Research Question:

-               What skills and behaviours of students/employees do the strategies of employers and stakeholders seek to produce through University Technical Colleges?’

University Technical Colleges (UTCs) represent a distinctive model within the education system in England, combining academic and vocational provision for students aged 14–19, with some institutions extending entry from age 11. Designed as all-ability, mixed-sex state-funded academies, UTCs specialise in technical and vocational education and training (TVET), such as engineering, biomedical science, computing, and creative technologies, while also delivering core academic subjects, including mathematics, English, and science (UTC website, 2019; NFER, 2017). The model is underpinned by partnerships with local universities and employers, as well as oversight from the Baker Dearing Trust (BDT), with the stated aim of bridging skills gaps in regional economies and fostering employability. UTCs emphasise project-based learning, extended school hours, and the development of transferable skills such as teamwork, communication, and problem-solving, positioning students as “work-ready” graduates.

There have been several policy reforms that have contributed to the development of vocational education programmes. TVET is a complex field that aims to equip individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to meet the labour market’s demands and contribute to human capital development. TVET has undergone significant changes in England and government policies restrict individual choices by determining the vocational orientation of the available curriculum. TVET is seen by policymakers, business leaders, academics and governments as having a pivotal role in the transition from school to waged labour for young people (Avis and Atkins, 2017) and UTCs are a part of this.

Previous research into UTCs has investigated the experiences of young people in TVET, with regards to gender and class (Bathmaker and Ingram, 2014), curriculum delivery (Dale, 2016), UTCs leaders’ perceptions (Gomery, 2019), as well as reports evaluating the UTC model (NFER, 2017; McCrone et al., 2019). However, there has been little research into trying to understand how UTCs shape students skills and behaviours and their relationship with employer sponsors and stakeholders. There has been plenty of public criticism of the UTC model in the educational/wider media, with concerns voiced in relation to their viability, cost and performance.

The theoretical framework draws on Marx, Bourdieu, and Reay. This combined framework supports how UTCs simultaneously produce labour-power for contemporary capitalism while reproducing existing social inequalities. These frameworks enable an analysis of how power, class, and culture intersect to shape the ways in which labour is valued, disciplined, and marginalised within UTCs, particularly in relation to employer sponsors and wider stakeholders.

From a Marxist perspective, TVET, can be understood as functioning to reproduce capitalist labour relations by preparing students for participation in the labour process. Bourdieusian theory extends this by demonstrating how habitus and unequal distributions of economic, cultural, social, and symbolic capital shape skills and dispositions that are recognised and rewarded. Reay’s work further foregrounds how these processes are experienced unevenly, particularly by working-class students, reinforcing stratification rather than promoting social justice. Within a marketised education system, these dynamics are intensified rather than transformed, as employer influence and economic priorities become increasingly embedded in curricula. Integrating these frameworks therefore provides a critical foundation for analysing how UTCs shape students’ skills and behaviours and contribute to the ongoing reproduction of labour-power and inequality.

The study adopted a qualitative research design in order to explore in depth the perspectives, practices, and rationales of organisations involved in the sponsorship and support of University Technical Colleges (UTCs). Data were generated through a combination of semi-structured interviews, observational fieldwork and document analysis, allowing for methodological triangulation and a richer understanding of the research context. The dataset consisted of eight semi-structured interviews conducted with individuals occupying senior or influential positions within organisations that sponsor, partner with, or otherwise support UTCs. These participants held roles that enabled them to shape strategic decision-making, resource allocation, and organisational engagement with technical education. The sample represented a range of organisational contexts, including large national and multinational corporations, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), education management organisations, and regional business networks. This diversity allowed for comparative insight into how different types of employers and intermediary organisations understand and enact their involvement with UTCs. Interviews were conducted both face-to-face and online, reflecting practical constraints as well as participant availability and geographical dispersion. All interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent and transcribed. In addition to interviews, non-participant observations were conducted at a UTC site. These observations focused on the everyday practices and interactions through which employer engagement was enacted, including encounters between staff, students, and external partners. Observational data provided contextual insight into the institutional environment and helped to situate interview accounts within lived organisational practices. Data was analysed using thematic analysis, supported by NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Analysis followed an iterative and reflexive process, beginning with familiarisation through repeated reading of transcripts and fieldnotes. Initial codes were then generated, capturing both theoretically informed concepts and patterns emerging directly from the data. Theme development involved clustering related codes, refining boundaries between themes, and constructing thematic maps to explore relationships across the dataset. Ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection, and all participants provided informed consent. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured using pseudonyms and the removal of identifying details from transcripts and reporting. Particular attention was paid to issues of power, positionality, and relational ethics, especially given the researcher’s engagement with senior business leaders and a participant group that was predominantly white male.

The early findings indicate that business partners consistently prioritise practical and applied knowledge over theoretical or academic knowledge within UTCs. Participants framed the perceived advantage of UTCs as their ability to prepare students for employment through applied learning, real-world projects, and exposure to workplace environments, rather than through abstract disciplinary knowledge. While academic qualifications were acknowledged as necessary, they were frequently positioned as secondary to employability, behavioural readiness, and application of knowledge in workplace contexts. UTCs appear to function as sites of workplace socialisation, where students learn the values, dispositions, and behaviours demanded by employers. Rather than equipping students with expansive career agency, the focus on soft skills risks positioning learners primarily as “good workers,” reinforcing existing labour hierarchies rather than challenging them. Language also emerged as a significant sub-theme. Participants frequently rejected the label “vocational,” associating it with lower status, reduced academic ambition, and deficit assumptions about learners. In contrast, “technical” education was framed as higher status, intellectually demanding, and more compatible with middle-class aspirations. This distinction reflects symbolic boundary-making within TVET, where rebranding serves to distance UTCs from historically stigmatised vocational pathways. Such framing reinforces a hierarchy within working-class educational routes, privileging technical over vocational identities while reproducing social stratification. This emphasis reflects a neoliberal conception of education, where the purpose of TVET is framed primarily in terms of labour-market alignment and human capital development (Missekle-Evans,2021). Knowledge was valued primarily for its usefulness in employment, positioning education as a means of producing work-ready individuals rather than fostering broader theoretical or critical thinking. This aligns with critiques within the literature that vocational and technical pathways often restrict access to forms of cultural capital that facilitate upward mobility, thereby contributing to the reproduction of social inequality (Atkins,2009).

Atkins, L. (2009). ‘Educational Reform and the State: Reflections on Education in England in the Twentieth Century’. Journal of Educational Policy, 24(6), 729-744. Avis, J., & Atkins, L. (2017). Vocational education and training policy in England. In D. N. Aspin (Ed.), Policy and Inequality in Education (pp. 77-92). Springer. Bathmaker, A-M & Ingram, N 2014, ''Who wants to be an engineer? The effects of vocational diversification in English secondary schooling on the decision-making and experience of girls and boys from different social class backgrounds'', Paper presented at British Educational Research Association (BERA) Annual Conference, 2014, London, UK United Kingdom, 23/09/14 - 25/09/14. Dale, R. (2016). University Technical Colleges: Failed Experiment or the Future for Technical Education?. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 769-782. Gomery, D. (2019). University technical colleges: Pedagogy meets market demands. In F. Marhuenda & M.J. Chisvert-Tarazona (Eds.), Pedagogical concerns and market demands in VET. Proceedings of the 3rd Crossing Boundaries in VET conference, Vocational Education and Training Network (VETNET) (pp.34-44) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2641685 McCrone, T., Jones, S., Skinner, E., & Welford, L. (2019). What are university technical colleges (UTCs) and how well are they working? An evaluation of the impact, processes, and implementation of university technical colleges in England. National Foundation for Educational Research. Misselke-Evans, L. (2021). Technical and vocational education and training. In R. Waller & S. D. Briggs (Eds.), International Handbook of Technical and Vocational Education and Training Research (pp. 1-26). London: Springer NFER report. (2017). University Technical Colleges: Employer-focused technical education?. Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/UNTC01/UNTC01.pdf. University Technical Colleges [brochure]. Retrieved from https://www.utcolleges.org/app/uploads/2019/09/UTC-Recruitment-Brochure-2019-FINAL.pdf.