House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fifth Report

2 INTRODUCTION

4. In January 2003, the DfES published a Green Paper, 14-19: Opportunity and Excellence, which proposed major changes to the curriculum and examinations system in England for 14-19 year olds, and other parallel fundamental changes to the nature of education and training at this stage. These proposals were motivated by a number of factors, including: a desire to improve attainment pre-16 and ensure better staying-on rates post-16; to provide more choice for young people in terms of what programmes they can follow; and to ensure there are better vocational options available to those not well-served by 'academic' options.[1]

5. The Green Paper announced that a Working Group on 14-19 Reform, chaired by Sir Mike Tomlinson, would be formed to examine the options for reform in the longer term.[2] This group produced its final report in October 2004—now widely known as the Tomlinson Report.[3]

6. Tomlinson's main recommendations were:

That all students would work toward the attainment of one overarching qualification—the Diploma. This would be attainable at four 'levels', from foundation through to advanced. Existing qualifications, such as A levels, GCSEs and National Vocational Qualifications "should cease to be free-standing qualifications in their own right but should evolve to become components of the new Diplomas."[4]
That all students should undertake 'core' learning which was "about getting the basics right, and developing the generic knowledge, skills and attributes necessary for participation in higher education, working life and the community".[5]This would include an extended project, to provide more stretch and challenge for the most able, and to better develop independent skills of inquiry.
That students would also undertake 'main' learning. This would be chosen by the learner to reflect their particular interests and aspirations, and could combine both 'vocational' and 'academic' options.
That assessment would be undertaken internally up to intermediate level; thereafter, external assessment would continue to take place but would be less intensive than it is currently at, for example, A level.
That the overarching Diplomas would be described in reference to up to 20 'lines' of learning—for example, science and maths, or languages, literature and culture. This would reflect the nature of the main subjects studied.

7. In February 2005, the Government published their formal response to the Working Group's recommendations, in the form of a White Paper, 14-19 Education and Skills.[6] Tomlinson's proposals were not accepted in full, despite strong professional support for them. Rather, A levels and GCSEs, the Government proposed, would continue to be available as separate qualifications. Fourteen new themed awards—initially referred to as vocational Diplomas—would be introduced. Each would incorporate academic and vocational content "appropriate to the sector".[7] Each Diploma would be available at three different levels—42 qualifications in all.

8. At the time, many expressed disappointment that the Government appeared to have 'cherry picked' aspects of Tomlinson, rather than taking a more radical approach. A key concern was that the continued existence of A levels and GCSEs alongside the new Diplomas would simply lead to the perpetuation of a damaging 'academic/vocational' split, whereby A levels were seen as the 'gold-standard' and vocational Diplomas as inferior.

9. From the evidence we received, it is clear that the rejection of Tomlinson's key proposal to create an overarching Diploma award, which all students would work toward, is still a matter of deep regret to many. Nevertheless, it also appears that now the decision has been taken, most are very keen for the Diplomas to be a success, and see them as a highly significant development. Ken Boston of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority set the tone at the start of our inquiry when he claimed: "the specialised Diploma […] is the most important reform in which I have ever been involved in 40 years in education".[8]

10. The Association of School and College Leaders wrote:

Similarly, John Bangs of the National Union of Teachers told us that he "agree[d] absolutely with Ken Boston [of the QCA], who said several times that certainly he wants to see these things work. That is the most important, top priority."[10] Godfrey Glyn of Barton Peveril Sixth Form College similarly emphasised that the priority now was on ensuring Diplomas were a success:

11. Speaking at the Association of School and College Leaders annual conference on the 10th March 2007, the Secretary of State for Education, Alan Johnson MP was quoted as saying that there was a danger that the Diplomas could go "horribly wrong", and that on account of the continued existence of A levels and GCSEs, there was "a danger of the Diplomas becoming if you like the secondary modern compared to the grammar".[12] However, he subsequently sought to clarify this, saying that "We are well on track to make sure they [Diplomas] are delivered from 2008 […]. We are now turning them into the radical, exciting qualifications we all hoped for."[13]

12. We asked the Secretary of State whether his reported comments at the ASCL conference had been taken out of context and he told us:

13. The disappointment many expressed after the Government decided not to fully implement Tomlinson's proposals—which had strong support—has not yet dissipated. Like others at the time, we felt that the creation of the unified, overarching Diploma award proposed by Tomlinson held the promise of a less hierarchical, less complex, and ultimately more coherent qualification system for young people. We remain concerned that the Government's decision to introduce 14 new discrete Diplomas, each at three different levels, has the potential to compound existing problems of over-complexity and stratification of qualifications, and may just cement existing hierarchies.

14. One of Tomlinson's achievements was establishing a large and pressing consensus for change. This still exists. Now the Government has embarked on its chosen route, most appear to be taking the pragmatic and positive stance that what is important is ensuring the Diplomas are of a high quality, and are a complete 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.

15. There is an enduring risk that a programme as complicated as Diplomas could face problems and it would have been disingenuous for the Minister to pretend that this was not the case. However, having made the decision to pursue the line it has taken, the very least that can be expected is for the Government to invest its full energy into making the reforms work. It is now imperative that ministers deliver strong leadership, by displaying the courage to intervene swiftly to address identified problems and showing public commitment to producing programmes of the highest quality.

What are Diplomas, and what are they for?

16. The Government identified a number of aims for Diplomas, including:

Increasing participation levels at post-16, from a current rate of 76% of young people. In March 2007, the Government published a Green Paper, Raising Expectations, which contained proposals to effectively raise the leaving age for education or training to 18 by 2015, identifying Diplomas as a key means of meeting the additional demand for learning.[15]
Providing a sound basis for progression to higher education, including developing the attributes that universities frequently say students lack—such as the skills of independent inquiry.
Being a qualification which "genuinely meets the needs of employers".[16]
Providing more stretch and challenge "in a way that the current curriculum does not consistently achieve".[17]

17. In themselves, these aims are clearly entirely laudable. What is more, the first of these is a major concern, given England's low staying-on rates for education and training post-16, in international terms. Nevertheless, many of those from whom we took evidence were keen to point out that such a broad range of desired outcomes placed a heavy burden of expectation on the Diplomas, and was asking them to serve perhaps an unfeasibly large number of ends with the risk that none would be achieved particularly well. The National Association of Head Teachers summed up some of these concerns:

The University and College Union agreed, arguing that "The actual purposes of the specialist Diploma may be problematic as they seem intended to serve multiple and perhaps conflicting purposes."[19]

18. Diplomas are intended to address several large-scale challenges, ranging from improving staying-on rates among those vulnerable to dropping out, to increasing 'stretch and challenge' for the most able. We do not necessarily view these as intrinsically conflicting purposes. However, for the qualifications and programmes to achieve such a wide range of aims successfully, there needs to be adequate time for development and reflection: as we contend later on in this report, it is far from certain that this has been sufficiently appreciated to date.

19. Each of the 14 Diplomas will be offered at three different levels. The QCA gives the following comparisons of how these will compare with other qualifications "in terms of average length of study":

Level one Diploma—comparable to a programme of four or five GCSEs

Level two Diploma—comparable to a programme of five to six GCSEs

20. A common structure will be shared by all 14 Diploma lines, although they will operate slightly differently at each of the three levels at which they will be offered. Learning will be divided between the following areas:

Principal learning. This is the mandatory 'core' of Diplomas and will be specific to each Diploma line. It is suggested that students would typically spend approximately 40-50% of their time on this.
Generic learning. This will be common to all 14 lines of learning, and includes: Functional skills in literacy, numeracy and IT (at levels 1 and 2); Personal learning and thinking skills; the completion of an extended project, to develop independent study skills. It is suggested that approximately 15-40% of time may be spent on this.
Additional/ Specialist learning (ASL): this can involve either further development of specialist skills relevant to the main direction of the Diploma, and/or a wider combination of options which range across industries and/or 'academic' options, which could include one or more A levels or GCSEs. It is suggested that ASL might comprise approximately 20-30% of learner's time.[21]
A minimum of 10 days' work experience with an employer in the relevant sector.

21. The DfES offers the following illustration of how the Engineering Diploma might work for one particular student, studying at level 2:

22. The Diploma will be a composite award, which will be attained on the successful completion of component units or modules, which can be 'mixed and matched'. The intention is that individual providers will be able to customise Diplomas to suit their own, and students', needs. The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) and City and Guilds have recently formed a partnership to develop the qualifications and assessment arrangements for the Diploma components. This, they argue, will provide "the most comprehensive curriculum offer across all 14 lines of learning. Centres will be able to access a wide choice of coherent progression pathways with the administrative simplicity of one point of contact."[23]

THE LONG-TERM FUTURE FOR DIPLOMAS

23. On the issue of the longer-term ambitions for Diplomas, the Association for College Management told us:

"We remain unclear as to whether the S[pecialised] D[iploma]s are paving the way for more far-reaching reform after 2008 towards a Diploma model or whether they are a long term third strand next to two separate strands: the academic (A level/ GCSE) and the vocational (apprenticeship)."[

24. A review of A levels is due to take place in 2008, which will look at the opportunities for increasing the challenge and breadth they offer. The Government states, however, that "the review will not be looking at the future of A levels. They will remain long-term as free-standing qualifications".[25] That statement seems to indicate categorically that the Diplomas are intended to be a permanent 'third track' option. However, in theory at least, students are free to pursue A levels or additional GCSEs as part of the additional or specialist learning elements of their Diploma; and, at key stage 4, it is claimed that students would normally meet the functional skills requirements in the generic learning component by following GCSEs in Maths and English.[26]

25. We asked the Secretary of State what the reasons were for pushing ahead with the review of A levels given that the Diplomas would only just have begun in 2008, and he told us:

26. Our view is that the Government's decision to consider A levels in isolation in its 2008 review is a missed opportunity. More would be gained from considering A levels in their wider context, and in particular, in the light of experience of the Diplomas, which will have just started in September 2008. We would urge the Government to consider rescheduling the review and changing its terms of reference so that it can consider A levels in their wider context and after more is known about how Diplomas are working in practice.

NATURE OF DIPLOMAS—VOCATIONAL, PRACTICAL OR ACADEMIC LEARNING?

27. Vocational learning is commonly understood to mean learning which is work-related, in the sense that it provides preparation for either a particular career or even a particular task within a job, for possible entry into a particular occupational area, or for further study in that area. Examples range from apprenticeships in traditional trades such as plumbing or construction, to courses such as National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) which are available in a wide variety of occupational areas—for example, childcare or hospitality and catering, to courses such as BTEC National Diplomas. Common to all vocationally-based courses is a method of practical 'learning by doing'.

28. 'Academic' learning, on the other hand, is usually understood to involve a less practical and more desk-based style of learning, to serve a more general educative purpose, and to be only indirectly related to career preparation (for example, in the sense of developing the skills of critical inquiry needed for a range of occupations, or a foundation of knowledge to serve as the platform for further, more career-specific training). Qualifications commonly thought of as 'academic' include traditional A levels' or GCSEs.

29. In practice, however, learning does not always fall neatly into these categories. Some so-called academic learning programmes are by design highly skills-based or make use of some applied or practical learning methods (for example, the use of 'practicals' in the case of science A levels). Other courses commonly thought of as highly academic—such as law or medicine at degree level—are in reality highly vocational in the sense that they prepare learners for a very particular occupation and develop skills through practical experience.

30. A key issue from the outset concerning Diplomas—and one which is at the heart of many of the debates surrounding them—has been that of definition and purpose. In particular, it has not always been clear to what extent the new programmes are intended to be vocational, or applied, or to serve a more general educational purpose. The Government's own standpoint on this issue appears to have changed over time. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, Lord Andrew Adonis, referred to the new awards in May 2006 as "specialised vocational Diplomas".[28] The DfES, on the other hand, has referred to them as "specialised Diplomas"[29] until the publication in March 2007 of the Green Paper Raising Expectations, when the 'specialised' part of the name appears to have been completely dropped and where all references are to "Diplomas" only.[30]

31. The DfES, in its evidence to this inquiry described the Diplomas as a "highly valued mixed theoretical and practical route for young people which genuinely meets the needs of employers and provides a sound basis for progression into higher education (HE)."[31] When we took evidence from the Minister on the issue of definition and purpose, he told us he saw the Diplomas as charting "a middle course between traditional academic and traditional vocational qualifications".[32]

32. We explored with other witnesses what they perceived the nature of the Diplomas to be. Ken Boston of the QCA told us that he saw the aim as being:

However, the awarding body OCR imply that a confusion over purposes has led to a lack of consistency across the first five Diploma lines:

33. Several of those from whom we received evidence warned of the potential for 'academic drift'—i.e., that the practical and applied nature of the curriculum could be downgraded and replaced with more 'classroom-based' and theoretical activity, either through unfamiliarity with vocational teaching and learning methods, and/or as a consequence of a residual belief that 'academic' learning was the 'gold standard'. Ann Hodgson and Ken Spours, of the Institute of Education, for example, told us that the Diplomas were very likely to occupy a 'middle track' between true 'vocational' qualifications, and more 'academic' ones such as A levels. They suggest:

34. Godfrey Glyn of Barton Peveril Sixth Form College observed:

35. Similarly, the Association for College Management told us:

The 157 Group of Colleges made a similar point, suggesting: "It is fair to say that these Diplomas will have to be skilfully designed and positioned if they are not just to become a means of bolstering the academic route with the lightest of vocational seasoning."[38]

36. When the Secretary of State gave evidence to us, he told us: "this is not a vocational Diploma, it is not another form of job training, this is something really exciting".[39] However, he later continued:

37. It is far from clear that those in charge of developing the different Diplomas share a common understanding of the kinds of learning they will demand and the purposes they will serve. We welcome the introduction of more practical learning into the curriculum but there is a risk that the pressure over time will be to introduce more and more desk-based, theoretical material into practical, vocational curricula in pursuit of parity with academic qualifications. It is important that this is guarded against in the case of the Diplomas, and we will be looking for evidence that the new programmes contain sufficient practical content to motivate and appeal to learners who may be ill-served by academic courses.

38. We asked the DfES to state how they intended to explain Diplomas succinctly to interested parties, given the complex nature of what Diplomas were trying to achieve. Jon Coles, Director of 14-19 Reform, replied:

We appreciate the sentiments behind this statement—which, it could be argued, is indeed an accurate description of Diplomas. However, it is also a highly technical, complex and lengthy explanation, and very far from being 'media-friendly'.

39. The Minister sought to reassure us that the Government was aware of the importance of clear communications and was actively addressing this issue:

40. The DfES describes Diplomas as charting a 'middle course' between traditional academic and vocational qualifications, combining the benefits of both. We see a risk that in the absence of clear communications about what this means, Diplomas could all too easily be seen as falling between two stools, rather than having a distinct identity of their own. The DfES must ensure there is a real, shared understanding of the kinds of learning and teaching that Diplomas will involve among those responsible for their design, development and delivery. Consensus on this should have been established at the outset and the failure to do this it is a matter of deep concern to us. Secondly, and with some urgency, the Department must decide on a coherent and easily communicable definition of Diplomas. Communications must not further complicate what is already a complicated award, and must encapsulate what is different and distinctive about Diplomas, compared to existing routes.

Timescales

Overall achievability

41. The Government's plan is to develop and introduce Diplomas in three phases. Five initial Diploma Development Partnerships (led by Sector Skills Councils, with input from a range of other partners) were established in the last quarter of 2005. Nine additional partnerships have subsequently been formed to cover the remaining Diploma areas. The timetable for implementation is as follows:

Diplomas in IT, Health and Social Care, Engineering, Creative and Media and Construction and the Built Environment will be available for first teaching in September 2008.

Diplomas in Land-based and Environmental, Manufacturing, Hair and Beauty, Business Administration and Finance, Hospitality and Catering will be available for first teaching in September 2009.

Diplomas in Public Services, Sport and Leisure, Retail and Travel and Tourism will be available from September 2010.

By 2013, there will be an 'entitlement' in each local area for young people to have access to all fourteen Diploma 'lines'.

42. The QCA told us:

"In ambition, scope, complexity and potential, the introduction of a Diploma qualification across 14 lines of learning and at three levels in each line is a major national reform of secondary curriculum and qualifications, currently without parallel in any other country."[

43. Given the QCA's comments, we were keen to establish what had been achieved to date, and whether the programme was on track to deliver according to the timetable which had been set. The DfES told us that:

44. In much of the evidence we received, there was a clear call to recognise the achievements which had been made. Nevertheless, in many of the submissions was an often explicit recognition that progress made had been very much against the clock. Most contributors, even those who sought to highlight what had been achieved, raised concerns about the feasibility and desirability of the timetables and deadlines which were currently being pursued. The Edge Foundation was categorical, saying "The current time-scales are unrealistic—some would say dishonest—and unless relaxed the Specialised Diplomas will fail as have very many similar initiatives over previous decades."[45] Similarly, the Institution of Engineering and Technology argued that the Diploma development process had been rushed:

45. The National Association of Head Teachers told us "The timescale for the introduction of Diplomas has been inappropriately and unrealistically short, considering the magnitude of the new initiative"[47] while the Universities and Colleges Union argued:

46. The QCA has to date taken the main strategic and co-ordinating role in Diploma development. Ken Boston told us he thought the programme overall was achievable in the timeframe currently set:

47. Some of those from whom we took evidence suggested that the introduction of the first five Diploma lines in September 2008 should be delayed. The University and College Union recommended that "the start date for the first five Diplomas should be postponed a year and that they should be introduced in September 2009, and the remaining Diplomas rolled out until 2014."[50] Karen Price of e-skills UK said she was not definitely in favour of a delay, but that she did think "now is the time for a risk assessment on the timescales. I think we should have the courage to delay a year if that is required".[51]

48. However, Ken Boston of the QCA did not agree with delaying the start of the programme beyond September 2008, arguing that such a move risked curtailing the enthusiasm of those who were already keen to start delivering the Diplomas:

John Rogers of Skills for Health seemed to agree at least in part with this, saying "there are risks in delaying and risks in going forward."[53]

STARTING SMALL AND EXPANDING SLOWLY

49. One area where we have found almost unanimous agreement was the importance of a very small and controlled implementation of the first five Diploma lines in 2008, followed by a cautious expansion in subsequent years. Several witnesses pointed out that, historically, the introduction and rollout of new qualifications had tended to be rushed, with detrimental effects. The University and College Union told us:

"The fatal flaws in the introduction of both GNVQs and Curriculum 2000 led to a lack of confidence in such reforms amongst young people, parents, teachers and lecturers. A principal fault in the introduction of both sets of qualifications was the speed with which they were started which did not give sufficient time for considered piloting, testing and evaluation. UCU fears that similar mistakes are being made in relation to the introduction of specialist Diplomas."[

50. John Rogers of Skills for Health also saw a danger in making Diplomas too widely available in the initial stages:

51. The Sector Skills Council, Skillset, agreed saying:

52. In the 14-19 implementation plan, the DfES stated "In 2008, our modelling suggests that we need to prepare for up to 50,000 young people taking specialised Diplomas".[57] We explored with witnesses whether this was a reasonable expectation. John Bangs of the National Union of Teachers told us:

53. We asked the Minister whether he perceived any tension between getting the quality right, and securing enough enrolments in September 2008. He told us that of the two priorities, "The most important thing is quality; we place an absolute premium on that."[59] He also told us categorically that 50,000 was not a target for September 2008:

54. It now seems highly unlikely that the first teaching of the Diplomas could be delayed. As one of our witnesses put it, there are risks in delaying and risks in going forward. From the evidence we have received, we believe that much could be lost unless there is partial introduction of the Diplomas in September 2008—in particular, the enthusiasm and commitment of the teachers and lecturers who are expecting to deliver them from 2008.

55. It is absolutely essential that the first Diploma cohort is very limited in size, and that thereafter expansion takes place at a slow and controlled rate, with sufficient time for development and assessment. Too often in the past, initiatives have been rolled out too quickly, with serious negative effects on quality. The Government says it will place quality above all other considerations, and intends to take a measured approach: we very much welcome this, and will look for evidence that this is happening in practice.

1 Department for Education and Skills, 14-19: Opportunity and Excellence, 0744/2002, January 2003. Back

2 The Working Group had 15 Members aside from the chair, representing state and private education sectors, further and higher education, industry, local authorities and the voluntary and community sector. Back

3 Working Group on 14-19 Reform, 14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications Reform: Final Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform, October 2004, p 5. Back

4 Ibid, p 24 Back

5 Ibid, p 5 Back

6 Department for Education and Skills, 14-19 Education and Skills, Cm 6476, 23 February 2005. Back

7 "Kelly Sets Out 14-19 Reform", Department for Education and Skills press release 2005/0026, 23 Feb 2005. Back

8 Q 1 Back

9 Ev 136 Back

10 Q 104 Back

11 Q 108 Back

12 "Diplomas may go horribly wrong", BBC News Online, 10 March 2007, news.bbc.co.uk. Back