Examination of Witnesses (Questions 460
- 465)
WEDNESDAY 3 MARCH 2004
MR MIKE
TOMLINSON
Q460 Chairman: So you are saying
to us, Mike Tomlinson, that at the time that you have come out
with two parts to this Report, you must know, are the Department
already shadowing this, assessing it and doing some of the sums?
Mr Tomlinson: They are already
working on some of what is in this Report, yes, in a variety of
ways, but they are not the only ones and there are other parts
of the system that are doing it as well and I have no doubt that
the Government will want to hear from those other parties as well.
Q461 Mr Gibb: Paragraph 37 of the
Report says, "In developing our proposals our working assumption
is that a full-time programme leading to a diploma should typically
involve 1,200 hours' guided learning time, or approximately 20
hours per week", or four hours a day, "over a two-year
programme. This is less than the average time available at KS4."
Could you just explain what that means, that sentence?
Mr Tomlinson: What it means is
that at that point we are making that assumption, that that is
the time needed to get the diploma. It will not account for all
of what the person does because in fact they will do more than
is necessary for the diploma because they will add to it in their
own ways either through more subjects or whatever. Equally, remember
that we also need to leave within that time for the other components,
14-16, which are required within the National Curriculum because
what is not a requirement of the diploma formally is, for example,
science which is required, religious education which is required.
Q462 Mr Gibb: That is also required
at Key Stage 4.
Mr Tomlinson: That is required
at Key Stage 4.
Q463 Mr Gibb: Are you saying it will
be less than at Key Stage 4?
Mr Tomlinson: The requirement
of taught time for the diploma will be 20 hours, as we have said.
At the moment it is a model and we have got to test it yet. There
is more time, up to about five hours, in Key Stage 4 per week
which will take on the other components of the National Curriculum
which have to be studied as part of the National Curriculum, but
which you do not necessarily have to have to get the diploma.
Q464 Mr Gibb: Finally, in your evidence
you have said that there are problems with the curriculum, you
have highlighted problems with various syllabuses within the GCSE
system and you have highlighted problems with the outcomes of
our educational system in maths and English. At the same time
as you are wanting to tackle that, you are also wanting to change
the assessment and qualification system. Do you not think there
is a danger that if at the same time as you are addressing the
meat of the educational system, the curriculum, the syllabus,
maths and English, you are changing the assessment and qualification
system, you are losing an objective framework of measure to see
how successful your changes to the curriculum and syllabus are
and that you could lose everything and not know where you are
going by doing two important things at the same time?
Mr Tomlinson: First of all, the
remit that the working group received required us to do these
three parts, one about the curriculum, one about assessment and
one about a national qualifications framework, so that was the
remit. I think the point you make is important in terms of implementation
and that is why I put this as 10 years. There are some things
that one wants to change early on in that cycle which would be
about the curriculum and assessment and in that period you would
be retaining the individual qualifications, the GCSE, which we
know now, and it would be a gradual transition of pulling those
through into a diploma. We do not want that until we know we have
got the other key parts right and that is all about the implementation.
Q465 Chairman: Mike Tomlinson, this
has been, I think, an important milestone in the inquiry that
we are conducting and can I thank you for your frank answers and
for your patience and I suspect we will be seeing you again in
the not too far and distant future.
Mr Tomlinson: Thank you very much
indeed.
| 
