The reform of technical education reminds me of the Irish joke about a lost traveller who asks for directions to Dublin, only to be told: “I wouldn’t start from here.”

Our research on post-16 choices in England shows that it isn’t possible to put current options into much of a coherent framework, other than by sorting qualifications into loosely defined “levels” and categories now stipulated by the Department for Education for performance frameworks (Applied Generals, Tech levels, Tech Certificates). The latter works better for level 3 qualifications than anything below that and disguises a huge range of heterogeneity within categories. I do not know how students are supposed to make an informed choice and it is hardly surprising that most people with the prerequisites to do A levels end up working towards them.

At least A levels are widely understood, they lead to one nationally recognised qualification and they have clear progression routes. Yet only half of students undertake A-level courses: they are higher-achieving and less likely to be poor than the average student.

A genuine concern for social mobility - as well as the skills needs of the economy - means caring about the other 50 per cent just as much. This other half is presented with a confusing plethora of qualifications, many of which sound quite similar, many of which are highly specific and delivered by many different awarding bodies (although a small number have significant market share).

Limited opportunities

Our research at the Centre for Vocational Education Research (CVER) at the London School of Economics suggests that students working towards qualifications at level 2 or below at the age of 17 have a high probability of not progressing in education to level 3 by the age of 20, and of undertaking education at a low level for multiple years. On the positive side, they are more likely to start an apprenticeship than higher-achieving students, although such opportunities are not widely available for young people in general. For example, only about 6 per cent of 16- to 18-year-olds were participating in an apprenticeship at the end of 2014.

The Sainsbury review and Post-16 Skills Plan represent a set of wide-ranging reforms that would make the post-16 system comprehensible to all. Students would be presented with a choice between academic and technical education at age 16, and within the latter there would be 15 employer- or college-based routes.

The latter would be a two-year programme beginning with a “common core” before greater specialisation. Students not yet ready to commence a programme - for example, because of special educational needs - would have the opportunity to undertake a transition year before making this choice. Standards and assessments would be informed by a panel of relevant professionals and overseen by the new Institute for Apprenticeships.

Within each programme, there would be only one approved Tech-level qualification for each occupation or cluster of occupations. Organisations will be invited to bid to deliver these qualifications for a fixed period.

If the plan delivers on these aims, it will be a huge improvement on the current system, which is obtuse - even to those of us who have spent months working on the administrative data. If properly implemented, one could imagine more students actively choosing technical options with the support of their teachers and parents.

Employers would know what they were getting and be more ready to employ such students (thus potentially raising the relative labour-market returns to technical vis-à-vis academic qualifications). Parity of esteem needs to be earned - it can’t be decreed.

Difficult to backtrack

In my view, the weakness of the reforms is that 16 is a very young age for individuals to have a fixed view of occupational choices, even broadly defined. After all, they are not allowed to vote for another two years. A-level students will have prior experience of their chosen subjects; technical students will have to make significant choices without commensurate knowledge. Furthermore, it could be difficult to backtrack.

The Sainsbury review does suggest “bridges” between academic and technical progression routes at age 18. But there is nothing about experimentation with different routes or the possibility of a second chance for someone who makes a mistake.

Another challenging issue will be implementation of the transition year for those who are unprepared for anything; presumably these would include the 10 per cent of students found in our research to be undertaking level 1 or below qualifications at the age of 17. Will one year be enough? And what incentives will be given for colleges to make this a high priority? Our research suggests that many thousands of students currently undertake low-level vocational qualifications for more than one consecutive year.

When evaluating the reforms, it will be important to observe closely what happens to this group, as any improvement for participants in technical education should be measured against figures for participants in academic education - and not rise because more students leave education with neither one nor the other.

Sandra McNally is director of the Centre for Vocational Education Research and leads the education and skills programme of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, and is professor of economics at the University of Surrey