Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1259
- 1279)
WEDNESDAY 24 NOVEMBER 2004
MR MIKE
TOMLINSON
Q1259 Chairman: Mike Tomlinson, can
I welcome you to the deliberations of this Committee yet again.
I do not know how many years we have been seeing you on and off
wearing different hats, but it is a pleasure, as ever, to have
you here. This is a very important session for us, because we
have been looking at 14-19 for some time and we see this as the
concluding session before we write up the first part of our skills
inquiry report. Given the fact that your report has been out,
everywhere I have gone I have either seen you or heard you have
been talking about the report, would you like the chance to reflect
on how you think the report has been received and how you evaluate
that reception?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes, thank you,
Chairman. There have been a number of different forms of feedback
over the period since the report was published. I think that those
conferences and seminars and the like that I have addressed seem
still to feel that the framework that the report contains offers
a very positive opportunity to move forward within the 14-19 phase.
As in the report, many of the people see particular pinch points
about whether exactly that piece of detail is right or not, and
that has been where a lot of the attention is focused. Within
the broad organisations almost all remain supportive of the report.
I continue to get support from the independent schools sector,
from a broad range of teacher associations, including those from
further education, higher education, in broad terms, who continue
to feel that there are some very positive features that help them;
and employers, in discussions, are also supportive of key parts
of the report, though they have expressed some reservations
about other parts of it. So, all in all, I would say it has had
a fairly good reception. There remains consensus around the major
ideas there, and much then to be done subsequent to the Government's
White Paper on filling in the detail of what that framework represents.
I think there is a lot of work to be done there by all the parties
concerned, not just at official level, but with employers, with
higher education, with teachers, lecturers and trainers.
Q1260 Chairman: I was surprised at
the rather mixed reviews that you had in the press. Were there
any particular reviews of that kind, certainly from the sensible
press, that you found particularly of interest?
Mr Tomlinson: I found them all
of interest.
Q1261 Chairman: Was there anything
in particular you were stunned by, because there were one or two
quite tough comments?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes, I think there
were one or two which I felt might have benefited from more thorough
reading of the report than the immediate reaction that was given,
but I think that one has to put all those together and see just
what the substance of them is and ask the obvious question: is
what we are offering within the report really what they are alleging
or not and, if so, are we bothered about that or not? Do we feel
that argument is right? The point in my lifetime is not a personal
matter. I think there are different opinions to be offered and
we have got to listen to them.
Q1262 Chairman: But in a sense, with
so much comment and talking people through the report after publication,
on reflection are there things you would like to amend in the
report already?
Mr Tomlinson: No. I think there
are areas where one could have given more time, put in some more
detail; I think there is still some work to be done around the
whole area of the apprenticeships and how they might need to be
looked at if they were to become part of the overall qualifications
framework. I think there was, on reflection, maybe a need to do
some more work, particularly around the entry level and the way
in which that could be developed to give recognition to the achievements
of young people with particular learning difficulties, but I do
not feel that those are gaps which are serious. I believe strongly
that those are areas which, if the proposals are taken forward,
then that is when the detail can be effectively worked out, and
I hope that the framework that we have offered is sufficiently
flexible in that it will be able to accommodate changes without
it all falling down. That is what I very much hope.
Q1263 Chairman: What about the people
who criticised the report on the basis that here was the one opportunity
to do something serious about early specialisation in our schools
and think that the report really does not do that? We are still
going to be left, according to them, with children in our country
specialising in a narrower range of subjects much earlier than
many of our international comparators?
Mr Tomlinson: I assume that that
question relates more to post-16 than it does pre-16. We looked
very seriously as a group at the models, particularly the model
that is embodied within the international baccalaureate that has
a high degree of specification for what should be continued study
up to the age of 19. We also, in doing that, took a lot of advice
and comment from teachers, lecturers, the students themselves
and others; and we felt, in all honesty, that one of the strengths
of our system, and you could argue, as I think you are, or some
people are, is that from the age of 16 young people can, if they
wish to, make choices about what they want to do. Therefore, I
think the group felt strongly that we should not undermine to
a great degree that choice, but I think it would be wrong to assume
that the proposals do not offer a broader base than we have now.
I point, for example, to the fact that within that specialisation
we are saying that they could well be what the report refers
to as "supplementary learning" which a student would
have to study in order to support their achievement in their chosen
subjects. In other words, I think it is a very considerable concern
that, for example, someone can do the three sciences at A-level
and not do any maths beyond GCSE in support of that study. That
shows itself as a problem both in terms of achievement at A-level
and in bridging the gap to university if you go to university
to study physical sciences, and that applies to engineering as
well; so I think it needs to be broader in that way. I think also
the extended project will have the capacity to broaden that experience
as well. I accept that we have not broadened it; I think we have
gone as far as we felt we could in relation to our own attitudes
to choice and prescription and I think we have tried to strike
a reasonable balance.
Q1264 Chairman: What about the people
that were very much looking forward to you recommending a baccalaureate
system, those who think that you did not go for a baccalaureate
system whereas others have in the UK, and did not accept, in a
sense, the reasons which you gave to reject the baccalaureate?
Mr Tomlinson: I think people looked
at the international baccalaureate as the model they were really
focused on, and I have a lot of time for that as a course, but,
do remember, it was designed and remains designed for approximately
the top 10%, 15% of the ability range. It is not a course which
will meet the needs of all students. It does not, of course, have
any vocational lines there at all. So in that sense as a course
per se, yes, it has many, many strengths, but it certainly
would not be one which would satisfy the needs of all of our young
people by any stretch of the imagination. Nevertheless, we took
a lot of information and evidence from the international baccalaureate
personnel, and there are elements, like the extended project,
which mirror part of their core as well as other parts of it as
well, the service element of it as well. It is worth saying in
those discussions that the international baccalaureate people
indicated that they thought, for example, that we might have struck
a better deal on the core than their core, and they are very interested
in what we are proposing there, as distinct from what they have
got, and they are looking at the question of whether or not they
can go into the vocation there. I think we have sparked quite
a lot of dialogue between the group and them as to how things
might develop in the future.
Q1265 Chairman: How do you assess
the rather important reception you got from the Government, both
from ministers and indeed from the Prime Minister?
Mr Tomlinson: My stance on that
is fairly simple. I think at this point in time I await the White
Paper. I think that is the crucial point at which we will know
exactly what the Government wishes to do and intends to do with
the recommendations. Therefore I did not at the time and continue
not to attach any great significance to the comments that were
made within the hours after its publication. I think the real
test is when the Government publishes its White Paper. As our
report is advice to the Government and no more, it is not in any
sense imposing a requirement upon them, it is advice, and the
group feel at one about what they have put together in the report,
but, at the end of the day, it is the decision of the ministers
of the day and ultimately Parliament to decide exactly what
will happen. I am quite comfortable with that.
Q1266 Chairman: One more question
before we get into some greater detail. Some people have
described your group as great optimists, showing enormous optimism
that they can maintain a trajectory for 10 years. Some are puzzled
that it is going to be 10 years and that the 10 years came in—we
are not sure why—but was it a reassurance that this is going
to be a very difficult and fundamental change and you needed the
10 years? That may be reassurance, but the average life of a minister,
let alone a government, is quite short. Are you confident that
we can maintain clarity of purpose at this time?
Mr Tomlinson: To go back to the
first part of your question, the matter of 10 years, we do not
know exactly, because clearly there are lots of ifs among that
pathway. What the group was clear about was that some of the reforms
that were being proposed were very substantial indeed and were
system-wide, and they felt it was very important that any such
change would, where necessary, have to be piloted and evaluated
before one could, with assurance, agree that this was something
one wanted to roll out into the system as a whole. I think, not
surprisingly, everyone's mind could easily go back to what happened
with Curriculum 2000, and therefore there was a marker
there. I think the other thing was that significant change of
the nature that is being proposed needs to have the support of
the people who are putting it into effect—that is our teachers,
our lecturers, our trainers, and so on—and they need to
be assured that the rate of that change is something that they
can manage while at the same time protecting and giving confidence
to those who are doing the qualifications of the day that those
are in no way being undermined within the minds of the young people,
their parents or anyone else. The other evidence that we took
was from New Zealand, where a similar programme of reform has
been undertaken and, I would add, their Parliament is only three
years, rather than five, and in New Zealand it has been a period
of nine years before they now say they have got their reforms
fully implemented across this phase. They have introduced something
called a certificate, not a diploma. So that was another piece
of information that we had access to that gave us some idea of
the timescales that others have taken, but, at the end of the
day, I would not argue for 10 years as distinct from eight. I
think that has to come out of decisions about what the Government
wants to do and how it sees that working out, but I think what
we must have is sensible evolution, not big bang, otherwise we
run serious risks of it failing, and we cannot have it fail for
the sake of the young people in the system.
Q1267 Jonathan Shaw: Mr Tomlinson,
when you listened to the Secretary of State on 18th October, did
your heart not sink a bit? You said this report is advice to government.
You have put your heart and soul into it, have you not?
Mr Tomlinson: We have put a lot
of effort into it, yes, and we believe in it, yes. I think that
the issue you touch upon depends how you want to read it. For
example, I am quite clear that in terms of the content of GCSE,
the content of AS and the content of A-level, that will remain
intact and will move through into being the component building
blocks of the diploma. In that sense GCSEs in terms of content,
or A-levels in terms of their content, and, more importantly,
in terms of their standards, will remain. If that is what we are
saying, then we are at one. I can easily see that as an interpretation
of what was said on that evening.
Q1268 Jonathan Shaw: Like Gordon
Brown, Charles Clarke has his five tests. I am sure you can remember
all the tests—if not we will get a plastic card—but
they are, for the record, excellence, vocation, employability,
assessment and disengagement. Is that five?
Mr Tomlinson: Yes.
Q1269 Jonathan Shaw: Thank you. Are
your proposals going to meet all those tests?
Mr Tomlinson: We believe they
do, and we set out in the report how we believe they are going
to do that. The one that is clearly least susceptible to a simple
answer is whether or not they will lead to a greater number of
young people continuing to be engaged. We believe they will. We
believe there is evidence already on the ground where 14-19 Pathfinders
have been operating, or where other schemes have been operating
between schools and FE, that if you can get young people into
learning environments and on to courses which motivate them, not
only will they stay in education up to 16, but they will actively
consider moving on and staying on post 16, and there are plenty
of examples of that. While we cannot give an absolute assurance,
there is plenty of evidence that suggests that that will happen,
and young people confirm that to us as we have talked to them
throughout the process.
Q1270 Jonathan Shaw: Is that the
most important thing: changing the culture of the post-16 rather
than changing the qualifications framework?
Mr Tomlinson: It is. I think one
of the most important matters facing us as a country is that we
are not as yet releasing the talents and potential of all our
young people. If we do not do that through an effective education
training system, then as a country I believe that we will not
have the skills that we need, nor will we have the citizens who
feel confident about themselves as individuals and citizens as
well as about themselves as employers or employees. I think it
is very important, yes, but I would not in saying that propose
that qualifications per se are not important. They become
less important through life. Much more important after the first
stage is: "What have you now been doing in your work?"
rather than looking back to, "What did you get at your O-levels
or GSCEs?" They become less and less important and other
things will take over.
Q1271 Jonathan Shaw: So our young
people should aspire to almost any station in life perhaps! I
will not ask you to respond to that. What would be the consequence,
Mr Tomlinson, if Charles Clarke or the Government adopted a sort
of "pick and mix" approach to your recommendations?
Can we have part of it, or is it all or nothing?
Mr Tomlinson: I think the group
regards what they have put forward as having an internal integrity
and, therefore, a consistency. Probably they would like to see
the whole thing, but I think realistically, within the report
as well, we have indicated that there are some things that could
be done quite early on which would make the system better than
it is now. I think the group would like to see the vision and
the broad framework taken on board. I do not think any of the
group would want to argue with a proposition that said, "But
the detail might be slightly different. We may achieve the goal
in a slightly different way than you propose." I think that
is absolutely fair and acceptable.
Q1272 Jonathan Shaw: When you were
in front of the Committee the last time, Mr Tomlinson, you were
asked about resources and whether you would make specific recommendations
in terms of resources. There are not any costings set out. If
we assume a stable economy over the next 10 years, which I am
sure many of my colleagues are confident that there will be, there
is going to need to be a very large investment to deliver on the
Working Group's proposals, is there not, and how much?
Mr Tomlinson: I have to apologise
by saying that we have been unable in the time to really get down
to costing it in its fuller sense, and I do accept that it would
have been better if we had been able to do that. Our view, like
yours, is that there would be a cost beyond the quantum that is
now available. I think though you have to look at it, and this
is where we are hoping that some work will be done, from a broader
context. At the moment the cost of the problems within our system,
whether it is the proportion of our young people who are acquiring
the necessary functional literacy, functional numeracy skills,
whether it is the number of young people who go with ability,
not finding a curriculum offer that motivates them and keeps them
in the system, the cost down the line of dealing with those young
people, wherever they end up—
Q1273 Jonathan Shaw: Yes, but everyone
says that about everything?
Mr Tomlinson: But it is quite
considerable, and we have a system which in a sense places large
amounts of resource on remediation almost at each stage. The real
issue is can we get it right up front and reduce that cost of
remediation? Yes, it will have, no doubt, a cost up front greater
than is there now, but I suspect in the long term the dividends
will be considerable.
Q1274 Mr Turner: We had a hearing
the other day about teaching and reading, and it is noticeable
that the number of people in the public gallery to hear about
getting it right in the first place was hugely less than the number
of people in the public gallery now who seem to be interested
in your report. Do you not think that shows that people have got
their priorities wrong?
Mr Tomlinson: I do not know what
it shows. I do not know whether it does or does not show that
they have got their priorities wrong at all. I do not know. You
will have to ask every one of them and find out for yourself!
I am not questioning their priorities at all.
Q1275 Mr Turner: You have said that
getting it right in the first place is very important?
Mr Tomlinson: It is, yes.
Q1276 Mr Turner: What is the cost
of these problems that you have just described to Mr Shaw?
Mr Tomlinson: There are various
estimates. For example, the CBI has given me data which indicates
that their members are spending perhaps up to a billion pounds
per year in seeking to put right the deficiencies that young employees
bring around the basics.
Q1277 Mr Turner: The basics?
Mr Tomlinson: The basics, what
we in our report call functional mathematics, functional literacy,
communication and ITC.
Q1278 Mr Turner: But what does the
report say about teaching those basics and about how the youngsters
learn rather than about how they progress through some kind of
diplomas system?
Mr Tomlinson: It does not, because
it was not part of its brief.
Q1279 Mr Turner: So the diploma system,
the testing, the assessment, does not contribute to successfully
teaching them, then successfully learning. It does not have an
effect on how the CBI might face an alleviation of that in pound
costs?
Mr Tomlinson: I think it does,
in that what we are saying clearly here is that we need to identify
the content of what we refer to as functional mathematics,
etcetera, and ensure that up to the age of at least 16 that core
is thoroughly dealt with and as high a proportion of young people
as possible are able to acquire the knowledge and be able to apply
it in situations. We are quite clear, that is not delivered currently
by the study of GCSE mathematics or GCSE English language. That
does not give an assurance that those basics are acquired. You
go on and you talk to employers who say, "I cannot understand
why this young person arrives with GCSE grade A but cannot do
this. It is a common core. Therefore, what we have tried to do
is say, "If that is the case, can we identify that very important
core. Can we make sure (a) that it is available and taught to
every person and (b) arrange a form of assessment which gives
an assurance that that range of knowledge and skills is actually
mastered; and the assessment would not allow, our proposals would
not allow, a young person to be able to get 100% in two questions,
0% in another two and be regarded as having passed. We are not
in the mode of compensatory. We want that mastery. We want to
be sure.
|
