Memorandum submitted by the City &
Guilds of London Institute
LEARNING FROM
THE PAST
We need to learn from our collective experience
in designing, implementing and seeking to embed curriculum reforms
over the past 30 years, especially as there has been a consistent
desire to identify and recognise "varying aspirations, circumstances
and motivations of learners". We should build on what works
rather than seek to dismantle examples of good practice before
they have had an opportunity to develop—this is particularly
true for work-related learning requirements which, inevitably,
are less familiar in some parts of the 14-19 system than in others.
There are many examples of previous initiatives
that ought not to be forgotten and where there are current practitioners
whose experience working on them ought to captured. TVEI (Technical
and Vocational Education Initiative), CPVE (Certificate of Pre-Vocational
Education), Foundation Programmes and GNVQ (General National Vocational
Qualification) all come to mind.
PARITY ISSUES
There continues to be an unwarranted emphasis
on the achievement of GCSEs and A-levels which are too often regarded
as the only currency of value. The prominence given to these qualifications
in league tables to the exclusion of other achievement feeds back
to both parents and teachers who believe these are the only worthwhile
outcomes of the education process. This further exacerbates the
problem of low esteem and low status for vocational qualifications.
A recent example has been the debate about whether a Level 2 Bakery
qualification should carry equal weight with five GCSEs at A-C.
In a sense the policy-makers have been hoist with their own petard.
No one would claim that they are the same but they are both recognised
as Level 2 awards for statistical and funding purposes. Moreover,
one could make a strong argument for saying that the Bakery award
is as demanding as five GCSEs since it requires a level of competence
in a variety of processes as well as knowledge of hygiene, handling
and storage of bakery materials, nutrition and maths, as well
as an understanding of quality systems, team working, customer
care and basic business practices.
We do not believe that status and credibility
can be grafted on to qualifications—they have to be achieved
over time and they depend on the perceptions of recipients. Parents
regard general qualifications (GCSEs and A-levels) as the only
worthwhile outcomes because of the prominence given to them in
league tables, by HE admissions tutors and by employers in their
recruitment practices. Employers use general qualifications because
they are the accepted currency, they meet their general educational
requirements and because they are a convenient filter. They usually
require specific vocational awareness, knowledge and skills but
recognise the difficulty of providing for these in a broad school
curriculum. However, they continue to be critical of a system
that leaves many with a large basic skills deficit and an inadequate
understanding of the world of work.
There is in this a depressing acceptance of
a self-fulfilling prophecy and the Tomlinson proposals provide
an opportunity to break out of the circle. At a basic level a
curriculum structure that will enable vocational achievement to
be recorded alongside general qualifications is, we believe, a
welcome proposal.
THE DANGER
OF FOCUSING
TOO MUCH
ON HE
It is our view that the needs of HE are given
too much regard by policy makers, to the detriment of those for
whom its provision is not yet appropriate.
We do not wish to comment on the desirability
or otherwise of the government's target for 50% participation
in HE by 18-30 year olds. It is, however, worth remembering that,
even when met, there will be 50% that do not have any experience
of HE as well as a significant number who, for one reason or another,
do not complete their HE courses. Their needs must be addressed
as well.
Moreover, it is clear that the demands of HE
have sometimes been inappropriate for the whole school cohort.
The A-level "gold standard" has largely been set by
the university sector and employers and parents have been content
to be billowed along in its slipstream. While it is right that
there should be a demanding "academic" curriculum and
an assessment regime suitable for HE entrance, there seems little
good reason why it should be obligatory for all.
The notion of acceptable progression being restricted
to GCSE-->AS-->A2-->first degree is not only too rigid
in terms of staging posts it also denies the legitimacy of sideways
progression which, for many, might be a more valuable, worthwhile,
rewarding and (most important of all) appropriate route.
THE ARTIFICIALITY
OF STAGES
BASED ON
AGE
We have a tendency to forget that age boundaries,
which reflect structures (which in turn influence funding systems)
do not necessarily mirror phases of learning that are appropriate
to an individual. At age 16 there is an expectation that everyone
will have reached a point where they can pass five "good"
GCSEs although evidence shows that a sizable minority do not blossom
academically until they are older. By contrast there is little
flexibility in allowing more able pupils to pass the threshold
to Advanced level at any earlier age.
Until 16 there is currently little scope for
studying subjects other than those prescribed in the National
Curriculum even where there is evidence that this might be beneficial.
At 16 some choice opens up with the possibility
of sixth-form colleges and other institutions in the FE sector.
Although the LSC now calculates school sixth-form funding and
includes an element for retention in setting the allocation, there
are still disincentives to retain weaker pupils (eg league tables
and inspection reports) and there is muddle in the system in some
areas over individuals who attend school and college simultaneously.
Greater fluidity would benefit the learner and
should be introduced even if it makes for more difficult accounting.
Greater co-operation and partnership between
schools and colleges would make for a better use of resources
and provide a greater capability for vocational courses to be
delivered. The competitiveness that is apparent in many localities
does not serve the interests of individuals, communities or the
UK as a whole. But to work properly some major issues around funding
and pay relativities between teachers and FE lecturers need to
be addressed.
TRAINING THE
TEACHERS
A recent Ofsted report, "The initial training
of further education teachers", outlined some concerns about
the provision of opportunities for trainees to learn how to teach
their specialist subjects. This supports some research commissioned
by City & Guilds, carried out by Professors Michael Young,
Lorna Unwin and Michael Barnett, which demonstrates that there
are weaknesses in vocational pedagogy. In essence, many of those
who are teaching do not themselves have a sufficient grounding
in, and knowledge of, their subjects. We hope to publish the results
of this research project in early Spring 2004.
In terms of the 14-19 strand of the Committee's
inquiry these findings are relevant because they suggest that
similar weaknesses would be even more apparent amongst those expected
to deliver a more vocationally oriented curriculum in schools.
If we are to avoid some of the weaknesses of early GNVQ teaching,
when, for example, geography teachers were assumed to have the
necessary credentials and background to teach leisure and tourism,
it will be necessary to grasp the nettle and ensure that we have
sufficient teaching capability with more directly relevant knowledge
and experience.
ADVICE AND
GUIDANCE
"21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential"
makes a clear statement about the need for an effective and universal
provision of information, advice and guidance. We do not wish
to comment at this stage on whether or not the allocation of resources
in the Connexions service is sufficient to meet the requirements
of "universal provision", though we would draw attention
to the fact again that while 50% might have their sights set on
HE, there is still the other 50% and fewer than half of these
are being catered for by Connexions.
While recognising that guidance on careers options
in schools is best handled by teaching staff at the school, we
are concerned that there is a cultural bias which sometimes amounts
to an assumption that a route through to university is the only
worthwhile choice (see above—"The danger of concentrating
too much on HE"). This can be compounded by the extra funding
that is made available for every pupil that stays on in a school's
sixth-form. We are concerned at the sizable amount of anecdotal
evidence which suggests that information about careers and training
programmes that do not require a degree is just not getting through
to pupils or their parents. Local employers offering to give talks
about non-university careers are spurned. This does not provide
any comfort to those who believe information about all options
should be made available.
We are also concerned that there are very few
teachers that have specific expertise or a qualification that
is relevant for those advising on careers options. We believe
that this needs to be addressed as a matter of some urgency.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the likely recommendations of
the Tomlinson Committee will broadly be beneficial in terms of
the skills needs that were highlighted in the report of the National
Skills Taskforce and which are being addressed in the National
Skills Strategy.
It will be clear, however, that we believe there
are many serious structural issues that deserve scrutiny and which
must not be glossed over. It is essential that we recognise the
need to get a better balance in our frameworks between general
and vocational education so that we nurture and develop appropriately
the multi-faceted talents and skills of future generations.
12 December 2003
| 
