“Post-18 (or ‘tertiary’) education in England is a story of both care and neglect, depending on whether students are amongst the 50 per cent of young people who participate in higher education (HE) or the rest.” Foreword by Philip Augar from Independent Panel Report: Review of post-18 education and funding, May 2019.

I keep coming back to these opening lines written by Philip Augar after the first properly comprehensive review of all post-18 education. The echo is strong with the opening lines of Dickens’ Tale of Two Cities, and particularly the line “….it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity…” because that probably best summarises how the report was received.

Meet Baroness Helena Kennedy: Ahead of her time in FE

More: Why the Augar review shouldn’t be forgotten

FE Podcast: Keegan on results, T levels and the future

For those of us working in the college and further education sectors, the report was full of hope and there was (and still is) belief that it would lead to profound and positive changes. On the other hand, there truly was incredulity amongst those in universities who saw it as an attack on all that they held true. That polarisation was stark, and I remember speaking to a largely university audience shortly after publication challenging them to admit that most had not even read the chapters of the report which were about FE and skills, because it was not relevant to them.

It’s a deep shame that the report was received that way, but not surprising. So much of the debate in post-16 education is undermined by polarised views and understanding or by differences and territorialism. So much so that it is sometimes difficult to criticise the whole system without being accused of attacking one particular part of it. Perhaps it is simply a sign of the times we have been living in, where simplistic populism has driven so much so-called public debate? Or perhaps it is simply because we have spent so much time focusing on higher education at the expense of everything else and we are in the early stages of an unhelpful backlash? Whatever the reasons, we need to move on, it is not good enough. There is a lot to be proud of across every part of post-16 education which needs to continue even if we can all agree that we need to do better overall.

Nuanced answers

The best public policy solutions rarely emerge from a polarised debate. Social and economic problems and challenges are mostly not about deciding what is good or bad, desired or unwanted. There are so many examples of this in education though, in which discussions and debate seem to end in an either/or dead-end when the answer is more nuanced and joined-up.

Where better to start than the classic “stand-off” between academic and technical education in which a false tension is set up as an enormous problem. It really is a simple one, this. We. Need. Both. The pandemic showed us that while we need highly trained and skilled researchers to design vaccines, we also need people to nurse and care, deliver food and keep the IT working. A nice easy starter.

While we’re on some easy wins, it’s also worth condemning to the naughty step any discussion that sets up a fight between colleges and universities for primacy. We will all do worse if this is a zero-sum game of win and lose. It has to be about both flourishing to deliver their unique, different and slightly overlapping vital and complimentary roles. A truly lifelong learning society will need the very best colleges and universities working together along with schools, adult education providers and independents as well.

So far, so easy, so let’s move on to some trickier areas. Our education system seems to have been designed around an escalator taking people through compulsory schooling, onto A levels, through three year residential degrees and into decent jobs. It still works that way for many, and nothing wrong with that in itself.

There are shortcomings though, in a rapidly changing world, with technology transforming jobs and with people living and working much longer. There is also the issue of fairness and equity, because the system we have got simply does not deliver for many people who get a raw deal. The populist answer is to attack the bit that is working and the institutions involved, particularly recently the universities, but that is too simplistic and is part of the polarised debate we can do without.

I want young people to have routes to success which include the current routes, as well as new ones. But I also want a system of lifelong learning, training, CPD and re-skilling which work for adults of all ages. We just need to describe it, design it and then secure the investment to make it work. Not more adult funding at the expense of young people, but both for the benefit of an inclusive society and successful economy.

There are plenty of other false tensions we need to debunk. National or local; exams or continuous assessment; economic or social; jobs or wider learning outcomes. All benefit from a balanced discussion and all suffer from simple polarised positioning. In each case I hear people digging their heels in absolutely in one camp or another, and I find myself thinking that the answer is simply “both”.

So, I do want a national post-16 strategy, but I also want local partnerships to agree coherent strategies that work in every unique place. Likewise, I want education and training to help people get good jobs and earn decent wages, but I also want them to be empowered to be good citizens, contributing to their families and communities, engaging in our participative democracy and being happier and healthier. Exams are a good way to assess, but surely it is better to have a mixture of assessments which help different people shine and reduce the high stakes nature of exams?

It might be unexciting, it might not grab media headlines, but I really hope that we can start to agree that most policy solutions need a balance of ingredients and solutions. I love colleges and will die in a ditch to help them be successful, but universities, schools and other education providers are equally loveable and certainly just as vital. All ages, all stages, a mixture of institutions and a basket of outcomes; national and local, a variety of assessments. Horses for courses, diversity and inclusion. Let’s embrace them all in education.