The government is turning its attention to higher technical education. On 14 July, education secretary Gavin Williamson announced plans to rationalise higher technical qualifications and promote their benefits through a new public awareness campaign.  

There has been no significant national promotion of higher technical education in the past decade, and the FE sector is likely to welcome the announcement.

Given the huge numbers of 16- to 18-year-olds studying level 3 qualifications in FE, can colleges and independent training providers improve progression within their institutions? And should they?

News: Reforms of higher technical qualifications announced

More: Ministers are charging on FE and HE – can they deliver?

Opinion: Higher technical education is key to Covid-19 recovery

These are the types of questions we have been exploring since 2012 through a string of research studies involving level 3 and level 4+ students in different FE settings.

It might be useful for providers (and the government) if we set out some trends from the series and the broader literature.

Trends in technical education

1. In our studies, where level 3 students say that they would not consider staying on, this is most commonly because they proactively want a university experience. Underpinning this are typically a series of related considerations such as social norms ("all my friends are going") and the influence of authority ("it is what my family expects"), the desire to experience a change from the level 3 institution (as a physical marker of progression) and the belief that a degree has more value in the labour market than a level 4 or 5 qualification.

Any government that wants to direct a higher proportion of students away from the traditional three-year residential degree and towards a local level 4+ offer needs to consider the rich literature on what motivates different types of higher education students.

2. Where level 3 students would contemplate progressing locally, the most common reason they do not is that their provider does not teach the course they want to study. This raises questions about institutional curriculum planning and the government’s strategy about rationalisation – it risks further shrinking the "HE in FE" cohort if it reduces choice in a sector where "the right course for me" is the most influential factor (by a considerable margin) in educational decision-making.

3. In all our studies we have identified a subset of level 3 students who had not considered progressing at their current institution because they were either not aware of the level 4+ curriculum or because they had been actively dissuaded from doing so by level 3 tutors. It is fair to say that there is as much room for improvement in communications and culture in FE institutions delivering higher technical qualifications as there is in curriculum planning.

4. Level 3 students open to local progression are influenced in their decision-making by the types of facilities on offer to level 4+ students and whether they are exclusive to that cohort (or not). They are also significantly influenced by the views of existing higher technical students – where a relationship exists – particularly about the quality of teaching. Where providers struggle to recruit dual professionals, for instance, and staff churn affects the student experience, a reputation for poor quality can develop and this can, in turn, have a very damaging impact on progression to level 4. Supporting institutions to recruit and keep high-quality staff is as important, if not more so, than recalibrating or rebranding qualifications.

5. As the government recognises and the literature makes clear, the level 4+ domestic cohort is comparably more diverse in demographic and social-economic terms (and in motivating factors and barriers to study) than its undergraduate equivalent.

This, combined with the qualification range involved and the complexities of the loans system, makes student recruitment in this area challenging and proportionately less efficient. Our studies suggest the differences between employer-sponsored students and those who apply and enrol under their own steam make the picture even more complex. 

All things being equal, employer-sponsored higher technical students are typically less satisfied with their course and less likely to recommend their place of study than others. It is not entirely clear why this is the case, but behavioural psychology can help explain attitudinal trends – satisfaction is dependent, in part, on feelings of control and fairness. If students are "sent" to study a college course by their employer and do not feel that they have been sufficiently involved in selecting the course or the institution, it is likely to affect how they view the experience.

These kinds of phenomena have implications for provider and employer partnerships, student enrolment and retention, and broader recruitment campaigns like the one the government envisages.

Ben Verinder is managing director of research and communications consultancy Chalkstream