The language used in education shapes policy, practice, and perceptions. Edge’s latest series asks, What's in a Word? and scrutinises the impact of the terminology we commonly employ.
Shane Lowry, the celebrated champion golfer, once remarked that if he weren’t excelling on the greens, he’d likely be ‘on the tools’. Lowry is revered for his mastery of the golf club and hailed a creative genius for how he plays the game. But to achieve the heights he has, requires years of developing understanding, judgement and practical skills which can only be achieved through countless hours of practice. All of which is no different from the millions of people that every year choose to follow a ‘technical and vocational’ route into their career. The reality is success, whether on the sports field, in the workplace or in academia requires a high level of expertise. It takes knowledge and years of practice, with all routes offering huge value to the individuals that achieve them and to wider society. So, why is the expertise developed through vocational and technical education training not viewed with the same enthusiasm and pride as elite sports or academic achievements? Is the term itself the problem?
The beauty and issue with words and language is that there is always a context. How it is read and understood is completely different depending on background, life stage and personal experience. For me, ‘vocational’ is the word that undervalues the high-quality work that takes place in further education institutions across the UK. For some reason it is more emotive, more open to interpretation than ‘technical’, which seems to be more respected, defined and understood by those working in education and those outside of the sector. Indeed, the Sainsbury Report (2016) even recommended using ‘technical’ in place of vocational: technical carrying with it the association with an external body of knowledge and professionalism. My experiences as a student and now as a professional working closely with the education sector is that there is very much a two-tiered view, where a vocational route is seen as a lesser pathway to a lesser outcome. The term vocational was and is central to forming that opinion. In tackling the historical stigma that associates vocational training with lower-status jobs, despite the high skill and expertise required in many occupations (and salaries to match!), it seems we have attempted to over explain our way out of people’s misconceptions. What is needed, is to reclaim the language and show the power and potential of a vocational route. This, however, is as always only one viewpoint, taken from my narrow perspective of society.
And perspective is really important. The audiences we are trying to influence tend to be from very different ends of the experience spectrum. Without generalising it too much, policy makers are often on one side and a large proportion of those who are currently studying or thinking about their career options are on the other. With this divide in experience and possibly perspective it is going to be near impossible to create a lexicon that resonates with both. The irony of the current view of ‘vocational’ is that the origins of the word do not in any way reflect the current perception of an alternative or lesser choice. The word ‘vocational’ stems from the Latin word vocatio, meaning ‘calling’ or ‘vocation.’ So not a second choice but in some ways a higher calling, something that can provide meaning, and can enable an individual to live a full and balanced life. For me this is exactly what the acquisition of skills can do, they can provide opportunity and freedom, to travel, to be your own boss or to be bring real value to a team or organisation.
Ultimately, the problem with the term ‘vocational’ lies in its failure to represent the full scope of what these educational tracks represent. They are dynamic, rigorous, and essential pathways that equip individuals to innovate, create, and lead in critical sectors. And to take it one step further the term doesn’t actually describe a route at all, it is far more suited to describing the end result. Both traditionally academic and technical routes are mixture of knowledge and experience, they require understanding and application to deliver results. So, while at one level the distinction between the different routes is becoming more and more blurred, there is an important, positive distinction to be made. The two routes allow for greater access, for greater choice that cater for different sectoral and individual needs, but this does not and should not designate differing levels of quality. For me, it is not about trying to create a new term that will suddenly elevate the technical and vocational route. We need to recapture the true meaning of a vocation, as something that goes beyond the practical and operational, to something that is deeply personal and at the same time provides immense value at a societal and economic level.
Shane Lowry’s example reminds us that excellence and value can take many forms. Whether it’s with a golf club or a CAD program, mastery deserves recognition. If we can shift the narrative around vocational and technical education to celebrate its complexity and value to the economy and the individual, we can ensure that it receives the respect it truly deserves—and inspire more people to pursue these rewarding, vital careers.
Ben is the Chief Executive of WorldSkills UK, a world-class skills network focused on raising standards, championing future skills and empowering young people from all backgrounds. Before taking up the role of Chief Executive, Ben was previously Deputy Chief Executive of WorldSkills UK. He was responsible for leading on the UK’s participation in the international WorldSkills and EuroSkills events. Ben has previously worked in government policy positions focusing on both skills and careers policy. He works extensively across WorldSkills UK’s international network and was recently made Chair of WorldSkills Europe, helping to ensure the UK is at the forefront of global developments in skills training.
Next time: Chris Winch considers the difference between a subject and a discipline: and why it matters for teachers and curriculum designers.