24. Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Colleges (AoC) (DP 30)
INTRODUCTION
The Association of Colleges (AoC) is the representative
body for further education colleges in England and Wales established
by the colleges themselves to provide a voice for further education
at national level. Some 98% of the 420 colleges in England and
Wales are members.
1. Whilst the focus of Further Education
colleges has traditionally been to provide education and training
post 16 and beyond compulsory schooling age, the new government
agenda to see education 14-19 as a continuum has significantly
changed the role of Further Education in delivering and facilitating
learning to a much wider cohort.
2. We understand that the focus of this
Committee is to examine the structure of secondary education.
Previously, the role of Further Education in this debate might
have been regarded as peripheral, with the divisions between the
sectors clearly defined, each delivering age-related learning
within clear curriculum boundaries.
3. Now, however, the distinctions between
the two sectors is less distinct, with collaborative partnerships
between schools and colleges often ensuring a major input into
the work of the schools for learners aged 14-16. We welcome this
development. Any consideration of the organisation of the secondary
sector—which we recognise is likely to focus on secondary
schools—needs also to take into account the opportunities
for further collaboration with other providers locally, especially
FE colleges. The debate is how much specialisation is appropriate
area by area. We will be supporting the conclusion that local
solutions, building on a range of collaborative models, is likely
to be the way forward, at least short term.
4. Putting the diversity debate into context—the
need to consider what we deliver, before deciding how we deliver
it. Do current learning opportunities meet the needs of all learners?
Does the curriculum need development and reform? And is the system
in which schools and colleges operate set up to reward diversification?
5. The debate, the Association believes,
is much more complex than considering diversification from the
point of view of "who does what".
6. Many factors will impact on a school's
or other provider's ability to delivering either a broader, more
diverse curriculum to a wider cohort of learners, or a narrower,
more specialist curriculum, perhaps to a narrower range of learner
experience or ability. Some of these factors, which may not seem
immediately relevant to the debate, but which in our view are
significant, are explored below. These include league tables and
aligning timetables between institutions, for example.
7. But firstly, the Association believes
that any debate on diversity of provision—that is the structure
of secondary education—can only be considered, once the
needs of young learners have been identified and the adequacy
of the curriculum and the National Qualifications Framework to
meet their needs has been examined.
8. It is clear that one size does not fit
all. But the Association believes that the proposed curriculum
structure 14-19, which requires learners to focus on the enriched
GCSE programme, is based on the premise that GCSEs are appropriate
for all. The introduction of vocational GCSEs will, the Association
predicts, do little to alleviate the current position, which is
that 50% of young people fail at level two.
9. A watershed exists at the age of 16,
with the 50% of young people referred to above, who do not achieve
grades A*-C, effectively being denied progression to level three,
either the traditional A Level route, or the new Advanced Vocational
qualifications.
10. Diversification must address the needs
of these learners, and the promotion of diversification not just
be confined to the relative strengths of different kinds of provision
for level three learners—whether in a sixth form centre,
a school environment or a college.
11. Credible alternatives to GCSEs do exist,
and have been widely used in colleges as an alternative means
of reaching level two standard for those who have failed to achieve
it in schools. Colleges have had considerable success in engaging
young people through GNVQs (regrettably to be withdrawn, rather
than developed) and other vocationally related qualifications.
12. This has been achieved through employing
a much wider range of teaching and learning styles, allied with
a far broader approach to assessment of skills.
13. It is diversity in the curriculum, and
diversity in teaching which will underpin an education system
that widens participation, is inclusive and which offers equality
of opportunity.
14. Diversification must be based on the
following principles, therefore:
— that the needs of all learners, particularly
those who have not yet achieved, must be taken into account—diversification
needs to take account the needs of learners at levels one and
two, not just those studying at level three;
— that a much wider range of teaching
and learning styles, allied with a far broader approach to the
assessment of skills must be employed to respond to those needs;
— that the experience already developed
in Further Education colleges to deliver an appropriate curriculum
for those learners who have not yet achieved should be recognised
and harnessed;
— that the experience and vocational
expertise of many Further Education lecturers needs to be fully
harnessed to deliver a wider, vocationally linked curriculum;
— that the available curriculum 14-16
and 16-19 needs to be reviewed to ascertain how well it meets
the needs of all learners;
— that the diversity in learning environments
needs to be retained, to meet the emotional and social needs of
all 14-19 year olds and to ensure some groups are not excluded;
— that all those providers of diversified
learning 14-19 must be funded consistently and equally; and
— that structural differences, for
example the length of the school day and timetabling, do not obstruct
diversification through collaboration.
WHO DELIVERS
WHAT—FACTORS
WHICH COULD
MILITATE AGAINST
DIVERSIFICATION
15. In terms of the "traditional"
curriculum, structures are in place in schools to deliver GCSEs,
and, where partnerships exist with local colleges, a far broader
curriculum. This includes the wider vocational GCSEs, specialist
subject and vocational options and units, major vocational qualifications
and minority A Level subjects, for which viable numbers, resources
and/or expertise does not exist in schools.
16. Where such collaborative links exist,
student entitlement is maintained, and schools are comfortable
with the provision they deliver or manage.
17. However without such collaborative links,
the Association has observed that some schools are reluctant to
invest in the resources and staff expertise to deliver the wider
curriculum, with its pre-requisites of good local industry links,
specialist equipment and qualified staff.
18. There are three possible reasons for
this view:
— Firstly, a pedagogical objection
to specialism too early. Some headteachers see their role as equipping
young people for progression through a general education programme.
— Secondly, a pragmatic approach to
specialisation and diversification. There may be resistance on
the grounds of lack of expertise in the management of such programmes.
The ability to recruit and sustain staff can act as a real disincentive,
and the investment is often seen as prohibitive.
— Thirdly, headteachers are concerned
about risk. The competitive environment in which schools compete
for learners and high achievement should not be underestimated
here.
19. Any competitive environment in which
success is measured by high achievement, rather than by value
added measures, disadvantages those learners who have formerly
failed to achieve. Diversification often means addressing the
needs of these learners. This may not be an attractive proposition
for schools—or indeed for colleges—when their viability
as institutions relies on getting high results, rather than good
results relating to the learner's prior level of achievement.
20. Diversification, we believe, can only
be achieved by:
— encouraging more flexible learning
pathways for learners currently underachieving;
— modifying measures by which success
of the individual institution is measured—that is, a fundament
overhaul of league tables; and
— playing on institutions' strengths.
THE FURTHER
EDUCATION COLLEGE
PERSPECTIVE ON
DIVERSIFICATION
21. The Further Education sector watches
this debate as it relates to the schools' sector with interest.
22. Further Education colleges have already
diversified and restructured—often several times—in
order to remain responsive to the needs of a more the cohort of
learners they attract and to the fluctuating needs of the local
economy.
23. They are experienced in risk management
and change.
24. They are addressing the challenge of
diversification by responding to the widening participation agenda
and curriculum reform, notably Curriculum 2000. Indeed, their
positive approach and thorough preparation for Curriculum 2000
was noted by Ron McLone, Chief Executive of OCR, in his evidence
to the Committee recently.
25. The way the FE sector organises its
business has changed. Autonomous units, with experienced curriculum
managers leading teams of teaching and support staff, address
the separate needs of different cohorts of learners, within the
wider institution.
26. In a recent AoC survey for its annual
conference in November 2002, to which one third of the sector
responded, 72% reported that they made some distinct provision
for 14-19 year old, or 16-19 year old provision. Of these:
— 46% had either a dedicated on-site,
age-related unit or A Level unit;
— 17% offered links to an on or off-site
sixth form or tertiary college;
— five colleges said that they just
offered separate 14-16 provision;
— a further four were planning a new
on-site unit or sixth form/tertiary college; and
— and another four said they had targeted
courses for 14-19 year olds.
27. In terms of strategic management, 59%
reported that they were already "playing to their strengths"
with neighbouring colleges, which corresponds to this Government's
intention that provision is analysed for its strength and rationalised
according to local need. The 38.8% of colleges reporting they
did not plan provision this way were rural colleges.
28. On the matter of the costs, the survey
revealed significant investment by colleges in distinctive provision.
29. Many of those colleges already making
provision estimated their recurrent costs at anything between
£100-£250,000. But where capital expenditure was involved,
£2-£3 million was more typical, rising to £5 million
in London (one college was spending £13 million on a major
new project).
30. Those estimating what it would cost
them to make the provision typically offered capital costs of
£2.5 million to £5 million.
31. Given this level of investment, it is
no surprise to us that schools are exercising the caution in investing
that we referred to above.
32. So, in moving forward the diversification
debate, the Association would suggest that, in the vast majority
of cases, a partnership approach to diversification, with colleges
as key players in each region, should be adopted.
33. This is based on the grounds of efficiency
and experience:
— investment in diversification of
the curriculum has already taken place in colleges;
— colleges already are recruiting and
developing experienced staff with a broad range of vocational
as well as educational qualifications;
— colleges are already delivering a
range of specialist and alternative qualifications, as well as
GSCEs and A Levels;
— colleges are already developing distinctive
provision for different cohorts of learners within their institutions
(colleges within colleges);
— many colleges have COVE status, which
recognises the quality of their provision and their existing business
and community links;
— the recent announcement of improved
funding of colleges will allow them to start the process of updating,
developing and expanding existing specialist provision for the
benefit of the community, and retaining expert staff; and
— many excellent collaborative links
already exist between schools and colleges (AoC would be pleased
to provide case studies).
THE BENEFITS
TO LEARNERS
OF SPECIFIC
KINDS OF
SUPPORT FOR
LEARNING WITHIN
A DIVERSE
CURRICULUM
34. AoC would strongly argue that there
are significant benefits to learners in developing this model.
One of the most significant factors 60% of colleges reported as
contributing to the success of distinctive provision is the additional
pastoral care and tutorial support that is provided to learners.
FE colleges have a strong tradition of tutoring, tracking and
monitoring student progress and the Association would recommend
that any future model incorporated this feature.
35. Choice, and the ability to change course
or direction with the minimum of disruption is also a critical
factor, a flexibility which comes with a certain size of organisation
or organisations working collaboratively.
36. Behaviour and social skills can be dramatically
improved where there are older and adult students to act as mentors
and role models.
37. To summarise, diversification needs
to be underpinned by:
— tutoring, tracking and monitoring
student progress, within a pastoral framework;
— choice, and the ability to change
course or direction with the minimum of disruption; and
— mentoring, including for some the
influence of older learners who can act as role models for the
development of study and social skills.
38. The Association would be pleased to
provide more information or case studies of collaboration, to
assist the Committee in its work.
November 2002
| 
