The word “skills” appears 142 times in the government’s industrial strategy. But it’s most certainly not overkill. Placing skills at the heart of the industrial strategy is essential for our economy post-Brexit, when home-grown skills will undoubtedly increase in importance. If we are ever to end our country’s long-fought battle with low productivity and skills gaps, this is something we absolutely need to get right.

The Green Paper contains measures aimed at developing parity of esteem between vocational and academic qualifications, which is more than welcome. We were particularly pleased to hear the government talk about introducing a Ucas-style system for professional and technical education to help direct young people to alternatives to university - something we’ve already called for in the apprenticeship system.

There is a clear recognition from government that if we’re going to be successful when we eventually leave the European Union, then we need to address skills shortages and invest in technical skills, particularly those which are science, technology, engineering and mathematics-related (Stem). And not a moment too soon! Shifting the emphasis of our education system to align the skills of the next generation of workers with the demands of industry is something we urgently need to happen.

Is there enough money?

Many of the proposals put forward in the industrial strategy - such as improved standards of higher level technical education provision; greater emphasis on practical on-the-job training for students; learning opportunities at every stage of your career; and better careers advice in schools - are things that we can really get behind.

But, whilst overall the government’s proposals seem to be heading in the right direction, they also raise concerns around policy implementation. For example, in perhaps the most headline-grabbing proposal of all, the prime minister pledged £170 million for the establishment of institutes of technology, intended to boost the provision of high-quality, higher-level technical education. This is something everyone supports, but is there enough money allocated given the scale of the challenge? And it’s not clear how the government intends to make this happen. Will the funding come from a new revenue stream or will it be recycled from somewhere else? If the latter, what else will suffer as a result?

Whilst the principle of forming institutes of technology to act as centres of technical excellence to offer the very best in technical training is fantastic, the funding proposed for the institutes of technology is not enough to establish new providers and meet future skills demand in the UK. The bottom line is that whatever we call them, we need institutions across the country to deliver a high-quality teaching and learning experience to boost productivity and support growth, and this could mean looking at different models of governance, or collaborations between colleges, training providers and other organisations. We look forward to seeing more details around this in the coming months.

Also a cause for concern is the timescale for these proposals to be made a reality. While we’re still waiting for some more information around this, if new institutes of technology are intended to deliver some of the new core technical routes by 2019, as has been suggested, we can assume these proposals are working to the similar rushed timescales of the Technical and Further Education Bill.

Reform fatigue

As our research Sense and Instability demonstrated, successive governments have a tendency to ignore past mistakes in policymaking by rushing policies through, not giving them time to embed, or by limiting consultation, which has led to system failure and ultimately employer unwillingness to engage with government initiatives.

And at the moment, we as a sector are at risk of reform fatigue, what with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, the Technical and Further Education Bill and the area-based reviews, to name but a few. I would hate to see reforms that genuinely aim to put professional and technical education centre-stage fail due to hasty implementation.

So for the industrial strategy’s reforms to work, we need to make sure business leaders, and skills and training providers, are convinced that what is proposed will add value and that they are in a position to work together. In other words, the government needs to take the time to ensure that everyone is on board, draw on the insights from skills experts, and not rush anything through the moment the consultation is closed.

The proposals in the industrial strategy have the potential to make a difference, but ensuring the right steps are taken to transform the skills offer for the future is about more than the right words - it will take consideration, consultation and care.

Kirstie Donnelly is managing director at City & Guilds

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES FE News on Twitter, like us on Facebook and follow us on LinkedIn