Select Committee on Education and Skills Minutes of Evidence


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





 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 31 March 2005