| Summary
In October 2004, the Government-commissioned Working Group on 14-19 reform, chaired by Sir Mike Tomlinson, brought forward wide-ranging proposals for changes to the examinations system. The Government laid out its response in February 2005 in its White Paper, 14-19 Education and Skills. Among other reforms, this proposed the introduction of 14 new awards, originally called vocational Diplomas, rejecting the overarching Diploma award that Tomlinson had proposed. Many of those from whom we took evidence were clearly disappointed by this decision, but the vast majority stressed that the priority now was to make sure Diplomas were high-quality awards, and were a success. We understand and welcome that approach, but we believe that the changes to the 14-19 curriculum would have been better structured and more coherent had Tomlinson's proposals been adopted.
Aims and objectives
The Government describes Diplomas as charting a middle course between vocational and academic learning, but it is far from clear that those in charge of developing the different Diplomas share a common understanding of what they are for and what kinds of learning they will involve. Two key challenges are apparent; firstly, there is a need to ensure that the Diplomas contain sufficient practical content to inspire and enthuse those ill-served by existing programmes, and that the temptation to substitute academic content for practical content is resisted; secondly, the DfES must successfully convince parents, students, employers and higher education that Diplomas are new, exciting and offer something significantly different from existing qualifications.
There are also questions about the long-term structure of the post-14 examinations system. A review of A levels is planned for 2008—the year in which the Diplomas will first be taught. The Government says this will look only at the internal dimensions of A levels as opposed to considering the part the awards play in their broader context or attempting to assess the overall coherence of options open to 14-19 year-olds. This is a missed opportunity, and we urge the Government to consider both rescheduling the review so it can incorporate fully the experience of the Diplomas, and changing its terms of reference to ensure it provides an analysis of A levels in context.
Development
The Diploma development process has clearly been frustrating for many of those involved, and it is commendable that significant progress has been made in spite of the challenges. The new Diploma Development Partnership approach—with Sector Skills Councils and employers taking the lead—has been experimental, and also highly complex, given the number of players involved. At times, there has been a lack of clarity about who was responsible for taking key decisions about Diploma content and design, and there was underestimation of the complexity of the project at the outset, which in turn led to a lack of suitable management and oversight structures being put in place. More appropriate management arrangements at the Departmental level have now been put in place and this is welcome. Additionally, it does appear that some lessons from the first Diploma Development Partnerships have been learned, so future developments are unlikely to be as fraught. However, the fact remains that in the case of the first five Diplomas, development work has sometimes been uncomfortably compressed—and it remains to be seen whether this will have a negative impact on the final 'products'.
Implementation
Five Diplomas will be taught in a limited number of areas from 2008; the remainder will be rolled out progressively, with the intention that all students should be entitled to study any Diploma by 2013. It is absolutely essential that the first diploma cohort is limited in size, and that thereafter expansion takes place at a slow and controlled rate: the temptation to press ahead to achieve 'quick wins' needs to be firmly resisted. Too often in the past, initiatives have been rolled out in a rushed manner, with negative consequences in terms of quality.
Given all the concerns that have been expressed to us about the Diplomas' aims, and their development, the Government needs to ensure that delivery in 2008 genuinely is a pilot. If problems are not resolved, or if further problems become apparent during this period, the wider roll out should be delayed or reviewed in order to prevent the failure of the Diplomas.
As the Government recognises, successful Diploma delivery will require close collaboration between schools, colleges, learning providers and employers in an area—no one institution alone is likely to be able to offer the full entitlement. In some cases, partnership working is well established and providers are confident of their ability to deliver. In other areas, partnership working is much less well advanced. In these situations, progress is unlikely to be hastened by the existence of policies which promote independence, autonomy and competition between institutions as opposed to collegiate, area-wide action—examples include the continuing existence of performance tables, and the presumptions toward sixth form expansion.
Appropriate workforce development will also be vital to the Diplomas' success. The workforce is not a blank slate, insofar as there is a body of skilled and experienced staff in schools, colleges and other learning providers with relevant teaching expertise. However, we remain to be convinced that the workforce development requirements for the Diplomas have been fully assessed and costed, and that sufficient resources have been allocated on this basis. We look to the Government to clarify whether this sort of underpinning national analysis has been undertaken, or is in progress. We also wish to see evidence that the development needs of those in areas which are currently some way from forming successful Diploma partnerships are being addressed—otherwise the concern is that the universal entitlement to Diplomas in 2013 will remain an aspiration rather than a reality.
|
