We know that when manufacturers recruit young people they continue to look for attainment in English, maths and the sciences.

Three-quarters of EEF employers prioritise attainment in these key subjects when recruiting Apprentices.

But beyond these key subjects, manufacturers are looking for a little bit more – what employers often say to me as that ‘spark’ in a young person, which can even override 10 GCSE grades A* to C.

7 in 10 manufacturers said they look for enthusiasm and passion for manufacturing when recruiting Apprentices.

Igniting that passion at a young age is key and it can be achieved in a variety of ways.

Firstly – work experience, which we have blogged upon time and time again. You cannot underestimate its importance (although unfortunately the Government has as there is no longer a compulsory element at any Key Stage).

Report after report, including that of the Education and Employers Taskforce, has concluded that work experience gives young people new opportunities, new skills and new insights.

Secondly, we can get young people engaged in extra-curriculum activities, through the influential work of organisations such as Primary Engineer, STEMNET, Tomorrow’s Engineers and the Big Bang Fair .

The list is endless and increasingly we are seeing schools engaging with local businesses to get young people interested in industries such as manufacturing, and key subjects such as science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM).

But there is another way we can get young people involved and interested in engineering and manufacturing – through the Design and Technology curriculum in schools.

To be a success, the D&T curriculum must represent what exactly design and technology is, and what it entails in the real working world.

The Government recently consulted on a proposed draft curriculum for Design and Technology at Key Stages 1-3. What can be said of the draft programme of study?

I think the best way to describe the draft is to simply take the words from the Design and Technology Campaign website :

• lacks academic, or technical rigour, ambition and progression
• fails to challenge, inspire or equip talent young people to pursue careers in areas like design, manufacturing, engineering…
• threatens the future of design education, and the future of the huge range of sectors that rely on the vital skills that Design and Technology delivers.

The Design and Technology Association held a poll on their website, with 91% of respondents opposing the draft programme of study – this represented a hefty 1025 responses.

The Association, backed by big hitters such as Sir James Dyson, Dick Olver, Sir John Parker and Dick Powell, didn’t just sit back and watch the consultation period come and go - it campaigned heavily against it.

Influential MPs such as Peter Luff, a real champion of manufacturing raised the issue during a debate in Westminster Hall, urging Elizabeth Truss to listen the concerns being raised.

After extensive campaigning, the Association has finally been heard. It has, together with Education for Engineering (E4E), presented an alternative programme of study to the Government, to accompany its intitial response to the consultation document.

Having seen the content of the proposed programme of study, I can confidently say that this is a curriculum that will get young people interested in industries like manufacturering, helping to ignite that spark of passion that might just nudge them into considering careers into the likes of engineering.

So what is left to do to ensure that this new, (far)improved version is taken forward?

Firstly, we call on all of industry to support the good work of the Design and Technology Association.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, we urge Government to take forward the new programme of study and give young people the chance to learn, and enjoy, the realities of design and technology.

Yesterday the Government announced its plans for a Technical Baccalaureate (aka the TechBacc). Some of what has come from the Government in terms of education reform - the proposed EBacc and draft curriculum for example – has been slated for trying to make education like it ‘used  to be.’

Yesterday’s announcement finally demonstrated that the Government is now focussing on what the education system ‘needs to be’ to secure our economic future, to compete on the global stage and to give young people the skills, qualifications and experience that they need to succeed.

The idea of a TechBacc has been circulating for quite some time now, not just from the Government, but also the Labour Party, and also the Baker Dearing Educational Trust (the masterminds of University Technical Colleges) with the help of key employers.

Whilst we have continued to give the nod to each of these proposals, we were waiting for action, and yesterday we finally got it. So what will the TechBacc entail and why is it good for young people and employers?

It’s worth noting that the TechBacc is a performance measure (in the same way as an EBacc is) - it is not a qualification in itself. But that does not mean it won’t have worth or be effective – quite the opposite.

For starters it will finally put vocational education on the same (don’t like to use the phrase but going to anyway) parity of esteem as academic learning.

Whilst there has been a major drive to increase the status of vocational education, in particular the commitment to increase the quality and quantity of Apprenticeships, we still have some way to go.

Within the UK, 69% of 16 to 18 year olds undertake academic study, with 31% studying vocational learning. This compares to Switzerland for example, where 35% are in academic study and 65% taking a vocational route.

Of course to be successful the elements of the TechBacc need to be right.

Government is kicking off with a ‘high quality Level 3 vocational qualification’ – a good move for our industry as manufacturing employers’ are increasingly looking to offer Advanced and Higher Apprenticeships.

There is also the focus on ‘high quality’, which goes hand-in-hand with the work the Government is doing to ensure only the best courses, recognised by employers count towards league tables.

We know from our own survey data this is not the case as only one in five manufacturers agree vocational qualifications are more relevant now than two years ago.

Next up we have a Level 3 ‘core maths’ qualification, including AS level maths.  Sometimes I get a little nervous when ideas are thrown around suggesting that ALL young people study maths until 18, but that is because we need to address the content of maths that is taught in schools if young people are to leave the education system with the numeracy skills needed by employers.

If ‘core’ really means those maths skills that will help that young person excel in a future Apprenticeship, job or further study then yes we should progress and we await for the DfE’s announcement on what this will be.

Finally there is the ‘extended project’, designed to develop the learner’s skills in writing, communication, research, self-discipline and self-motivation.

These again are skills that are not only valued by employers, but required by employers.

Three-quarters of manufacturers prioritise attainment in English and maths when recruiting Apprentices for example and a quarter rank interpersonal skills highly.

What is most significant from yesterday’s announcement is the commitment to involve employers in the design and development of these elements.

The appetite amongst employers to input into the design and development of qualifications was clear from the development of the Engineering Diploma (and the redesigning of the Diploma into a suite of qualifications following its downgrade) as well as the introduction of University Technical Colleges.

But initiatives such as the Engineering Diploma - and now the Tech Bacc - which involve partnerships between schools, colleges and industry in developing new courses and exams require a long-term commitment and significant investment of time to succeed. It was the lack of this that undermined Engineering Diplomas and it is important that lessons are learned in the development of new ideas and how we progress with the TechBacc from here.

But I don’t want to end on a (relatively) low point, as yesterday’s announcement heard cheers from the manufacturing industry, which has seen the status of academic learning overshadow vocational education for too long.

Let’s ensure success of this new measure – ensuring all three elements are rigorous, high quality and deliver young people with the skills they need to progress and succeed.

At the beginning of this month, the Government published a new skills strategy, Rigour and Responsiveness in Skills.

At EEF we like a strategy (as long as it is clear, concise and benefits manufacturers). We published our own strategy in our Route to Growth campaign, where we called for an Industrial Strategy that resulted in a stronger, better-balanced economy.  Within our strategy skills plays a leading role.

Unlike others, we praised the publication of this new Government strategy. We went against some critics who argued that it provided nothing new, but isn’t that what we have long been calling for – consistency?

If Government had published a strategy that was completely off-track from the Richard Review, Wolf Report and work by the UKCES on Employer Ownership, then yes we would be the first to criticise, but for me it takes the key ideas from the good work that has been done and provides a roadmap for the skills system in the near future.

Manufacturers have long called for a responsive skills system that puts the employer (and the learner) in the driving seat.

Our Skills for Growth report clearly demonstrated the current failings in the skills market, much of which stems from a lack of rigour and responsiveness – the fundamental elements of this new strategy.

So what is Government committing to and how will it benefit manufacturers?

First up is a stronger focus on raising standards – recognising those good quality FE colleges and providers and cracking down on those that deliver poor provision. Only one in five manufacturers finds it easier to find a responsive training provider now than two years ago (pretty low considering the hike in the number of providers in recent years).

If we are to curb the growing number of ‘inadequate’ providers and signpost employers to the ‘outstanding’ ones, we need to give employers accessible and accurate information on the quality of provision. 

Perhaps unbeknown to many young people, UCAS offers a service called Progress that allows pre-16 and post-16 year olds to find courses and providers in a selected area that meets their needs. Why not take this one step further and adopt the ‘trip-advisor- approach to providers that allows users to rate their value?

This then relates to the objective to use funding to improve responsiveness. The Employer Ownership Pilots have clearly demonstrated that employers are willing to step up and take ownership; investing above and beyond the public money they have been allocated. Let’s now focus on how SMEs can be more involved in these Pilots, and not forgetting our preference for Apprenticeship funding to be routed directly to the employer.

We need to ensure that qualifications are relevant and recognised by industry.

Our own stats revealed only one in five companies find vocational qualifications more relevant now than two years ago. Government is beginning to crack down on this, with a commitment to ensure only the best, quality qualifications remain. The success of University Technical Colleges demonstrates how employer involvement can be of real benefit so a commitment to focus on those qualifications with strong employer input is welcomed.

Next up - Traineeships - which will offer a combination of work preparation, high quality work placement and training in English and maths. With the focus now on Apprenticeships at Level 3 and above (an ambition we welcome and have called for), there will be a gap in the market. If Government works with employers on the design and the development of Traineeships, this model could provide the springboard many young people - who haven’t quite reached the attainment levels required by employers - need to enter onto an Apprenticeship, into HE or full-time employment.

And finally, my favourite subject - Apprenticeships....

Two-thirds of EEF members offer Apprenticeships

....a commitment to reform Apprenticeships to ensure that quantity is matched by quality. Standards must be set by employers and an Apprentice’s competence must not be judged in a ‘tick-box’ manner but looking at what they can do at the end of the training - which should essentially be the job.

 75% of EEF members said ALL their apprentices were given permanent roles upon completion of the training).

It may not be perfect but this strategy is a positive step forward. Government must not lose momentum however and we will be pushing for swift implementation.

In the UK, 69% of 16 to 18 year olds undertake academic study, with 31% studying vocational education. By way of comparison in Switzerland 35% of 16 to 18 year olds are in academic learning and 65% studying vocational pathways.

With an increasing focus on Apprenticeships in recent years (together with changes to the HE system such as increased tuition fees), there is the potential for this to be rebalanced. But one question being raised now is will the RPA impact the numbers of vocational learners, with the school participation age increasing to 17 this year and 18 by 2015.

Perhaps I am being optimistic but I don’t think that RPA will dramatically impact the number of 16 to 18 year olds taking apprenticeships, as RPA does not mean young people must stay in school, instead they can choose one of the following options post-16:

• Full-time education, such as school, college, or home education;
• An Apprenticeship;
• Part-time education or training if they employed, self-employed or volunteering full-time (defined as 20 hours or more a week).
  

The challenge however is ensuring that young people, their parents, teachers and careers advisor are fully aware of the options available at 16 as RPA comes into force. This means effectively communicating the options available through informed careers advice to young people and their parents along with teachers and careers advisors having a working knowledge of what is available.

In addition, we must ensure that vocational learning and qualifications are reflected equally to academic pathways in school league tables.

Destination Measures have been a welcomed initiative, giving young people and their parents better information as to where past school/college leavers are now. But if league tables favour academic learning in any way, then the RPA could have detrimental impacts on vocational learning.

Study Programmes are a positive step, maximising the potential of young people to progress onto HE or employment by ensuring vocational routes are seen as high quality and a genuine alternative to academic routes. Study Programmes look to offering young people work experience placements, English and maths provision (for those who have not achieved Level 2) alongside high-quality vocational qualifications, and will be introduced in September this year.

But I also think there is a role here for the Technical Baccalaureate, which has been proposed by both the Opposition and the coalition government.  A TechBacc would give young people an alternative route into a higher-level Apprenticeship; study at HE institution or into full-time employment.

A TechBacc model would show young people and the industry that the government is committed to vocational education and developing qualifications that are truly valued by employers.

In particular we endorse the two models proposed by the Baker-Dearing Trust; one aimed at those 16, and another at those aged 18. Both models include the core elements that employers are looking for; a work experience placement, employability skills, functional and/or studies in English, maths and ICT and technical and vocational qualifications endorsed by employers.

Only one in five manufacturers responding to a recent EEF survey said vocational qualifications were more relevant now than two years ago, with a quarter disagreeing.

Another challenge will of course be getting schools and colleges to offer this new qualification. University Technical Colleges and Studio Schools are most likely to offer such a qualifications, given their strong focus on mixing vocational and academic learning, but we need to see all schools – state-maintained, free schools, Academies, Studio Schools and UTCs to use the RPA to really promote and encourage vocational and academic learning.

Employers don’t prioritise an academic profile over a vocational one but increasingly a combination of the two.

Skills, skills, skills – a hot topic at the moment with a half of our members surveyed recently saying the availability of skills was their main business concern.

Whilst businesses fight for scarce skills, another battle appears to be emerging as policy-makers debate how best to allocate the skills budget. In the ring two radical approaches have been warming up and now it’s up to judges (government) to crown their champion.

The Contenders

In the (non-political) blue corner we have Lord Heseltine proposing what he has called a ‘Single Pot’ – an idea to bring together separate funding streams (include the £17.4bn skills budget) into a competitive funding pot for local areas, recommending that LEPs develop skills strategies and then bid for growth funds (including skills) from central government.

Whilst for manufacturers this seems to be case of deja-vu with members citing experiences of engaging with Learning and Skills Councils, Regional Skills Partnerships and many other bodies set up to achieve the same thing (but failing), Lord Heseltine is not without his supporters – behind him in the crowd are LEPs as well as other local bodies and providers.

And in the (non-political) red corner, Doug Richard, with his Richard Review of Apprenticeships, concluding that the Apprenticeship funding model is not delivering the results businesses, and the wider economy needs, instead proposing a model of routing Apprenticeship funding through the employer via the national insurance or tax system, arguing that such an approach would drive demand, quality and investment.

Cheers from crowd, in particular from manufacturers. In our Skills for Growth report we too had suggested routing funding through the employer, to give them greater purchasing power, driving providers to be more responsive to their needs and delivering the skills they need. Other likely supports include UKCES and without doubt the business community.

Round 1: Government responds to the Richard Review of Apprenticeships

The bell sounds, and out comes a clear commitment to accept all the recommendations but to consult further on how the new proposals would work in practice. But just when Doug Richard is about to score his first point in a ring, he suffers a blow, with the government stating that instead of exploring Richard’s new model of funding, it will instead assess the outcomes of the Employer Ownership of Skills Pilot. Down but not quite out.

Round 2: Government responds to Heseltine Review

Ding ding, Round 2 kicks off which the long-awaiting response to the Heseltine Review. Manufacturers in the crowd remain anxious and tensions are high, as the possibility of skills funding being devolved to local bodies fills the room.
A jab from the left to the Doug Richard camp as government says it accepts 81 of the 89 recommendations, including creating a single pot of funding. A reactive boo can be heard from the business crowd with EEF arguing that we will get the best bang for our buck by giving employers, who invest in training, control of skills budgets rather than parcelling them out to local bodies. 

With Richard on the ropes and employers about to throw in the towel, businesses are saved by the bell with a response that reads “It is important to continue the focus on transferring control to employers and maintain a nationally funded apprenticeship system”. A sound point for employers.

Time out

A quick break to see where we are – so no signs to route funding through employers, a firm commitment to create a Single Pot but for Apprenticeship funding to remain at a national level.

Round 3: The Budget

It was everything to play for during yesterday’s Budget but with the expectation that the Budget would focus on issues such as infrastructure, fuel duty and working families – would we see the Chancellor entering into the skills budget ring?
Yes, but only momentarily. He delivers a right hook at the Richard’s camp accepting ‘Heseltine’s excellent idea of a single competitive pot of funding’ but then comes a counter-punch as he ‘endorses the report of Doug Richard to make the most of apprenticeships’. Both sides suffer a knock from their opponent but neither comes out victorious.

The Verdict

The fight for the skills budget is no walkover and the judges (government) have yet to come to come to a unanimous decision. This fight then is far from over so tune in on 26th June for the grand finale – the Spending Round…

Manufacturers rely on Apprenticeships to acquire the skills they need to maintain and grow their business, fill gaps that exist in their workforces and get young people into manufacturing.

"Our apprentices are the guarantee for a successful future of our business" - Ralph Saelzer, Liebherr-Sunderland Works

Our industry has a proven track record in offering Apprenticeships but have perhaps felt that Apprenticeships haven’t been given the credit they deserve. The tide is beginning to change. Apprenticeships have shot up policy-makers agendas, with a cross-party consensus that Apprenticeships play a key role in supporting economic growth going forward.

There is more still to be done to create more and better quality Apprenticeships. We expect the Government to respond to the Richard Review of Apprenticeships shortly, which makes a number of recommendations which could potentially shift the Apprenticeship landscape quite radically. We will await the outcome and prepare to press Government to push forward those recommendations that will better support our industry.

But for now, as it’s National Apprenticeship Week we thought we would celebrate with some of our top facts and figures on Manufacturing Apprenticeships:

(1) Two-thirds of our members currently offer Apprenticeships  (Source: EEF Skills Survey 2012)

(2) Of those members, three-quarters had manufacturing and engineering Apprenticeship starts in the past 12 months (Source: EEF Skills Survey 2012)

"We have recruited four apprentices within the last year, representing 16% of our total workforce, and we see them as a core part of our company growth strategy" - Andrew Esson, Quick Hydraulics

(3) There were 59,480 Engineering and Manufacturing Apprenticeship starts in 2011/12 (Source: The Data Service)

"We have had over 500 applications from young people so far this year for apprenticeships or pathways to engineering starting in September 2013" - Steve Grant, TTE Technical Training Group

(4) The number of manufacturing and engineering apprenticeships has more than double in the past 10 years (Source: The Data Service)

(5) Average pay rates for an engineering apprentice is £6.23 compared to £3.38 in hairdressing (Source: BIS Apprentice Pay Survey 2011)

(6) 45% of engineering apprentices receive bonuses compared to a 26% average (Source: BIS Apprentice Pay Survey 2011)

"Our apprentices are an invaluable asset to our company's long term prosperity, ensuring both continuity and progression in the transfer of skill and knowledge" - Craig Naylor, NTR Ltd

(7) 90% of Engineering Apprentices are always paid overtime compared to 38% in Business Admin (Source: BIS Apprentice Pay Survey 2011)

(8) Engineering Apprentices doing overtime receive one of the highest hourly rates at £9.48 per hour (Source: BIS Apprentice Pay Survey 2011)

(9)Three-quarters of EEF members generally offer apprenticeships to those aged 16 to 18 years old (Source: EEF Skills Survey 2012)

(10) Six in ten manufacturers said on average their Apprenticeship programmes last up to four years (Source: EEF Skills Survey 2012)

(11)Three-quarters of manufacturers said ALL their Apprentices went into full time employment in THEIR company (Source: EEF Skills Survey 2012)

"Rention rates amongst apprentices (in our company) are high, with every apprentice being offered a permanent job upon completion of their trainin. Our apprentices are extremely loyal and stay with the firm, often climbing the ranks within the company" - Richard Bridgman, Warren Services

(12) Seven in ten companies prioritise passion and enthusiasm for manufacturers when recruiting Apprentices (Source: EEF Skills Survey 2012)

(13) There was an 84% increase in the number of women taking an engineering apprenticeship between 2002 and 2010 (Source: SEMTA)

"MBDA’s apprenticeship furthered my education, enhanced my confidence, and launched me into the working environment. Academically, I’ve achieved NVQs, a HNC and a First-Class BA Honours Degree; In Personal Development, my presentation and communication skills are enormously improved; and Professionally, I’m recognised as a valuable asset with brilliant prospects ahead. It’s been overwhelming to have my efforts commended at national level and I feel it’s essential apprentices are recognised for their achievements. Since my success in the NAS awards, I’ve been able to conduct a speech at the House of Lords, appear live on ITV’s Daybreak and on BBC Radio." - Beth Sherbourne, MBDA Systems, Higher ApprenticeWinner  2012

(14) Half of our members said they offered Apprenticeships to get young people into manufacturing (Source: EEF Skills Survey 2012)

Cars, conveyor belts and robots are usual boys stuff, or are they? These were the opening lines of a feature on yesterday’s BBC Newsnight on the number of young females going into engineering. For those of you who missed it here is an overview of the issues covered and a few observations of our own.

GENDER IMBALANCES IN THE INDUSTRY

EEF’s report Flexibility in the modem manufacturing workplace revealed that on average respondents said that almost 80% of their workforce was male. This echoed the figures cited during the Newsnight feature:

9 out of 10 engineers are men
20% of the advanced manufacturing and engineering workforce is female compared to 49% for all other sectors
6% of professional engineers are women
Since 2008, the number of women in industry has gone up just 1%

COMPARISONS TO OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

There is a huge disparity in the percentage of female engineering professionals in the UK compared to other European countries. UKRC research commissioned by Engineering UK revealed figures for the percentage of engineering professionals in European countries:

• 18% in Spain
• 20% in Italy
• 26% in Sweden

THE PERCEPTION CHALLENGE

To attract young females into our industry we must address the misconceptions about the industry. Newsnight e spoke to two young females asking them their impressions, their responses were as follows:

“Typical man in their overalls coming to fix the washing machine, asking for a cup of tea”
“Very physical, very dirty, overalls – very male-dominated”

Those working in the industry know this is far from the case, Dame Sue Ion from Royal Academy of Engineering pointed out all the exciting projects you could be working on in engineering – designing bridges, making new heart pace-makers, fixing energy problems by developing wind turbines or running new power stations. Concluding that engineering is ‘every aspect of life in the 21st century”.

There is good work being done through projects such as. See Inside Manufacturing and Primary Engineer. The latter delivers exciting and innovative STEM courses in schools to inspire the next generation of workers. When asking Susan Scurlock, the Chief Executive of Primary Engineer what the gender divide is of those young people who get involved in the programme she says it is a 50-50 split.

GIRLS NEED TO CHOOSE STEM SUBJECTS

85% of engineering graduates go into paid work or further education six months after finishing course
Yet 50% of females that study engineering don’t go into industry compared to 30% of their male counterparts

We need then to get more girls taking up STEM subjects. Whilst young females are more likely to take up biology than their male counterparts, this is far from the case for physics and chemistry. As Dame Sue Ion said, once you get to A-level and you haven’t chosen to study physics, the majority of engineering degrees at university , including civil engineering and mechanical engineering, are simply not an option, as you have to have studies physics to proceed. 

We continue to call for measures to encourage the take up of STEM:

Increasing the number of STEM industry experts coming into teach in schools on a part-time basis to bring the subjects to life.

Making it part of a teachers’ CPD to spend two to five days in local industry to understand how the knowledge they teach is applied in the real world, so they can demonstrate the practical application of the subjects back in the classroom.

Continuing to encourage top-class STEM graduates into teaching, and reviewing the case for capping the repayment of fees for those trainee teachers that study these key subjects and go into teach them.

GOOD NEWS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Over the past four years a third more females are applying to study engineering at university

• There has been an 84% increase in the number of women taking an engineering apprenticeship between 2002 and 2010
• University Technical Colleges are being rolled-out with 34 now approved, the majority specialising in engineering.
• 14 year olds can now study high quality vocational qualifications such as Engineering in colleges.
• The Engineering Diploma has been redesigned into a suite of four separate qualifications.

We know from our own research that manufacturers are struggling to find the skills they need with four in four currently experiencing recruitment problems. This will only be exacerbated further as manufacturers expect demand for skills in all areas of the business to increase. SEMTA has predicted that in the next five years the sector needs to recruit around 170,000 – half of which need to be qualified engineers, technologists or scientists.

This is a long-term issue, there is no quick-fix and it requires efforts from a variety of parties. There is a potential pool of female talent out there and at a time when manufacturers continue to suffer skills shortages, the need to tap into it is more important than ever.

We have continued to call for careers advice for young people that is informed, impartial and face-to-face.  Whilst this is important, careers provision also needs accessible – and maybe that is where we need to be a bit more creative.

Last week, EEF members launched an initiative with Primary Engineer to help inspire the next generation of young engineers in their local area. Thirty manufacturers in the North East committed to sponsoring schools to host a Primary Engineer course, which aims to encourage primary and secondary pupils to consider STEM careers.

This includes courses to help teachers apply practical maths and science skills to modern design and technology projects, which they can then take back to their classrooms, and  pupils invited to take part in local, regional and national challenges to celebrate their achievements in design and technology.

Going round speaking to the Year 6 and 7 pupils at the launch, it was great to see almost all of them say they wanted to be engineers, and a handful saying they wanted to be the next Brian Cox. But it was only through learning about STEM by working on ‘cool and fun’ (their words) projects that they had learnt what a career in engineering could be.

In Primary School it seems then we are heavily influenced by the activities we do as well as who we engage with (friends, teachers). But what about when young people move into secondary school and lunchtime conversations may centre around who has the latest IPhone and who watched the final of Britain’s Got Talent.

The Lords Science and Technology Committee recommended that to encourage more young people into STEM, we should develop a STEM App for young people that gives them accessible, portal information about career in STEM. This, together with more ‘traditional’ methods, is where we need to be heading, because young people aren’t just influenced by their parents, or a teacher, or their friends, although they will remain the primary influences but a combination of factors.

Take for example television. Last year UCAS figures revealed a 17 per cent rise in students seeking to learning midwifery. And what determined this surge? It was the BBC drama Call the Midwife, according to the programme’s director. Now we could put this down to coincidence, but a 17% increase is pretty significant. I am sure that there are police officers out there once inspired by The Bill or doctors that took a shine to the profession by watching Casualty.

So if this really is the case, maybe we need something for our sector, and I think I may have it – TOWIE – The Only Way Is Engineering. A programme that follows a selection of engineers from all backgrounds, with varying levels of experience. It could observe their day-to-day activities and tasks, include interviews of them looking back to how they got to where they are now. There could also be a specific episode on what choices they had to make (subject choices, school, college, university choices) to enable them to secure a job.

Given the world of engineering is more exciting than ever, wouldn’t be needing a narrator telling our viewers ‘some of what you see has been staged purely for your entertainment.’

Fortunately, this year’s UCAS applications for engineering were actually up by 8.4% so maybe my TOWIE idea can stay on the backburner for now, but we do need to get thinking about where young people go for information, and that’s where careers advice needs to be.

Manufacturers rely on a pipeline of STEM talent to alleviate the skills shortages evident in the industry. SEMTA has projected that in the next five years the sector needs to recruit around 170,000 people, of which half need to be qualified engineering, technologists or scientists.

Meeting this demand with supply will be difficult. We need ambitious targets on the number of STEM qualifiers at both FE and HE level. This week, saw two pieces of good news that suggest we are beginning to boost the STEM talent pipeline.

Firstly, the number of engineering applications for UCAS rose by 8.4% from the previous year. This was against a 3.5% increase in applications overall.

There are ample opportunities for engineering graduates and many find themselves with attractive pay packages and swiftly climbing the career ladder and it seems this message is beginning to get out there.

Secondly, figures released from BIS revealed the number of engineering and manufacturing technologies apprenticeship starts had risen by 21.5%, bringing the total number of starts for 2011/12 to 59,480.

Three-quarters of our members that offer apprenticeship programmes had manufacturing and engineering apprenticeship starts in the past 12 months so it’s unsurprising that we have been a boost in numbers!

We want to remain ambitious and ensure that these figures continue to rise year on year to meet growing demand. We must then ensure that take-up of STEM subjects occurs at all key stages preceding FE (apprenticeships) and HE. There is again more good news here.

Engineering UK found that the number of entrants to the individual GCSE science subjects, physics and chemistry and biology have more than tripled from 2003 to 2012. Moreover, these positive trends continued to A level, with the numbers of A level STEM entrants increasing in 2012, with 85,714 pupils choosing maths (+3.3%), 34,509 choosing physics (+5%) and 49,235 choosing chemistry (+2.4%).But these figures now need to be sustained.

We think part of this solution is encouraging more STEM specialists in schools and inviting industry experts to demonstrate how knowledge of these key subjects is applied in the real working world.We also need to ensure young people have access to impartial careers advice, through an independent advisor, as advocated recently by the Education Committee. We also need to give young people the opportunity to experience the world of manufacturing through work placements at Key Stage 4 and 5, as well as encouraging participation out of school hours.

EEF and its members are actively promoting the importance of STEM subjects and the career opportunities available to young people that pursue a career in these fields. Members in the North East have committed to sponsoring the work of Primary Engineer, a not-for-profit organisations that visits primary and secondary schools across the UK to deliver STEM courses, for pupils and teachers, to inspire young pupils to become engineers of the future.

We are also sponsoring the first Manufacturing Prize for the National Science and Engineering Competition, along with the British Science Association, giving young people the opportunity to showcase their talents and skills to those who may become future employers.

All in all, a good week for the manufacturing talent pipeline and long may it continue....

Yesterday, the Education Select Committee published its report, Careers Advice for Young People. When the inquiry opened, we blogged on this important topic and gave an overview of EEF’s own submission to the inquiry.

The somewhat damning report highlights our own concerns that the direction of travel for careers provision is all wrong, and we agree with the Committee Chair Graham Stuart MP who said that “the quality and quantity of guidance for young people is deteriorating just when it is most needed”.

The report not only hammers home what is wrong with the way careers guidance is currently delivered, it provides recommendations that will benefit all parties involved and we are now urging government to take them forward. Here are a selection of the Committee’s recommendations and how they match up against our own.

1. Access to face-to-face guidance is an integral part of good quality careers guidance. All young people should have access to such provision from a qualified, independent provider, should they choose to take up the opportunity.

EEF: In our Skills for Growth report we said that fundamental to the success of careers advice is face-to-face provision and young people need access to tailored advice from an advisor. Such advice is only available for those aged 19 and over via the National Careers Service so we recommended that effective methods from this Service are replicated in schools.

2. Websites are a valuable source of information about careers for young people. They cannot, however replace face-to-face guidance, nor are they sufficient in themselves to fulfil the requirement on schools to provide independent, impartial advice.

EEF: Our Skills for Growth report acknowledged that developments in ICT means that is sometimes appropriate to give young people to opportunity to research information, including that on careers, themselves. However, given the complex choices they face, this is not suffice and a clear differentiation should be make between the provision of information, often via the interest and guidance from an advisor. Web-based resources should be a complement to face-to-face provision and not a substitute.

3. We welcome the government’s support for the increase involvement of local employers in careers guidance in schools, which is vital for effective careers provision. We recommend that schools be requirde to set out in their careers plans their arrangements with local employers and how they intend to enhance them.

EEF: In our submission we stated that the guidance was weak in terms of how schools should engage with employers. Our recommendation was then for the guidance to be more assertive as to how this engagement should be delivered and head teachers should ensure that teachers are given clear objectives on this. There is a growing appetite amongst employers to engage with schools and government must be more proactive in brokering this relationship.

4. We agree with witnesses from business that it would be beneficial for teachers to have a greater understanding of the world of work, particularly that of the local labour market, and we recommend that teachers should undertake regular professional development to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the work place.

EEF: In our Skills for Growth report we recommend the introduction of a continuous professional development requirement for teachers to undertake 2 to 5 working days a year within a business, to gain first-hand experience of the local workplace and increase their awareness of local employment opportunities. It will also enable employers to communicate to teachers what is expected from pupils upon leaving school or college, and demonstrate the practical application of the subjects they are teaching.

5. We concur with our colleagues on the BIS Committee that awareness of apprenticeships is limited within schools. We recommend that NAS’ remit be extended to include the promotion of apprenticeships in schools.

EEF:  Without impartial, informed careers advice, the commitment to support apprenticeships will be lost by the lack of demand by young people taking this route. The lack of awareness of apprenticeships amongst young people is apparent in a report by Careers Academies UK entitled Routes to Success. Whilst extending NAS’s remit to include promotion of apprenticeships in schools is a useful step, it is not enough.  In our submission we recommended that government explores ways to incentivise schools to offer alternative pathways such as Higher Apprenticeships, so vocational education can be put on the same esteem as academic learning.

6. The government’s decision to remove the statutory duty on schools to provide careers education and work-related learning has been heavily criticised by witnesses. We are persuaded of the benefits of both these former provisions and we recommend that the government’s statutory guidance to schools is strengthened to require schools to provide careers education and work-related learning as part of their duty.

EEF: We have raised our concerns about the decision to give responsibility for the delivery of careers advice, with little direction. We have also called for compulsory work experience at Key Stage 4 to be reinstated, and to add an additional compulsory work experience element at Key Stage 5 also. Work-related learning is extremely beneficial to young people, giving them a taste of a career and building employability skills which employers increasingly demand.