​Originally posted on Rethinking Assessment.

I don’t wish to downplay the importance and possible impact of the Interim Diagnostic Report on Young People and Work, more commonly known as ‘The Milburn Review’ published on 28th May but we need to consider the impact of other such reviews over the years. The most recent one that springs to mind is the 2012 ‘Wolf Review’ of vocational education, which reshaped policy regarding the 16–19 NEET cohort. This Review led to a significant reduction in what it termed ‘low value’ unaccredited vocational courses and their withdrawal from the ‘school league tables’. Lower-attaining pupils were directed into taking more traditional, ‘rigorous’ academic GCSEs instead of what was termed at the time as ‘soft’ vocational options.

These proposals were warmly received by the government because they aligned with other curriculum reforms in schools that emphasised traditional routes for young people. I suggest that what Milburn is partially trying to achieve is the dismantling of significant elements of the Wolf approach. He has made clear how he sees the current system working against offering the best options and opportunities for some young people and believes radical change is required. He has managed to convey this without suggesting that this should be at the expense of challenge and ambition. For those working in schools in some challenging communities the Milburn paper provides a powerful insight into some of the scenarios they regularly encounter. Some school leaders feel forced to pursue routes for young people where they know they are likely to become disengaged and disinterested. Simon Burgess and Dave Thomson signalled this negative impact in their research paper ‘The impact of the Wolf reforms on education outcomes for lower-attaining pupils’ published in March 2019. Clearly, no one in government was listening at the time.

The central question in all of this is how serious as a country are we in ensuring that the education system delivers young people ready to contribute to their, and our futures. It isn’t just about work-readiness as Plato suggested, it should be a ‘lifelong process of shaping the soul, aligning innate abilities with reason, and turning the mind toward universal truths’. Contributing to others through the work, paid or not, that citizens undertake is often how we become part of the fabric of our nation and from my own experience it galvanised my enthusiasm for working harder at many things. The transition from school to paid employment kick started my career. This is why we need to consider carefully how we translate what young people learn to ensure it manages to motivate them to work harder.

In 2021, Ruth Lupton and Debra Hayes published ‘Great mistakes in education policy’. They had reviewed the effect of major education policy initiatives in England and Australia since the 1970s and found seven factors that had got in the way of the bold ambition that politicians proposed. You will have to read the amazing book to discover them all, but two come to the fore as we consider the possible route forward for the Milburn Review. Firstly, they capture Plato’s thinking when they suggest that we need to ‘Regain a wider vision of education, recognising that there are broader purposes to schooling than academic attainment and skill acquisition. And focus more on equity than attainment gaps’ They believe, less could be more, as they suggest we need to reduce the amount of testing and decouple tests from school accountability measures. As they say, ‘Look at alternative approaches to assessment and accountability that do not distort the activities they are intended to measure’. Milburn acknowledges this when he states ‘The school system primarily measures attainment. It too often counts qualifications rather than student destinations or labour market participation. That is a design choice with consequences’ The problem is that for many students the ‘attainment/academic’ route is enjoyable, rewarding and motivating. It has a clear pathway whereas the Post 16 world of vocational routes for those not aligning with the ‘academic’ route is confusing and undervalued. It is certainly not well funded.

There is much in the Milburn Review that I support. It is the first of its kind where I have felt that the author has understood the actual challenges many schools, their leaders and staff are facing in ensuring education ‘shapes the soul’ for all our young people, in addition to getting strong examination results. It will be interesting to see how Milburn’s recommendations align (or not) with the Francis Review due to be implemented in 2028. I hope the DfE has begun to consider whether its brief for Prof Rebecca Francis’ work may have been too narrow and lacked sufficient ambition. Closer alignment between the Francis Review and the Milburn one is essential if we are to increase opportunity for all of our young people and enable them to feel that they can all contribute to a richer and wealthier society for us all.