Memorandum submitted by NAHT—National
Association of Head Teachers
Thank you for giving the NAHT the opportunity
to make an input into the Select Committee's major new inquiry
into Skills.
We attach by way of background:
— the Association's submission to the
Working Group on 14-19 Reform (made jointly through the Joint
Associations Curriculum Group); and
— the NAHT response to the Progress
Report of the Tomlinson Group.
We also attach with more direct relevance to
the Skills Debate the paper from the influential Goodison Group
which has been endorsed by the NAHT.
(Barry Sheerman, as you know, is a member of
the Group whose seminars are attended by the NAHT and the recommendations
fed back to our Secondary Committee and National Council.)
FURTHER COMMENTS
LINKED TO
THE WHITE
PAPER: 21ST
CENTURY SKILLS
The word "skills" is used very freely
in ways which often lead to confusion. Nevertheless they do overlap.
— Throughout the programmes of Study
for the National Curriculum subjects there is often a tension
between skills and knowledge with too much emphasis on the former.
— There is also an agenda focussed
on the Basic skills (the skills for learning) which are linked
to adult literacy and numeracy.
— There are the key skills often called
the generic skills which used to be an integral part of vocational,
especially GNVQ, courses and qualifications. These key skills
of use of language, use of number and IT proved to be the "least
happy" aspect of the Curriculum 2000 Reform where they became
a "voluntary bolt-on" to all qualifications including
the vocational.
— Finally there are the badly named
"soft" skills which are rightly valued by employers
and the innovative/enterprise agenda (managing and improving one's
learning, problem solving an collaborative team working) Sadly,
these do not lend themselves easily to the type of assessment/performance
tables regime which currently dominates studies post 14.
We look forward to the Tomlinson Review clarifying
the above and dealing with the many mixed message which remain.
There are many mixed messages also in the White Paper.
Paragraph 3 of the summary: The imperative now
is employability for life. Competing on the basis of low wage
costs is not an option.
What are young people supposed to think when
they see more and more jobs being moved to the low wage costs
areas of the world where they are being done by graduates.
This message is reinforced by the increasing
difficulty many of our own graduates have in finding employment,
a trend which brings even further complications to the debate
on "top up fees".
Under the heading: The Challenge paragraph 6
of the Summary puts forward two propositions with statistics:
that we have a much lower percentage (28%) of our workforce qualified
to Intermediate skill level compared to France (51%) and to Germany
(65%). The earlier statistic in the paragraph says that our output
per hour is 25-30% lower than in those two countries. There probably
is some connection between output and qualification but we feel
there must be more behind our poor output figures which need addressing
by industry and business.
In the context of paragraph 6 (above) and paragraph
8 which identifies in some detail the skill gaps, we are not convinced
that enough analysis has been done on the advisability of the
Government's target to increase to 50% the numbers going on to
do "academic-type" degrees when it may be in the better
interests of many young people (from whatever background) to follow
skill-based qualifications in alternative ways.
There are also a number of questions raised
by the Government's current push for schools to seek Specialist
School Status. It is to be regretted that the main driving force
for schools is in the pursuit of more funding or status. Nevertheless
our members report that there are considerable benefits to the
school or college and to the students from working through the
process which achieves Specialist School status-something from
which all schools would benefit.
The questions we raise concern the numbers of
students attending specialist schools, the courses they are following,
the extent to which they are linked to the 21st Century Skills
agenda and the role of the Learning and Skills Council. In some
areas schools have been very forward looking in linking specialist
status to the needs of the local economy (Engineering in the North
East for example) but the general picture is of "ad hoc"
choice of specialism. Is an opportunity being lost?
We are in no doubt however, that there are still
many barriers in the way of schools and colleges moving forward
in innovative ways on the skills agenda: funding, training, buildings,
equipment and the pernicious effects of the performance tables
agenda.
Members of the Secondary Committee of the NAHT,
in a range of schools and colleges across the country would welcome
the opportunity of discussing these matters further with the committee.
December 2003
| 
