, some of those possibilities might not have been visible to me.
The lesson is not that everybody should go to university. It is that performance at one moment in a young person’s life should not be treated as a permanent verdict on what they can become.
A pathway must not become a track
The government has said that young people following the new technical routes will continue studying core academic subjects such as English, mathematics and science (which is welcome), but the curriculum will also need to preserve sufficient breadth for pupils to move between routes.
A strong technical qualification should contain both training and study. Training develops the specific skills needed to perform a particular occupation. Whereas study provides the wider knowledge, reasoning, communication and problem-solving abilities that allow someone to apply those skills in new circumstances.
That distinction is so important.
A young person training in a technical discipline should understand not only how to perform a process, but also the scientific, technological or social principles behind it. Those wider
foundations make learning transferable. They allow someone to progress within an industry, respond when technology changes or move into a related profession later.
The privileges associated with a degree – breadth, progression and the ability to demonstrate transferable learning – must be built into high-quality technical qualifications too. If we don’t do this, we may create programmes that prepare young people for their first job but restrict their options for the rest of their working lives.
This means that that employers, universities, parents and students must understand what each qualification represents, rather than saying what each is equivalent to.
I remember having to explain the level and value of BTEC qualifications to students, institutions and employers. That gap between introducing a qualification and achieving widespread understanding of it can last for years. Young people should not carry the consequences of that confusion.
If an employer faced with two similarly capable candidates continues to default to the candidate with a degree, technical and academic education will not yet have achieved parity.
Qualifications need clear standards, recognisable credit, reliable assessment and transparent progression routes. Ofqual has previously argued that parity requires qualifications to be well designed and fit for purpose, with processes that provide consistent treatment for students.
Universities should be part of the solution
This debate should not become a contest between universities and technical education.
Higher education institutions already have a significant role to play through degree apprenticeships, teacher education, employer partnerships, higher technical qualifications and professional development. They can help create programmes that combine occupational competence with deeper study.
Universities should also offer more flexible ways for people to enter, leave and return to education.
A student might complete a period of technical training, earn recognised credits, begin work and then return to study later. Another might complete an apprenticeship before progressing to a higher qualification. Someone who did not feel ready for an extended academic programme at 18 might choose to study again several years later.
Not enjoying or succeeding within a particular academic environment at one age does not mean someone will never benefit from higher education. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement offers a practical opportunity to develop this flexibility. From September 2026, eligible learners in England will be able to apply for funding for courses and certain modules beginning from January 2027. The system is intended to support full qualifications as well as modular study at Levels 4 to 6, with requirements around credit transfer and standardised transcripts.
That could help create a more inclusive model in which education is accumulated throughout life rather than completed in one uninterrupted block.
Universities and colleges should now consider how their programmes can provide genuine entry, exit and re-entry points. A pathway should be a route that people can travel in different directions, not a track that prevents them from changing course.
Teachers cannot carry reform alone
Should Andy Burnham carry out this reform, teachers will be central to making the new system work.
They will be expected to help pupils understand an increasingly complex range of qualifications, connect subject learning with employment opportunities and support students in making decisions that could shape their futures.
They will also need to ensure that their advice is not influenced by assumptions about a pupil’s background, behaviour, attainment or perceived academic ability.
But teachers cannot be handed these responsibilities without the necessary time, training and institutional support.
If schools are expected to promote a wider range of destinations, the way their performance is measured must reflect that. The government has already indicated that Ofsted’s approach will change so that inspection gives greater recognition to technical education and preparation for employment.
Further questions remain. How will progress measures recognise pupils following different combinations of academic and technical study? How will schools be credited for helping a young person enter a high-quality apprenticeship? How will teachers and careers leaders develop an up-to-date understanding of local industries without being overwhelmed by another set of expectations?
Teacher education will need to prepare new teachers for these responsibilities, while existing teachers will require continuing professional development and strong partnerships with colleges, universities, employers and careers specialists.
Teachers should help pupils explore possibilities. They should not be asked to predict, at 14, which possibilities a child deserves.
The test is whether every route sustains possibility
Andy Burnham is right that technical education should be treated with the same respect as academic education, but parity cannot be achieved simply by creating two separate routes and assigning children to them earlier.
Technical pathways must be sufficiently broad to support progression. Academic learning must remain accessible to pupils from every background. Employers must understand and value different qualifications. Universities must build flexible bridges into and through higher education. Teachers must be supported to give impartial guidance without being placed under contradictory pressures.
Most importantly, young people must retain the right to change their minds. Education reform should allow a young person to pursue a passion earlier without deciding their entire future, and ensure that no child’s opportunities are limited by assumptions made about them at 14.
The success of these reforms should not be measured only by how many new pathways are created. It should be measured by how many opportunities each pathway keeps open.
Train to teach at St Mary's
Mary Nkune leads ITT Partnerships within St Mary's University, London's School of Education. She manages school placements on every route to QTS, and works with headteachers and school leaders to make sure trainees get the support and practical experience they need to start their teaching careers with confidence.
Thinking about becoming a teacher? St Mary's offers several ways to qualify, including undergraduate degrees with QTS, PGCE courses and school-based training. Every course is built on close partnerships with schools and delivered by a School of Education rated Outstanding by Ofsted.