Memorandum submitted by the Construction
Confederation
Introduction
The Construction Confederation supports
- Making 14-19 a more coherent phase offering choice,
flexibility and progression
- Breaking down the academic/vocational divide
- Promoting the ethos that all pathways contribute
to employability
- The ethos that academic and vocational qualifications
have equal status
- Raising levels of achievement
- Meeting the needs and aspirations of young people
- Broadening the skills acquired by all young people
to improve their employability.
THE EROSION OF THE DIVISION AT 16 YEARS OF AGE AND
INCREASING PARTICIPATION
This is not simply about the commitment to continue
learning within full-time education but should be about encouraging
young adults to continue with their development and achievement
of qualifications. Whilst we agree that transitions should
be seamless, there is a danger that what arises from fulfilling
this task will be an extension of the compulsory phase of education
'by the back door'. It is essential any reforms acknowledge that
learning and training that take place in the workplace can contribute
equally to the aims of promoting higher-level achievements for
14-19 year olds. We feel strongly that the skills and knowledge
required to ensure success in our industry will not necessarily
be acquired in education.
Obviously, we are concerned that the Government is
using this extension of the compulsory phase to ensure that the
target for 50 per cent into higher education is met. The Confederation
believes that it is right to widen access to higher levels of
education, training and qualifications - as an industry we need
to recruit a significant number of graduates both in construction
related degrees and in support services (management, finance and
IT). Indeed, as with many other industries, we recruit people
with a range of academic and vocational qualifications as they
exit the education and training systems at a variety of ages.
We have a considerable commitment to ensuring that appropriate
degree courses are available for our prospective workforce. A
number of our members sponsor degree courses and individual students.
The industry considers this an important investment in our future.
However, increasing participation at higher levels
is not simply a matter of encouraging those whose families have
no previous experience of higher education but is essentially
one of encouraging those whose families have no experience of
progression beyond levels one, two and three. We feel strongly
that the skills and knowledge required to ensure success in our
industry will not necessarily be acquired in higher education
nor will the acquisition of higher education qualifications necessarily
lead to young adults making a more positive contribution to a
high-skills economy. Pursuing a numerical objective has the potential
to have a detrimental effect on the construction, industry.
THE NEED TO IMPROVE LEVELS OF ACHIEVEMENT IN KEY/ESSENTIAL
SKILLS
The drive to improve standards, particularly in literacy
and numeric, is a positive step but employers remain concerned
that unless these key/essentials skills are acquired during the
pre-16 phase, the transition to levels two and three can be more
difficult irrespective of the route chosen. This is particularly
true as there is a tendency for some careers advisors to direct
the less well qualified or those with lower levels of academic
achievement, towards manual trades or occupations. The fact that
those in education feel that manual workers don't need key/essential
knowledge and skills is at odds with what employers want. For
example, a good level of achievement in Mathematics is vital not
just for progression to engineering degree courses but for a number
of construction occupations and their related qualifications at
levels one, two and three. We support the development of approaches
that will improve the levels of achievement in key/essential skills.
A lack of achievement in key/essential skills inhibits
people's subsequent achievement and progression (irrespective
of the qualification taken).
PARITY BETWEEN ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS
The Confederation agrees that creating parity should
be a key objective. However, creating parity between academic
and vocational qualifications is not simply a matter of changing
names. One key to parity is in the level of funding available
for different qualifications. High quality practical, vocational
courses are notoriously expensive to deliver and the funding available
needs to reflect this issue. If we are to become a competitive
high-skills economy it is essential that there is parity of funding
for qualifications at the same level irrespective of the route
taken, type of qualification, institution/provider, or mode of
delivery.
PROGRESSION WITHIN 14-19 AND POST-19
The White Paper, The Future of Higher Education did
not highlight the attainment of vocational level 3 as a principal
contributor to initial entry to higher education. There is the
assumption that 'A' levels will remain the route to higher education.
This does not make sense, particularly in construction where we
are developing a strong emphasis on and use of National Vocational
Qualifications. It also continues to affect the achievement of
parity between vocational and academic qualifications, widening
the divide. The government must encourage the use of different
routes of entry in terms of the type of qualification, mode of
delivery and assessment if they are to truly create open access
for a broader range of students.
Progression routes within the framework should allow
people to enter and exit wherever is appropriate and not be based
on government targets, the qualifications themselves or be age
bound. People should be able to join employment at whatever age
they see fit/is appropriate for them and still be able to access
appropriate qualifications within the framework. Learners must
be allowed to progress and pursue careers via a variety of routes
and we should avoid consigning them to one pathway or another
(e.g. people should be able to move more easily between academic
and vocational routes). Much of this will be dependent on good
quality independent advice and guidance. Flexibility is key. Separate
and non-bridgeable routes are unacceptable.
Proposal for a diploma
For a number of reasons, the Confederation did not
support the original proposal for a matriculation diploma. We
considered that the following areas needed further development
- The structure
- The value
- The levels
- The potential to achieve the diploma via different
routes.
The structure of the diploma (the levels and stages
of award), most specifically the positioning of National Vocational
Qualifications in relation to academic qualifications was (and
still is) of great concern. The framework effectively devalued
NVQ level 4 by equating it to 3 'A' levels, albeit achieved at
higher grades. Due to the experience and management/supervisor
requirements of NVQs at levels 3 and 4 it is highly unlikely these
levels could be achieved by 19 years of age. This could hardly
be seen to promote parity between the different types of qualifications
and routes and would not meet the stated intention of ensuring
that technical and vocational education is a positive choice.
The diploma would effectively limit the achievements of those
undertaking apprenticeships to intermediate level.
The construction industry is moving towards a Qualified
Workforce. The Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS)
will provide the means of recognising and recording the achievement
of vocational qualifications and health and safety knowledge required
for working in the industry. This scheme is based on National
Vocational Qualifications plus a health and safety test. By 2010
all construction workers on Confederation sites will be required
to have these cards. This scheme will contribute to achievement
levels for 16 to 19 year olds entering the industry as apprentices
and, by requiring these qualifications, will ensure that young
people are provided with the opportunity to continue their development
post-16 effectively retaining them in a system that provides progression.
Employers in this industry see vocational qualifications as highly
valuable and are staunch supporters of the system. Delaying the
achievement of NVQs will adversely affect the industry. We cannot
support a framework that does not acknowledge NVQs.
There is also the question of the place of industry
apprenticeship schemes within any framework or strategy. It is
fair to say that some industries have never had an industry led
apprenticeship scheme or their schemes fell into decline during
the 1970s and 80s. However, the construction industry has worked
hard to maintain its industry led Construction Apprenticeship
Scheme (CAS). Employers, Trade Unions and the Construction Industry
Training Board (CITB) have ensured that this scheme has developed
within the NVQ Framework. This route is used by many thousand
new entrants to our industry and is vital in ensuring that many
small and medium sized employers have access, and can contribute,
to training in a number of key occupations. The CAS already meets
many of the recommendations of the MA Advisory Committee. We would
like to work with our existing partners and the government to
establish the place of this qualification within the qualifications
framework.
Employers find the current proposal from the Tomlinson
Committee vague and confusing. Who will decide and how, whether
one GCSE, A level or NVQ will be allowed or not allowed as a component
of a diploma?
In addition, the proposal contained in the Tomlinson
report leaves the construction industry in a dilemma. If true
vocational training, with work-based training and assessment (in
the form of National Vocational Qualifications) is not included
in the diploma this will restrict our recruitment of 16-19 year
olds. We could not support a reduction in the recruitment pool.
The work-based training and assessment of apprentices in this
age group is vital to the well being of the industry. Delaying
the recruitment of them until later will restrict the funding
period for their ongoing development and qualification and has
the potential to affect productivity.
CONCLUSIONS
The construction industry feels that it is very important
to
- Ensure that all young people achieve an appropriate
level in key/essential skills
- Include national vocational qualifications within
any framework in order to support industries need for apprentices
and the drive to Qualify the Workforce
- Provide clear milestones and transition routes
post-19
- Certify, (acknowledge and record) the achievements
of those who move between institutions and routes during the
14-19 phase
- Certify the achievements of those who leave traditional
learning before 18/19 in order that re-entry into the system or
transfer within the system is possible at some point in the future.
We do not believe that the introduction of what can be seen as
a 'time serving' requirement will prevent dropout. In addition,
this takes no account of those who 'fast-track' through the framework
- Ensure that programmes are balanced.
Progression routes within the National Skills Strategy
should allow people to enter and exit wherever is appropriate
and not be based on government targets for higher education, time-serving
requirements or be overly age bound. People should be able to
join employment at whatever age they see fit/is appropriate for
them and still be able to access appropriate qualifications within
the Framework. Learners must be allowed to progress and pursue
careers via a variety of routes and we should avoid consigning
them to one pathway or another (e.g. people should be able to
move more easily between academic and vocational routes).
Our response shows that there are a number of areas
where the construction industry can work with the Government to
improve provision. The Construction Confederation would welcome
the opportunity to participate in any further debate regarding
the 14-19 reforms, and the resolution of the issues we have identified.
15 December 2003
| 
