Since 2018, Edge's Philosophy of Vocational Education debates have been grappling with fundamental assumptions in vocational training, from policy approaches to pedagogical practice. The second debate in our latest series, chaired by Kevin Orr (University of Huddersfield), once again welcomed four expert panellists. Combining unique perspectives, they tackled a core yet often overlooked question within VET: how broad or narrow should vocational education be?
Opening the debate, Prue Huddleston (University of Warwick) identified what would emerge as a common theme for the discussion: context is as fundamental within vocational education as content. Vocational learners cover a range of ages, skill levels, sectors and experiences. Boiling the discussion down to ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’ oversimplifies things, she argued.
Instead, Prue outlined a continuum for describing VET of varying depths and complexity. At one end is what she called ‘pre-vocational’ learning. VET in this category engages learners by introducing a vocation at a high level, combined with general education. Next is ‘medium-strength’ VET, which includes sector-focused programmes containing work-based elements, for example work experience and other work-related activities (BTECs, for example, might fit this category).
Next, ‘strong’ vocational programmes include more intensive work-based elements, such as on- and off-the-job training and entry into employment – apprenticeships, for example. Finally, Prue identified so-called ‘stronglyoccupational’ VET programmes that target proficiencies for specific vocational skills and training standards.
Regardless of any VET programme’s place on this continuum, Prue argued that all vocational learning should privilege experiential and active learning in real-work environments. It should provide opportunities to engage in authentic tasks and to encounter and learn from experts within communities of practice. This gives learners access to personal and vocational growth alike.
Next, Andrea Laczik (Edge Foundation) explored the dilemmas and choices we face when tackling the question of what skills and competencies VET provision should include. She believed that VET should have broader aims than simply focusing on material economics. It should also tackle issues like social mobility and support for life skills development. In short, VET graduates need more than narrowly focused vocational skills – they should be empowered to evolve throughout their lives.
In addition, when looking at what defines ‘broad’ or ‘narrow’ in VET, Andrea raised the practical issue of capacity. Each programme has only a limited circumference, as she described it. Content elements cannot grow indefinitely. We can only introduce new elements by removing others, which naturally limits the content that programmes can reasonably include. Although this oversimplifies the matter – VET is not static and must naturally adapt – capacity still needs consideration.
Taking the discussion beyond the academic sphere, we next heard from Jenny Jarvis (The Education and Training Foundation). Emphasising her experience with Further Education and training professionals on the ground, Jenny felt the debate needed placing in context. In particular, it must address factors like austerity, technological advances and AI, and how these shape lives, jobs, learning and the economy at large.
Among other issues, Jenny homed in on social engagement. Following the pandemic, she noted, learners are increasingly keen to pursue work that supports green issues and sustainability. VET teaching professionals, therefore, have a pivotal role in shaping learners' values and future practices, while employers must reflect closely on the types of organisations employees and trainees want to work for.
Jenny’s larger point was that VET must address how individuals wish to engage with society. Preparing learners for new challenges, roles, and ways of engaging with work will also mean helping them adapt to the concept of lifelong learning. While the idea is accepted virtue within the industry, it is not initially always a comfortable position for learners.
Lastly, having co-founded, designed and lead a specialist educational institution, Tom Fogden (ADA, National College for Digital Skills) offered some practical responses to the challenges described. Initially, ADA was intended to solve supply and demand issues within the tech sector. However, the college soon realised that technology is at the heart of most modern companies, meaning learners need more than just ‘technical’ skills. They also require broader life and transferable skills to facilitate changing jobs and sectors throughout their working lives.
As such, all ADA students learn some common skills, regardless of their particular pathway. Coding, for example, is a core digital skill that supports collaboration and team working. Additionally, ethics and global citizenship are vital topics within tech, since small teams often have oversized impacts. All these, therefore, are part of ADA’s core curriculum.
As for narrowness and breadth, Tom suggested that – from his perspective – ‘narrowness’ often manifests as specialized skills that help graduates land jobs, while breadth emerges as agility and adaptability to change. Both are needed in today’s world.
Whether discussing occupation-specific skills, meta-skills, or wider industry knowledge, the crisp, candid contributions to this latest debate highlighted that narrowness and breadth are highly subjective concepts within VET. There was consensus, however, that learners need practical, real-world learning opportunities. The future of VET seems to be moving towards personalised, experiential learning. But only time will tell.
You can watch the full discussion here: