Memorandum submitted by EEF and SEMTA
KEY POINTS
1. The "climbing frame" rather
than the current "ladder" approach is welcomed as a
baseline framework for the 14-19 Strategy. Within this it is essential
that the various routes through the framework are clearly described,
with vocational alternatives being given equal weighting to the
academic route.
2. Good quality careers advice and guidance
for all students is essential if they are to make the right choices
at the various "milestone" points within the framework.
3. Any new qualification framework will
need credibility and reliability with all stakeholders. Clarity
and consistency, with logical and acceptable "equivalencies"
across the range of options that will make up the various levels
will be vital.
4. A more manageable and cohesive assessment
process would be most welcome.
EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, has a
membership of 6,000 manufacturing, engineering and technology-based
businesses and represents the interests of manufacturing at all
levels of government. Comprising 12 regional Associations, the
Engineering Construction Industries Association (ECIA) and UK
Steel, EEF is one of the UK's leading providers of business services
in health, safety and environment, employment relations and employment
law, manufacturing performance, education, training and skills.
SEMTA (the Science, Engineering and Manufacturing
Technologies Alliance) is the Sector Skills Council (SSC) for
Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies and covers
the core science, engineering and technology sectors across the
UK economy. It has responsibility for science, technology and
mathematics based occupations wherever they exist. The sector
also includes the main engineering manufacturing groups of basic
metal manufacture, metal products, mechanical equipment, electronics,
electrical equipment, motor vehicles, aerospace and other transport.
EEF and SEMTA are advised on policy matters
by the ESSG (Education and Skills Strategy Group), a committee
made up of engineering employers representing a range of engineering
sectors, small and large companies, federated and non-federated.
1. EEF and SEMTA welcome the opportunity
to submit evidence to the Education and Skills Select Committee
on the Government's proposals for the provision of education for
young people between the ages of 14 and 19 and the work of the
Working Group on 14-19 reform in the context of the national skills
strategy.
ADVICE AND
GUIDANCE
2. The current organisation of learning
for this age group strongly favours the academic route, with full-time
Higher Education as the obvious ultimate destination, leaving
any other route and destination a much less desirable and considerably
less clear alternative. Many employers in the science, engineering
and manufacturing sectors have found recruitment of sufficient
numbers of suitable young people a difficult challenge, particularly
those who have been aiming to attract 16-year-olds into a Modern
Apprenticeship programme. This has also not served all young people
equally well, as those who have not wished to take the "preferred"
path, have found it difficult, firstly to identify what options
may be available to them, and secondly to justify their own preference
to interested parties who consider that any alternative is a lesser
one.
3. Well-informed and unbiased information
about engineering and manufacturing careers can be hard for young
people to access, and the industry is often perceived as being
an appropriate destination only for those with low ability and/or
achievement. In fact, an Advanced Modern Apprenticeship in Engineering
generally requires five GCSEs at A*-C as a minimum, but not the
only, entry requirement. If a young person has not been made aware
of these requirements, they could be disappointed to find, at
16, that their hopes of starting an engineering career may not
be achievable. Good quality advice and guidance based on a realistic
evaluation of the young person's individual capability is therefore
an essential aspect of enabling them to exercise a greater freedom
of choice.
4. It is also vital that "motivating
young people to stay in learning until 19" is not interpreted
only as staying on at school or in other forms of full-time education.
Work-based learning options, such as the Modern Apprenticeship
programmes, must be given equal weighting when the range of options
and routes are being discussed with the individual learners.
5. We therefore welcome the stated aim of
the reform of "developing a framework that is truly capable
of accommodating the needs and aspirations of all young people",
while at the same time providing the means "to meet the needs
of employers. . .by ensuring that more young people acquire the
knowledge, skills and attributes needed for effective participation
in employment, further and higher learning and adult life".
6. Our prerequisites for such a framework
are very straightforward. It needs to be as simple and uncomplicated
as possible, with clear pathways to a range of destinations. Young
people, and those who advise them (parents, teachers, careers
professionals etc), will need to be able to plan a clear pathway
to their desired destination, ideally with some optional routes
throughout the process, to accommodate changes in interests, capabilities
and achievements as the young person develops.
7. We therefore cannot understand why careers
information is outside the remit of the 14-19 review, as we firmly
believe that improvements in the programmes, qualifications structure,
and management of 14-19 learning, cannot be realised, unless the
quality and quantity of careers advice and guidance given to young
people is drastically improved. We believe that it is critical
to the success of the reform strategy that young people are given
appropriate, unbiased and timely advice and guidance throughout
the 14-19 period, and it should be a priority of the reform, and
of the group, to develop and improve this essential support structure.
8. A proviso here is that while we would
welcome the principle of a broader range of choices being available
for young people, we would not wish those choices to limit their
options at a later stage. We would therefore be concerned if young
people were allowed to "drop" subjects such as English,
maths and ICT at an early stage in the framework, as all employers
require a minimum level of capability in these areas from their
employees. Obviously, the EEF membership and those in scope to
SEMTA have a vested interest in science and technology subjects,
and would prefer the majority of young people to retain these
within their personal learning plans. We already have concerns
that even before design and technology become non-compulsory subjects
in the National Curriculum in 2004, some 41% of schools are already
disapplying the subject for some of their students.
THE FRAMEWORK
9. The aim to provide a balanced programme
of general, specialist and supplementary learning appears to be
sound, but we would need to see the detailed proposals before
we could fully commit to supporting them.
10. However, we do welcome a framework which
"removes at least some degree of choice in order to ensure
that young people undertake some elements of the programme which
they might otherwise choose to avoid". Although this is somewhat
of a contradiction, in practice we believe that young people will
understand and accept combinations of subjects, as long as they
(and employers and HE institutions) are convinced of their value.
We also would strongly endorse the need to protect young people
from the potential future limitations of a totally free choice
of subjects, which only hindsight might reveal.
11. While we would agree that specialist
learning should take an increasing share of student learning time
as the learner moves towards the end of the 14-19 phase, we would
point to the success of the new GCSE in Engineering (Double Award),
which apparently requires a large degree of specialisation at
14, but is in fact giving young people a broad range of valuable
skills and learning. Problem-solving, creativity, innovation and
teamwork skills are not only transferable to other subject areas,
but will also enhance later employability.
12. Employers will be particularly interested
in the development of the "supplementary learning" strand,
which should complement the specialist learning. They will expect
to be consulted on the appropriateness of various combinations,
and would welcome the opportunity to help devise exciting and
demanding combinations which properly prepare young people for
further study and the workplace.
13. Additional subject study in existing
frameworks such as the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship (particularly
one which is so well developed and respected as Engineering),
should be agreed with the Sector Skills Council concerned, as
any additional or optional elements will need the support of employers.
14. We agree wholeheartedly that young people
need better preparation for the 14-19 phase in terms of generic
skills. Again, this is outside the remit of the Group, but a focus
on Key Stage 3, the weak link between the improved primary level
literacy and numeracy standards, and the national measurement
at GCSE, is needed. This can then form the basis of any improvements
at 14-19. Employers resent being required to compensate for the
inadequacies of the current system which leaves a substantial
number of young people unable to function effectively due to their
lack of a minimum level of competency in the basic skills of literacy
and numeracy. Employers would prefer them to have achieved an
adequate standard before they enter the 14-19 learning phase,
so that they are fully able to benefit from the range of opportunities
that will be available to them.
QUALIFICATIONS
15. The priority objectives are broadly
supported, but science, engineering and manufacturing technology
employers have some concerns over the potential loss of flexibility
if the existing qualifications framework is simply "cut back".
Inevitably, each of the "3,700 separate specifications within
the (current) national qualifications framework", will have
its supporters. While judicious culling would reduce complexity,
it might also mean employers losing qualifications which they
know and trust, and which have developed to meet their particular
needs. Consultation with all stakeholders on the value and continued
relevance of each qualification should be part of the process
that will need to accompany the transition. Of course, some employers
are already confused by the range of qualifications with which
they are presented by prospective employees and new recruits,
and would welcome more clarity in the framework.
16. We believe that the key to success will
be to effect a gradual change, with any new qualifications being
carefully developed, piloted and evaluated, before being introduced
nationwide. This will ensure that their place in the framework
is understood. Existing qualifications can also be gradually "rebadged",
and information about their content, equivalencies and place within
the new framework, shared with employers.
17. On this point, we would also expect
the Advanced Modern Apprenticeship to be located at the Advanced
Level within the Diploma Framework, to reflect the level of commitment
and achievement necessary to obtain the qualification.
18. We also agree that, if possible, the
whole range of experiences and learning which young people encounter
should be recognised in the framework of diplomas.
19. We do have some concerns relating to
the location of Advanced Modern Apprenticeships within any single
framework. These already provide an alternative route to Higher
Education for some young people, and expansion, over the next
few years, of this vocational and work-based route to high levels
of learning is essential if the needs of industry (as well as
government targets for entry into HE) are to be met. We would
therefore see incorporation of the Foundation Degree within the
AMA framework as an ideal vehicle to access HE.
20. If a young person starts an Advanced
Modern Apprenticeship at 16, they are likely to be completing
the various components well after their 19th birthday. "Enabling
completion of programmes after age 19", is absolutely crucial
for employers within engineering and manufacturing, so that those
who choose this rigorous and demanding Modern Apprenticeship route
to Higher Education are not penalised compared to their contemporaries.
21. Any qualifications that are used to
measure achievement during the process need to be clearly understood,
in terms of what has been measured, by educationalists and employers
alike. Any decisions based on them will then be made on a clear
understanding of what the qualifications actually mean in terms
of the young person's suitability for employment, further study
or options which combine the two. The credibility of the qualifications
will depend on there being a reliable correlation between the
award and the future performance of the individual in their chosen
context.
22. Achieving the aim of "providing
appropriate recognition at four levels: entry, foundation, intermediate,
and advanced", will require considerable communication to
ensure that what is being recognised by each level is clearly
understood by all stakeholders. Otherwise there is a risk that
this will merely add another layer of complexity to the qualifications
framework.
23. Clarity, comparibility and consistency
is going to be essential with a qualification framework based
on cumulative elements, as the likelihood of grading challenges
regarding borderline cases may well increase with fewer overall
levels.
24. Employers will need to have more detailed
information on the diploma framework before they are in a position
to decide whether it meets their needs or not. However, when the
changes created by Curriculum 2000 are only just beginning to
be established, and the AS and A2 Advanced Levels more clearly
understood, there is some concern that further changes will be
very disruptive and unsettling, particularly by the young people
whose interests are supposed to be at the heart of the reform
strategy. Employers would need to be fully convinced of the advantages
of any wholesale change, if this meant the abandonment of well-known
and hitherto respected qualifications such as the A-levels.
ASSESSMENT ARRANGEMENTS
25. Employers would welcome a more manageable
and cohesive assessment process. For example, the integration
of the assessment of Key Skills, currently a separate element
of a Modern Apprenticeship, into the assessment of the NVQ and/or
the Technical Certificate would significantly enhance the completion
rate of Modern Apprenticeships in Engineering.
26. Complex assessment processes, particularly
of qualifications undertaken in the workplace, such as NVQs, can
prove both confusing and off-putting to employers, deterring them
from providing learning opportunities in the first place. Employers
would welcome the simplification and clarification of the assessment
process, provided that those undertaking the assessment have all
the relevant skills to assess their subject competently, and keep
those skills up to date (particularly important with vocational
and work-based subjects).
27. We believe that assessment will be critical
both to the acceptability and success of any reform. We believe
that the changes brought in through Curriculum 2000, while intended
to address many of the concerns of employers and higher education
institutions, have lost some of their credibility solely due to
problems with assessment. Any variation in the style or volume
of assessment will need extremely careful and considered introduction,
with full piloting of changes in advance.
CERTIFYING ACHIEVEMENTS
28. We agree wholeheartedly that young people
need a means of recording their achievements, which is recognised
and clearly understood, by employers and institutions alike.
29. We agree that young people should stay
in learning until at least the age of 18/19 (indeed, we believe
that the "lifelong learning" agenda extends throughout
an individual's career). However, for those who wish to leave
full-time education or learning at an earlier stage, there should
be a record of their achievements. It should also contain guidance
on how to "pick-up" learning at a later stage.
STATUS OF
DIPLOMA
30. The diploma will need to be accepted
and endorsed by all stakeholders; young people, schools, parents,
employers and higher education institutions. If one of these participants
is not wholeheartedly behind the reforms, they will founder.
THE 14-19 REFORMS
IN RELATION
TO THE
NATIONAL SKILLS
STRATEGY
31. The range of signatories to the White
Paper "21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential"
sends a clear signal that not only does the Government take the
issue very seriously, but recognises that the critical "joined-up"
approach starts at the top. We welcome this, and recognise that
all agencies will need to be aligned in their support for the
Strategy. The same multi-agency approach will be necessary if
the 14-19 Strategy is to succeed, and we welcome the consistency
of approach.
32. There are also consistent themes such
as the unitisation of qualifications, credit accumulation and
the need to recognise forms of learning and skill development
which have hitherto been unrecognised.
33. Similarly the flexibility of options
within a cohesive framework within both proposed Strategies should
encourage a broader engagement with learning from students and
employees respectively. It may also increase expectations of opportunities
for learning when young people proceed from an educational environment
to the workplace. This may act as a driver for more investment
in skill development by employers, thus leveraging the move to
higher level, higher value skills that are necessary if the UK
is to compete effectively in the global economy.
12 December 2003
| 
