| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
13 Feb 2003 : Column 1116—continued
5.30 pm
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): I welcome the White Paper wholeheartedly. It responds to the many pressures on our system. For the first time in many years, it sets out a coherent way forward for the 14-to-19 phase of education. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he would give us a history of the various failures to strengthen vocational education over the past hundred years. I regret that he did not do so, but my regret was mitigated by the fact that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), in the assumptions that underpinned his opening remarks, gave us living proof of many of those failings. I made a note of the fact that two thirds of his speech was focused entirely on universities and A-levels, which suggests to me that he has not taken on board the thrust of the White Paper on 14-to-19 education.
Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman is giving a misleading impression. I concentrated on those points in order to highlight the fact that the Government are wrong to pursue those priorities. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) was in the Chamber. She knows perfectly well, and she can check the record tomorrow, that I said there should be a greater emphasis on FE in the Government's proposals, and that is where they are failing most profoundly.
Mr. Chaytor: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not make his emphasis clearer in his opening remarks. I found it interesting that he seemed to ignore one of the main points of the White Paper, which involves abolishing the distinction between the vocational and the academic. His assumption, clearly expressed, was that universities were for those following an academic path, whereas further education colleges were for those following a vocational path. I found it interesting that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) advanced his criticism that universities were
insufficiently academic. There seems to be a schizophrenia deep in the Conservative party about the future of higher education.On the academic/vocational divide, one of the most important aspects of the White Paper, which I warmly welcome, is the new language that my hon. Friend proposes—the terms "general" and "specialist". We should no longer use the terms "academic" and "vocational", because for as long as we continue to use them, the question of hierarchy will come into the matter. It is impossible in our political culture for the vocational to be seen to have parity with the academic. The new framework of general and specialist studies is the right way forward. My only regret was that, after the point had been made early in the White Paper, the language was not consistently followed and regressed to the use of "vocational" and "academic" later on.
On the definition, does the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West really think that a degree in medicine is not vocational? Does he think that a degree in law, physics or management is not vocational? We must challenge outdated, archaic assumptions of what is vocational and what is academic. In the school system, is art not vocational? Given the labour market in which we are living and in which the creative industries are generating more and more jobs, more young people are now involved in the creative industries than were involved in textiles. Are we saying that art is not a vocational subject? I find that bizarre.
Mr. McWalter: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as this is the only way I shall get into the debate. Does he agree that subjects such as motor vehicle studies, which is available as a GCSE subject in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the UK, have a tremendous academic potential for making young people understand certain concepts, and they have that "Wow!" factor that will often get them into a school, whereas they might otherwise be tempted to stay away?
Mr. Chaytor: If it were not for the fact that I want to see the end of the GCSE, I would welcome its extension to motor vehicle studies. The point is—this is another priority in the White Paper—that we need to play down the significance of the GCSE if we want to increase participation rates and encourage stronger interest in lifelong learning among more young people. The GCSE currently acts as a barrier to our doing that, so it is critical that it be gradually given less significance and become a sort of progress check on the way to the age of 19.
We must also go further and urgently start work on establishing the development of an English baccalaureate—an all-embracing qualifications framework at 19. If we can do that and take into account the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) about the importance of developing a modular structure for such qualifications and a framework for credit accumulation and transfer, we will be on the way to having a school and further education system that will compete with the best in the world. We will find that, in such a modular structure, students will increasingly mix and match subjects such as history, geography, literature, music and art, as well as motor vehicle studies, engineering, hairdressing and
hotel management. That will be better for individual students and provide a far better service for those who have traditionally been failed by our education system. It will also provide a better service for those who have traditionally followed an extremely narrow academic curriculum, and it will be for the good of the country as a whole.I should like to make one or two extra points. The White Paper's focus on the individual learning plan is crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) expressed concerns about gender equality. In one sense, that issue is changing rapidly, as it is girls who are now racing ahead in our school system. In GCSEs and—I think—A-levels, there are significant improvements in the performance of some groups of girls, if not all groups. However, what concerns me is that the rate of intellectual, physical and emotional development of our young people is hugely variable. The assumption that all young people can take precisely the same form of assessment at the same stage of their lives is misguided. From not only 14 years, but 11, we need a far greater focus on individual guidance and learning plans. I am sure that the flexibility of the new curriculum that is emerging in the White Paper will be an important step forward.
I want to express two reservations about issues on which the White Paper does not go into sufficient detail. On the institutional arrangements for the development of the 14-to-19 phase, it is a strength of the document that it focuses so much on the curriculum, but it does not say very much about how we will deliver it. The appendix contains a detailed work programme, which is important, but I should like to flag up to my Front-Bench colleagues the concerns expressed in many quarters about the ability of local learning and skills councils to bring about the transformation that we seek. There are concerns about excessive bureaucracy in the LSCs, lack of transparency and decision-making processes. There are also concerns about lack of expertise in the LSCs. We understand the history and the way in which staff were redeployed from the previous bodies, but getting more direct expertise about secondary education and further education into LSCs is a priority.
Finally, it is crucial that the 14-to-19 phase is now firmly on the agenda, but let us not overlook what happens at the age of 11. The most crucial determinant of many young people's educational future is the school to which they are allocated at 11. I do not want to rise to the bait that was thrown in by several Opposition Members earlier about academic selection at 11, but I hope that the Minister will not be deflected by the first interventions in the debate relating to admissions policies for federations of schools. One of the great ironies is that we have recently announced the establishment of an access regulator for universities. If we had an access regulator for secondary schools, there would be far less need to look at access to universities, because things would follow through automatically.
5.40 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): This has been a particularly constructive debate and it has perhaps ranged rather more widely than its narrow remit. Time will not permit me to comment on all the various interesting contributions that have been made, but they
have been almost universally constructive. I hope that the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) will not think it invidious if I single her out, because I thought that she made the single most important remark of the debate when she reminded us that this was not simply about competitiveness, and that education had a value in itself. We should never forget that, whatever else we say. A fairly common theme running through a number of hon. Members' speeches was the need for greater guidance for all young people; if this issue is complicated for us, it is extremely complicated for them, and they have only one chance to get it right.We have no objection in principle to the themes of the White Paper; we find it constructive. The only point that I would make is that there are a number of interlocking interests that are not exactly the same, and Ministers need to be clear when they are pursuing these policies where they are placing the emphasis at any one time, especially if there is any dissonance between them on any particular policy. The first objective is the need for greater flexibility in the system, and we welcome that. We would also welcome better linkages back into key stage 3 and even into primary schools, and forward into the post-secondary experience of university, training or whatever. Coupled with that is the concern to sort out some of the confusion in the present qualifications structure.
The second objective—again, a proper one—is to tackle the problem of the 10 per cent., or thereabouts, of socially excluded young people, who have probably voted with their feet. We have to remember that they might not even be in school to consider doing GCSE, and we need to start to motivate them earlier, in ways that have been touched on today. The third objective—the endemic one; it has been an issue ever since the Royal Society of Arts report of 1884—is the need to tackle the desperate, deep-seated lack of prestige for vocational education. That need is encapsulated in the words that I remember from civil servant who has now retired, so I think I can quote him. When I once said, very pertly, on receiving a document, "This will require two A-levels, or the equivalent vocational qualifications", he replied, "That, of course, goes without saying, Minister." That said it all.
Alongside that worry about the vocational gap is the manifest fact that we need people with a vocational education. We have a desperate shortage of them, despite the fact that some modern apprentices are coming through. The Minister may want to advise me on this, but I believe that, at the advanced level, there are not enough. There are far too few, for example, to meet the needs of the construction industry—a subject that we debated recently. We shall be able to fill all the available places with people with craft-based skills, and we also have requirements for those with technician-based skills.
In the time remaining, I would like to concentrate on a number of points. The first relates to institutional arrangements, and we have not yet mentioned how difficult it will be to put together the 14-to-19 phase. For a start, there is a systemic division at 16, when compulsory schooling ends and post-compulsory schooling, involving voluntary participation in education or training, begins. Secondly, there are structural
subdivisions, post-16, between school and further education, which is itself divided into general FE colleges, sixth form colleges and the training arm, along with whatever provisions are blended in between them for the particular individual. There have always been concerns about the anomalies in funding and remuneration in that area, and they have not always been levelled up, even if they are gradually becoming nearer to one another.In its briefing, the Association of Colleges referred to concerns that colleges were only receiving the pupils that schools would rather not touch, and that also has a bearing on their concerns about inspections and Ofsted results. It is worried that guidance is still skewed towards keeping pupils in schools and that colleges may not get credit from their local LSCs for involvement in any pre-16 education. Proper concerns also exist about the legal framework. For example, if children under 16 go into college, child protection, liability and health and safety issues may arise.
Having said all that, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is a powerful experience to encounter a group of 16-year-olds in a further education college who might not have very good GCSEs but who have rediscovered the relevance of education. They have a buzz about them and are motivated not only to do well in their vocational attainment, but to reinvest in their general educational skills. That is a contribution that FE can make to the overall mix. I should also record the fact that there are more A-level students in the FE sector than in sixth forms, but they both matter and we should not create artificial distinctions tonight. We need to draw together the whole offer and make it relevant to the individuals.
I have scribbled down some possible criteria for a good vocational qualification. They include rigour, even if the assessment style may be different from that for general or academic attainment; occupational relevancy; coherence within the overall curriculum, so there is some understanding that a subject will be offered alongside other subjects; acceptability to teachers, because it needs to be something that they want to deliver; and acceptability to pupils and their parents, because it needs to be something that they wish to study. We must not forget that the pupils will be volunteers for the new subjects.
The parity of esteem to which we have referred cannot be achieved by fiat or ministerial edict. It will need to be earned, mostly by the qualifications' acceptability to employers. There can, therefore, be no question of tailoring vocational GCSEs to the weaker candidates. Of course, if people do not find it easy to do academic subjects but do well with their hands, that is great. However, that should not mean that the entire qualification is skewed to achieve that. It must be just as relevant for others who may wish to participate.
A case can be made for strong occupational relevance. I hope that when the sector skills councils are up and running, they will provide a contribution by specifying what is needed and how it should sit alongside other qualifications that may fill up the offer. I have always recognised a certain strain in the GNVQ concept, because it tries to be both academic and vocationally relevant. It is not fully a preparation for
work, and was never intended to be so. In some cases, it may be better to offer an GNVQ-type qualification, even pre-16, alongside the appropriate general education.None of these proposals will work unless the offering is feasible to deliver—including any assessment—cost-effective and acceptable to the stakeholders. Strangely enough, as vocational education moves further back into the compulsory education years, its marketing effort must be even more developed.
In conclusion, I wish to make one or two comments on outcomes. Mediaeval Oxbridge would have understood rather more than modern Oxbridge would articulate that all education is, in a sense, vocational, in that it leads to something. What is needed is to get the balance right in terms of ultimate employability. The Association of Colleges expresses some concern that arises out of the experience of Curriculum 2000, with colleges being discouraged by the reaction of universities, which have discounted key skills and taken little account of breadth in their offers and interviews. The association points out that
- "it is crucial that 14-19 developments gain the endorsement of HE and are taken account of in HE offers."
Beyond that issue is the acceptability of qualifications to employers. The market has not been perfect, and what employers want has not always been well articulated. They probably need a range of skills and attainments within the individual, and different kinds of recruits with different attainments across recruiting profiles. However, above all they need closer association with the education system—we cannot go on in silos. At the same time, there needs to be greater flexibility for individuals to tailor their own offers, and to develop beyond their original horizons: if they do well, they should be able to proceed to a degree and become a modern apprentice, for example.
The two forces are university pull and pupil push, and to be effective they need to operate in the same direction. If Ministers can fashion a strategy for 14 to 19-year-olds that turns words into achievements, they will have our support; indeed, they will be judged by their success, or otherwise, in doing so.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |