This article was originally published on FE Week. Read the original article on FE Week.

England is at a crossroads. We face major national missions – from accelerating housebuilding and delivering critical infrastructure to meeting clean-energy targets and enforcing the Building Safety Act. Each depends on a skilled, competent construction workforce. Yet the reforms currently proposed for apprenticeships and qualifications risk weakening, not strengthening, the skills pipeline we need.

Earlier this month, the British Association of Construction Heads (BACH) wrote to the Prime Minister and key ministers warning that the direction of travel in construction skills policy is too narrow and insufficiently rooted in how our industry works. We are in danger of repeating past mistakes: reorganising qualifications without rethinking the structure of the system itself.

Designed for an Old Economy

A most concerning feature of the government’s current approach is the refusal to consider educational models beyond the traditional 16–19 academic pathway. The curriculum and assessment review’s proposals focus entirely on the existing GCSE and A level model, missing the opportunity to explore alternative structures.

This places England out of step with much of Europe. Successful technical education systems in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and Finland typically operate a 14–19 model, allowing young people to specialise earlier in applied and technical subjects with equal status to academic routes. These systems produce young people with strong craft and technical competence—electricians, civil engineering technicians and manufacturing operatives—feeding productive, internationally competitive economies.

By contrast, England continues to treat GCSEs as the central organising point of the entire system for 16-year-olds. Young people who would thrive in practical and technical learning are kept in a narrow academic track until 16, then expected to navigate an increasingly complex qualifications landscape at 16–19. This does not prepare them—or the country—for today’s labour market.

Successful UK examples already exist. University Technical Colleges (UTCs), such as those in Sheffield, demonstrate that earlier technical focus delivers strong outcomes for learners and industry. Yet instead of learning from these models, current reforms attempt to retrofit new qualifications into a structure that is fundamentally outdated.

A Limited Review

The curriculum review should have been an opportunity to step back and consider how we build genuine competence across industry. Instead, its scope is limited.

It focuses on adapting existing provision rather than questioning whether the entire 16–19 framework is the right foundation at all.

The review does not sufficiently explore earlier technical pathways, competency-based approaches, or practical assessment models aligned to the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) and the requirements of the Building Safety Act. Nor does it fully reflect the green and clean-energy roles now embedded across every construction discipline.

In short, it reviews qualifications—but not the system. That is not enough.

Practical Competence, Not More Classroom Pathways

Construction is a competency-driven industry. Employers need people who can demonstrate the skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours required for safe and effective practice.

Yet the proposed level 2 and level 3 pathways set out in the skills white paper are heavily classroom-based and rely on assessment sampling that risks lowering standards.

At a time when building safety has never been more important, reducing rigour is the wrong direction of travel. A classroom-heavy approach will not deliver the competent workforce demanded by employers, regulators or the public.

A Better Way Forward

If we are serious about rebuilding the construction skills base, we need a system that reflects how young people learn and how construction operates. That means:

• exploring a 14–19 technical route
• embedding practical, on-site learning
• using competency-based assessment, not sampling
• designing content with employers, not around qualifications
• integrating green skills across all pathways
• supporting FE colleges with sustainable funding and staffing

The creation of a taskforce for construction apprenticeship reform is welcome. But for it to have real impact, government must pause the wider construction proposals in the skills white paper. Otherwise, we risk locking flawed assumptions into policy for years to come.

England cannot deliver its national missions with a skills system built for another era. It is time to learn from successful international models—and from our own best practice—and build a structure that gives young people the pathways they need and the country the workforce it requires.