The language we employ in education is more than mere semantics – it shapes policy, practice and perceptions. While Edge’s research typically focuses on gathering evidence to support or critically analyse new policy developments, we also like to unpick broader issues. Our ‘Learning from the past’ series, for example, explored the annals of education policy to draw out insights and potential lessons for contemporary practice. Building on its success, we now launch a new series – ‘What’s in a word’ – that will scrutinise the impact, intentional or otherwise, of the terminology we commonly employ in the field.
May 2025
Addressing the elephant in the room – confusion in educational terminology
Anyone working in the sector will appreciate the challenges of language and how we use it. A particular issue is that, over time, well-intended shifts in terminology can often make complex issues harder to navigate rather than less. Policymakers often introduce new terms to describe old ideas, either to distinguish fresh initiatives from past ones, or to signal a paradigm shift. But is this always helpful, or does it sometimes introduce unnecessary complexity? A prime example of this is the increasing usage of ‘technical education’ in place of ‘vocational education’ – a change in many ways prompted by negative connotations associated with the latter. Historically, ‘vocational education’ in the UK was linked to perceptions of lower prestige and limited career trajectories compared with academic pathways. ‘Technical education’ emerged partly as a way of conveying the value and relevance of practical skills in the modern workforce, as well as the evolution of technical skills into a distinct skillset worthy of their own label.
Yet, problems arise. One of these is that our European colleagues still typically use the term ‘vocational education’, confusing cross-cultural knowledge sharing. Another is that parents and learners – who are less exposed to the intricacies of the policymaking machine – often find the difference between terms difficult to pin down, especially as the education landscape becomes ever more complex. Throw ‘professional education’ into the mix and the picture becomes even murkier! Another ubiquitous term that is nevertheless steeped in confusion is ‘employer engagement’. This one often flies under the radar, since it is practically impossible to go a day in education without using it. But what do we mean by it? Although ‘employer engagement’ is helpful shorthand, understanding of the term varies significantly between stakeholders.
For employers, it implies collaboration with educational institutions to align curricula with industry needs. For policymakers, it typically signifies the development of frameworks and incentives to facilitate such collaboration. Meanwhile, educational providers may find it loaded with a sense of the hard graft required to build employer partnerships and integrate practical, work-based learning into an already busy curriculum. It is essential to clarify our positions if we wish to create a level playing field where all stakeholders can work towards a common goal.
One final example is the lexicon around skills, which presents a quagmire all of its own. Terms like ‘core skills’, ‘core competencies’, ‘transferable skills’ and ‘employability skills’ are often used interchangeably, despite being different entities (albeit, often with overlap). For instance, ‘basic skills’ might point to foundational capabilities essential for employment, such as literacy and numeracy. Yet ‘employability skills’ typically includes a far broader spectrum of attributes like critical thinking and collaboration. Should we really use these terms interchangeably? While academic researchers endeavour to carefully delineate clearly between such terms – for instance, the distinction between ‘skills’ and ‘competencies’ – this begs another question: does such specificity improve or impede clear communication with wider audiences? Or can we balance precision with accessibility without negatively impacting how messaging is conveyed? Potential areas for misunderstanding go on and on.
While all the examples above include some sweeping generalisations, the point is that we have to think before we speak. The examples outlined here highlight just a few of the areas to be explored in this new series. Importantly, though, its objective is not to prescribe what language we use. Rather its aim is to encourage deeper contemplation of the implications inherent in our word choices. Terms we take for granted often carry implicit biases, shaping perceptions in unforeseen ways. Day to day, we may not always fully consider their accuracy, connotations, or potential for divergent interpretations. As we launch ‘What’s in a word’, we hope to encourage readers – whether they work in policy, research or practice, or indeed if they are students, parents or employers – to embrace a spirit of open inquiry, and to find a shared understanding of how our language choices impact sector dialogue. Encouraging people to be as specific as possible when the situation permits, we hope to play a small part in enhancing clarity, our mutual understanding, and our capacity to collaborate towards achieving shared goals.
Dr Andrea Laczik is Director of Research at The Edge Foundation. ‘What’s in a Word’ launches with our first contribution on the much-contested meaning of ‘Soft Skills’ by Tom Ravenscroft from Skills Builder, which you can read here. We’ll be publishing a new piece by a new contributor every month.