1 | P a g e

Britain - “Strong on training; weak on education” The turbulence that has characterised British

education and training is one that continues

to challenge both political, economic and

social policy while ongoing reform from

successive governments of diverse political

persuasions seem to be motivated by

entrenched ideology and economic

positioning in an increasingly competitive

global environment. Education and training in

Britain has been the subject of ongoing policy

and economic reform agendas. Raffe (2015)

with a sense of conceded Déjà vu heralded

further intervention in the country’s

vocational system which he advocates is

beyond remedial intervention and in need of

significant and politically contentious reform.

A succession of reviews have failed to provide

any real clarity concluding that there has been

an ongoing devaluation of the apprenticeship

system (Richard, 2012), failure of the

education system for 14–19 year olds to

retain and educate the future workforce

(Wolf, 2011) and failure to capture industry

confidence in the training provided

(Whitehead, 2013). The inference is that there

is a growing chasm existing between the

esteem of education and mediocracy of

training. What is advocated in this analysis is

that education implies training just as training

inherently depends upon education. In Britain

what has unfolded is the bastardisation of a

system that clings onto class ideology and the

virtue of a compulsory education system that

struggles to excel while maintaining a level of

judicious insincerity towards the mediocracy

of vocational training. The question is not

about strength and weakness but abysmal

failure of government and all levels of

education and training to meet their social

obligations.

While the focus of this paper is a historical

analysis of factors that have influenced British

vocational education and training, the

position that will be presented questions not

the dominance of training embedded within

government rhetoric as opposed to

compulsory education but the failure to

embrace the virtues of both. Political ideology

has dominated the education and training

debate while leaving the socially disaffected

and economically disenfranchised in its wake.

What is proposed is a time for a reawakening

and acknowledgement that training and

education is not a social divide but an

integrated learning continuum.

The post war Keynsian ideals dominated by

centralist social and economic policy were

typified a regime identified with old

democracy, and destined to become a

political enigma. Globalisation and with it the

political frenzy generated by increased

competition and subsequent demand for an

increasingly more skilled workforce paved the

2 | P a g e

way for neo-liberalism and its emphasis on

market demand based policy. Hodgson and

Spours (2013) in their analysis of British post

Conservative social and education reforms

suggest a moderate and enlightened ‘Third

Way’ alternative which places the role of the

state as pivotal to sustained investment in

social capital inspired education reform. It is

however from a historical perspective that

some semblance of the years of constant

upheaval can gain some rational

understanding.

The ‘New Labour’ Blair government was

elected in 1997 in a landslide, ending eighteen

years of Conservative Thatcher – Major

governments and crippling austerity that had

disenfranchised swathes of the British

electorate. New Labour reflected a

fundamental shift in entrenched Labour

philosophy though still retained residual

elements of a centralist, and perceived

conservative inspired education policy. Its

intent however was to raise the standard of

compulsory education which had received

sustained criticism from a suite of economic

surveys and education outlook reports

conducted by the OECD from 2005 to the

present (OECD, 2005), (OECD, 2011), (OECD

2015). The false hope was in a government

that maintained a less emphatic approach to

post-compulsory education and training

which Hodgson and Spours (2013) suggest

was in part a question of priorities and being

politically prudent in recognition that

quantum change was domestically

problematic.

Pring et al. (2012) present an alternative view

in terms of government intervention and

argue that the reformist policy commenced

under the former Conservative governments

and later pursued by Labour, had become

increasingly more centralised and controlling

in both the actions it took and the language it

used. For almost thirty years the training and

education dichotomy that has been

perpetuated and beleaguered the British

education system has been fuelled by ongoing

academic and political debate has tended to

polarise views rather than establish a lasting

consensus. Charged political rhetoric and

unencumbered academic discourse continue

to fuel the division between the arguably

inseparable virtues that maintain the

incongruous divide between education and

training

There was growing evidence from OECD

reports that economic development across

the United Kingdom was at risk of stagnating

unless there was a concerted investment

effort in the development of a skilled labour

force (OECD, 2005). The nation’s vulnerability

was specifically directed at the decline of

vocational qualifications and the skills that

would drive the economic transformation and

capacity to compete on the world stage. The

challenge now facing government was not just

one of supply and demand. The issue of

3 | P a g e

quality of the vocational skills being delivered

in conjunction with the depth of technical

content was to become the justification for an

overhaul of the National Education

Framework (Hayward 2004). The relative

inertia in vocational skill development was

attributed to a complexity of interrelated and

historically entrenched factors. The low

esteem and deficit provision status (Unwin,

2004) associated with vocational

qualifications along with declining levels of

satisfaction from employers as to the quality

of training (Braconier, 2012; Winch, 2012) was

a persistent and ongoing impediment to

reversing declining post compulsory

education student retention.

Britain’s education and training policy

attempted to maintain a synergy between

social rhetoric and economic pragmatism

though Huddleston and Oh (2004) were more

forthcoming in their analysis and portrayed

governments bent on transferring the

consequence of economic austerity upon an

education system portrayed to be incapable

of meeting national skills expectations and

industry demand. With the defeat of the

Labour government in 2010 the nation was to

embark on a new education direction under

the new Cameron lead Coalition government.

The previous Labour government had been

criticised for building an education platform

based around credentialism rather than

strategic skills development (Fuller & Unwin,

2011). Fuller and Unwin (2011) in their

critique of the path the newly elected

Coalition government armed with the

recommendations from the recently

published Wolf Report embarked on yet

another reformist agenda. The new rhetoric

was one of apprenticeship and a romantic

attachment to the age of crafts and guilds.

The political ground nonetheless was shifting

and economic imperatives were diverting

attention from enduring and systemic

educational challenges in favour of the

perceived of benefits from an increasingly

more skilled labour force.

Change for change sake It is from this historical perspective that elicits

a contextual appreciation of the turbulence

and mercurial nature of education policy that

has typified successive government policy

over the last thirty years. The implementation

of the National Vocational Qualifications

(NVQs) in 1987 was an attempt to nationalise

qualifications across the United Kingdom

under the umbrella of the National

Qualifications Framework (NQF), (Young,

2011). Progression from lower secondary

education and fulfilment of Key Stage 4 was

through the completion of the General

Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)

examination. Upper secondary education

presented distinct and later culturally

embedded pathways that reinforced the

distinction and inevitable stratification of

students based upon tracked academic and

vocational aspirations. Opportunities however

4 | P a g e

were available for students who wanted to

pursue an apprenticeship under a higher NQF

Level 3 vocational pathway though the

Business and Technology Education Council

(BTEC) qualification that was awarded

received only moderate uptake (OECD, 2011).

Huddleston and Oh (2004) in their historical

critique of government education policy

maintain that successive governments sought

political refuge from the collapse of the youth

labour market by linking perceived failure of

the education system with broader economic

and social decline. Hayward and Fernandez

(2004) similarly question the role of the state

and its interventionist policy and constant

correction of perceived market failures.

Higham and Yeomans (2011) in their analysis

of 14-19 year old education in Britain identify

the implementation of the Technical and

Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) in 1982

by the Thatcher government as the policy

touch point that initiated the ongoing reform

that continues to fuel debate. The significance

of the TVEI was that for the first time

government policy was focusing specifically

on 14-19 education. Secondly, the TVEI while

a government initiative maintained arm’s

length from the control of Whitehall and

operated through the quango Manpower

Services Commission (MSC). Neither TVEI nor

MSC focused much attention on 17—19 year

olds, diverting most of their strategic direction

on the curriculum of the 14-16 year old

cohort. Though MSC maintained its

controversial presence, it was not until 2002

that the Department of Education and Science

(DES) and the implementation of a national

curriculum that control of education policy

was centralised.

The NVQ experiment The National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs)

introduced in 1988 were qualifications

developed around a competency based

system that encapsulated the occupations

and associated skills across industry. Though

their intent was to provide recognition of the

existing skills of the workforce they have

sustained heated criticism and ridicule. Cox

attributed the negativity directed towards the

NVQs around three failings; ‘content’,

‘outcomes’ and ‘process’ (Cox, 2007). Young

(2011) however presented an alternate view,

suggesting that the NVQ and the negativity it

attracted was nothing more than the

commodification of vocational education.

The British vocational system has endured

ongoing criticism for its failure to meet the

needs of its youth with ‘churning’ between

education and employment due to the lack of

permanent employment (Wolf, 2011). The

casualisation of employment and churning

between government welfare and

employment was a phenomenon that proved

problematic for the government and those

most vulnerable (Worth, 2005).

The declining lack of vocational relevance of

the education system has contributed to

substantial analysis and constant policy shifts

over the last thirty years (Huddleston & Oh,

2004). Central to gaining some semblance of

5 | P a g e

an understanding of what has driven

vocational policy throughout the United

Kingdom is some coherence within the

rhetoric that is associated with VET

(Vocational Education and Training). In

essence, it is the inextricable link that defines

not just what equates to a vocational

outcome but how education and training have

defining, though historically not equal roles, in

the provision of a skilled workforce. The

fervour generated from education league

tables such as TIMSS, PIRLS, IALS, and PISA

highlight dependence attributed to the

dependence attributed to the statistical

validity and robust analysis of the data

(Bonnet, 2002). It was however the emphasis

on high stakes testing regime which was the

backbone of the GCSE that had a negative

impact by becoming the driver of education

reform rather than the measure of its success

(OECD, 2011).

Higher education in particular has maintained

robust debate within successive governments,

industry and education providers. Johnson

(2004) in his analysis of education policy in

England identifies student retention, class

division and subsequent stratification of

education along socioeconomic divides and

the apparent disconnect between training

provision and quality of the skills attained.

Winch (2012) in his analysis of the British

vocational system reinforces the fundamental

failure of past reforms in the narrow

instrumentalist interpretation that has

dominated. It is his view that the emphasis

across VET has predominantly concentrated

on the narrow acquisition of defined skills

rather than the broader educational

attainment that are attributed to accepted

civic and social norms. The fervour of

government to reverse the skill decline and

later Wolf (2011) attributed in part to the

diminished public acceptance of vocational

qualifications is in contrast to analysis

presented by Hayward and Fernandez (2004).

Wolf’s review of the vocational education in

Britain in many ways brought the failure of

the education and training system to the

forefront of the nation’s political agenda. Her

review enunciated in unequivocal terms that

vocational education in its present forms for

almost a quarter of post 16 year olds was

contributing to the perpetuation of low level

qualifications in areas where future

employment prospects were limited.

Hayward and Fernandez (2004) however

contend that the demand for generic skills

that prepared young people for a life of work

was supported by employers however

government inability to implement new policy

and global economic externalities were seen

as the real impediments to success.

The role of the state as the provider or

facilitator of training and skills shifted in line

with 1960 neoliberal policy that dominated

British politics and until recently continued to

influence education and training. In Foreman-

Pecks (2004) historical analysis of British

6 | P a g e

vocational education and training the role of

education was measured In terms of

economic return. The concept of human

capital theory and consumption based

economics focused the role of VET as a

vehicle to ensure the skills demanded by

industry were delivered and with it a

workforce that was equipped to service the

demand. The realignment that took place was

not a question of how the state would deliver

the skills needs of industry but as Worth

(2005) states it is also how employers are to

make a greater contribution towards skills

provision in areas of demand.

The British education system has been slowly

transformed having had its relative

independence eroded through neo-liberal,

market dominated policy. Gleeson and Keep

(2004) see education’s marginalisation as

symptomatic of neo-liberal reforms that

progressively transferred obligations once

supported by the state to an expectation that

the burden of skills provision will be carried

by the individual. Tension between employers

and the state were inevitable as demand for

skills by industry was a commitment that

government was progressively relinquishing

direct control in favour of free markets and

mutual obligation. In essence, Gleeson and

Keep argue that education and training has

been inadvertently excised from its historical

connection with industry and placed firmly in

the control of the state and education

providers. Foreman-Peck (2004) in his analysis

of neo-liberal reform was far more succinct in

his commentary and related the ideological

shift from state controlled education to a

demand driven system determined by the

immediate needs of industry. The concept as

outlined by Foreman-Peck (2004) of

‘spontaneous order’ relies on an idealistic

notion that a skills equilibrium supported by

the sustained faith and collaboration between

industry, unions and the workforce would

supply the quality and volume of vocational

skills required. The policy anachronism that

was being perpetuated was seen one that

intended to give employers greater control of

training direction but over time inadvertently

isolated employers and industry who were

unconvinced that it was and should remain a

function of government. It is argued that only

through by imposing training levees on

industry or incentives for small business will

there be a positive uptake to meet skills

demand (Stanton & Bailey, 2005). Vocational

education policy in particular was becoming

increasingly driven by ideological rhetoric that

stressed social inclusiveness and global

competitiveness as the rationale for change.

The language from government was shifting

from education as a social good to one that

reinforced the attainment of skills, social

capital and productivity (Pring et al., 2012).

The consequence of vocational education and

training becoming a de facto retention

strategy for otherwise disengaged youth is

that the very vehicle portrayed by

7 | P a g e

governments as liberating people from

disadvantage can potentially further alienate

those it is intended to assist. Fuller and Unwin

(2011) refer to a conscious shift from what

they refer to as ‘traditional pedagogy’ where

to one of ‘practical pedagogy’. The divergence

is one that reinforces conservative attitudes

and risks entrenching a regime of social

stratification based on the division between

academic ideals and perceived lower level

practical learning. Meanwhile successive

British governments have espoused the

economic virtues of a skilled workforce

however Fuller and Unwin (2011) suggest that

this represents nothing more than a thinly

veiled political strategy to manage economic

imperatives.

In support of their argument was the Coalition

Government’s response to youth

unemployment, particularly the 14-19 year

old cohort where raising participation rates in

schools was to be the panacea of successive

and critical OECD economic reports. The

severity of the problems confronting Britain

were flagged in 2005 where the attainment of

formal qualifications across the workforce

were well below the OECD average and basic

literacy and numeracy skills had fallen far

short of expectations (OECD, 2005). While at

the time the notion of raising the compulsory

education age beyond 16 was considered

‘draconian’ (OECD, 2005) the economic

significance of an education system that was

failing becomes evident in the government’s

intention to raise compulsory schooling to 18

years (OECD, 2011). Increased education

spending was no more than a desperate

attempt to turn the nations flagging

education system however PISA scores

remained unchanged and the socioeconomic

divide continues to disenfranchise the most

disadvantaged in the community (OECD,

2015).

Michael Gove as the then Secretary of State

for Education addressed the persistently high

levels of youth unemployment and industry’s

reluctance to embrace the need for skilled

labour by attempting to restore the status of

crafts and underlying apprenticeships (Fuller

& Unwin, 2011). Richard (2012) similarly

argued for raising the status of

apprenticeships that had in his view suffered

from progressive devaluation and diminished

industry confidence. Braconier (2012)

similarly questioned the declining public

perception and industry’s diminished

confidence in the apprenticeship system

though acknowledged public perception

remained resolute with some apprenticeships

while employers became increasingly

confused with the ongoing changes. Raffe

(2015) however questions not just the failure

of education or training but argues it is a

systemic policy failure of education and

governments misguided and ideologically

motivated attempts to fix a system seen as

broken. His pragmatic analysis encapsulates

failure on two levels; that of vocational

8 | P a g e

qualifications to meet the demand for

technical skills and an education system

failing to deliver the breadth of learning that

underpinning skills demanded by industry.

Foreman-Peck (2004) provides some insight

into one interpretation that defines

Vocational Education and Training (VET)

compared with what he defines as ‘liberal

education’ philosophy built on consumption

with minimal economic return. In many ways

this dichotomy of views distinguishes the

underpinning philosophy that distinguishes

VET in Foreman-Pecks analysis of the German

and English systems. The notion that market

forces can determine the direction of British

VET supports a view that VET policy in Britain

is reactive to external forces or as Foreman-

Peck describes as modelled on ‘spontaneous

disorder’. This philosophy underpins the

neoliberal principles that market forces will

ultimately determine social and economic

trajectories based on the fundamental

principles of supply and demand. The

converse position, ‘spontaneous order’ is

predicated on industry, trade unions and

workers establish some consensus in which

access and provision of quality training is

attained.

The training panacea While the NVQs were an attempt to bring

together qualifications under the one national

umbrella, vocational training maintained its

‘Cinderella status’ (Lingfield, 2012), (Unwin,

2004). Lingfield’s review of Further Education

(FE) was commissioned at a time when there

was declining public confidence in the FE

sector and its capacity to address the alarming

deficiencies that were being exposed. It was

the 16-18 year old cohort that his review and

the previous Wolf (2011) review that exposed

the systemic failures that from the

government’s perspective were contributing

to persistent youth unemployment and

threatening the nation’s capacity to complete

globally. Attribution of the school system’s

failure as highlighted by Lingfield in terms of

levels of functional illiteracy and innumeracy

of students aged 16-18 exiting the school

system and channelled into vocationally

oriented FE streams was evidence of a policy

leitmotif built on remediation rather that

addressing the root of the problem. The

vocational function of FE was being subverted

from its role as the provider of education and

skills demanded by industry to one that was

pragmatic in response though superficial in its

intent.

The Education and Training Divide The delineation between education and

training has in part contributed and further

entrenched the view that the pedagogic

principles supporting each are discrete and

incongruous. Lucas, Claxton and Webster

(2010) endeavour to progress the debate

beyond an otherwise divisive critique to an

epistemological analysis of education,

learning and training and its implementation

9 | P a g e

in the curriculum of 14-19 year olds. Their

analysis of ‘Practical and Vocational

Education’ (PVE) and distinction with

‘Practical Vocational Learning’ (PVL) suggest

that it is not the conflict of training and

education that is in question. They maintain

that there is confusion inherent in the use and

understanding of the word ‘education’ which

refers to what governments provide.

‘Learning’ however expands beyond the realm

of service provision associated with education

to one that reinforces observation,

application and questioning to assist in

understanding. ‘Training’ as with education is

concerned with the acquisition of skills

though generally within a workplace context

and an applied learning strategy that

effectively imparts the desired outcomes.

Winch (2012) continues to support arguments

presented in earlier papers that the

connotations of simplicity of tasks and

diminished educational attainment is being

perpetuated within the perverse separation of

education and training. Education however is

the underpinning support that facilitates the

learning rather than the antithesis of training.

Pring et al. (2012) presents an alternate and

‘tripartite’ perspective that differentiates

young people as either academic, vocational

or those that fall outside the education and

social support mechanisms. Their view is that

this stratification of education attainment and

subsequent stigmatisation of graduates is a

problem that has challenged former

governments and continues to impact on

current policy initiatives.

The foundation that cements the ongoing

debate between education and training as

argued by Winch (1995) emanates from the

philosophy espoused within Rousseau’s Emile

and the philosophical principles that at the

time challenged the virtues of education and

training (Rousseau, 1762). Winch (1995)

however questions the negativity associated

with training as a form of conditioning as

opposed to the Rousseauan principles

established around experiential learning.

Winch (1995) however acknowledges that the

negativity often attributed to training is the

inference that it is a mutually negotiated

submissiveness in which knowledge is

imparted and learning transpires. Though

Winch (1995) suggests that even within

Rousseau’s treatise there is a level of

contrivance and contradiction it does

reinforce the philosophy behind what Lucas,

Claxton and Webster (2010) were presenting

in their emphasis on learning and education

being practical and vocational. There is

however an alternate view that suggests

government attempts to address the

hierarchical inequality between academic and

vocational training by blurring the divide in an

illusory joining of the two. Stanton and Bailey

(2005) however questions the value of such

policy and argues that such unification only

further clouds the distinct pathways. The

irony is further highlighted through example

10 | P a g e

of public perceptions of what delineates an

academic or vocational pathway. The

vocational construct being one that relates to

skills of the hand as opposed to the mind

(Lucas, Claxton & Webster, (2010) raises a

conundrum with disciplines such as medicine

or engineering securely in the academic camp

though undeniably a vocational pursuit by

definition (Stanton & Bailey, 2005).

United we stand… The premise from the title of this paper

implies that education reform in Britain has

sustained relentless imbalance between

education and training. The problems that

have hampered this quasi territorial debate

has been the compartmentalisation of the

education systems rather than a holistic

approach that sees compulsory education,

vocational and higher education as integrated

pathways. The consequence has been a

disjointed system that has failed at all levels

as well as in terms of a raft of social,

economic and quality indicators.

The question therefore on ‘strength’ and

‘weakness’ highlights the political

equivocation that has dominated and

ultimately contributed to failure at all level.

Stagnating education benchmarks as reported

by the OECD have fuelled reactive responses

from governments and added to the

confusion and lack of clear direction. The

dependence on high stakes testing, flagging

literacy and numeracy outcomes,

marginalisation of those socially

disadvantaged and skills shortage in emerging

technologies typify the challenges being

faced.

The social stratification reflects the education

divides that persist and continue to be

entrenched within a policy vacuum that

perpetuates delineated and disconnected

education tracks. Raffe (2015) presents a

more conciliatory and constructive approach

asserting that it is not the Qualifications

Framework which is the problem but the

education system as a whole. The notion of

what he refers to as a ‘divided system’

epitomises what has become policy without

substance. What is evident is a nation weak

on education; weak on training.

11 | P a g e

References Bonnet, G. (2002). Reflections in a Critical Eye:

On the pitfalls of international assessment.

Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &

Practice, 9(3), 387-399. doi:

10.1080/0969594022000027690a

Braconier, H. (2012). Reforming Education in

England: OECD Publishing.

Cox, A. (2007). Re-visiting the NVQ Debate:

‘Bad’ Qualifications, Expansive Learning

Environments and Prospects for Upskilling

Workers. SKOPE Research Paper No 71.

University of Manchester.

Foreman-Peck, J. (2004). Spontaneous

Disorder? A Very Short History of British

Vocational Education and Training, 1563-

1973. Policy Futures in Education, 2(1), 72-

101.

Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2011). Vocational

education and training in the spotlight: back

to the future for the UK’s Coalition

Government? London Review of Education,

9(2), 191-204. doi:

10.1080/14748460.2011.585879

Gleeson, D., & Keep, E. (2004). Voice without

accountability: the changing relationship

between employers, the state and education

in England. Oxford Review of Education,

30(1), 37-63. doi:

10.1080/0305498042000190050

Hayward, G, (2005). Vocationalism and the decline of vocational learning: a warning from England. OVAL Research, Broadway. paper presented at the 4th International Conference on Researching Work and Learning. Hayward, G., & Fernandez, R. M. (2004). From

core skills to key skills: fast forward or back to

the future? Oxford Review of Education,

30(1), 117-145. doi:

10.1080/0305498042000190087

Higham, J., & Yeomans, D. (2011). Thirty years

of 14-19 education and training in England:

reflections on policy, curriculum and

organisation. London Review of Education,

9(2), 217-230. doi:

10.1080/14748460.2011.585883

Hodgson, A., & Spours, K. (2013). New

Labour's New Educational Agenda: Issues and

Policies for Education and Training at 14+ (pp.

177). Retrieved from

http://UNIMELB.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRec

ord.aspx?p=1166527

Huddleston, P., & Oh, S. (2004). The magic

roundabout: work-related learning within the

14-19 curriculum. Oxford Review of

Education, 30(1), 83-103.

doi:10.1080/0305498042000190096

Johnson, P. (2004). Education policy in

England. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,

20(2), 173-197. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grh010

Lingfield, R. (2012). Professionalism in Further

Education: Final report of the independent

review panel (pp 52). (12/1198). London.

Lucas, B., Claxton, G., & Webster, R. (2010).

Mind the Gap: Research and reality in

practical and vocational education (pp. 94).

Edge Foundation, London.

Moser, C. (1999). Improving Literacy and

Numeracy: A Fresh Start, Department for

Education and Employment, London.

OECD. (2015). OECD Economic Surveys: United

Kingdom 2015. In OECD Economic Surveys.

OECD. (2011). OECD Economic Surveys: United

Kingdom 2011. In OECD Economic Surveys.

OECD. (2005). OECD Economic Surveys: United

Kingdom 2005 (Vol. 2005): OECD Publishing.

Pring, R., Hayward, G., Hodgson, A., Johnson,

J., Keep, E., Oancea, A., Wilde, S. (2012).

12 | P a g e

Education for All : The Future of Education and

Training for 14-19 Year-Olds Retrieved from

http://UNIMELB.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRec

ord.aspx?p=1020216

Raffe, D. (2015). First count to five: some

principles for the reform of vocational

qualifications in England. Journal of Education

and Work, 28(2), 147-164. doi:

10.1080/13639080.2014.1001334

Richard, D. (2012) The Richard Review of

Apprenticeships. London.

Rousseau, J. J. (2009). Émile Concerning

Education; Extracts (E. Worthington, Trans. J.

Steeg Ed.). First published 1762.

Stanton, G., & Bailey, B. (2005). In search of

VET. Research Paper 62. Oxford and Warwick

Universities. London.

Unwin, L. (2004). Growing beans with

Thoreau: rescuing skills and vocational

education from the UK's deficit approach.

Oxford Review of Education, 30(1), 147-160.

doi: 10.1080/0305498042000190104

Whitehead, N. (2013). Review of Adult

Vocational Qualifications in England (pp. 43).

United Kingdom: UK Commission for

Employment and Skills.

Winch, C. (2012). Vocational and Civic

Education: Whither British Policy? Journal of

Philosophy of Education, 46(4), 603-618. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9752.2012.00880.x

Winch, C. (1995). Education Needs Training.

Oxford Review of Education, 21(3), 315-325.

doi: 10.2307/1050875

Wolf, A. (2011). Review of Vocational

Education – The Wolf Report. Department for

Education, London.

Worth, S. (2005). Beating the ‘churning’ trap

in the youth labour market (Vol. 19, pp. 403-

414). London: Sage Publications.

Young, M. (2011). National vocational

qualifications in the United Kingdom: their

origins and legacy. Journal of Education and

Work, 24(3-4), 259-282. doi:

10.1080/13639080.2011.584686