House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fifth Report

4 IMPLEMENTATION

97. Our concern in this inquiry has extended beyond the development of the actual Diplomas to the practical aspects of delivery. Many of those from whom we have taken evidence have shared this concern, with the Institution of Engineering Technology telling us, for example, that "At present (assuming no major change to the specification/ qualification) delivery remains our number one concern."[104] In this section, we discuss two main implementation issues which will have a central role in determining the success or otherwise of Diplomas: the development of collaborative, area-wide approaches to provision, and workforce development. The challenges in terms of both of these areas are significant, and will require enthusiasm and commitment from staff at the frontline, as well as sustained attention and investment from the Government. We also discuss the challenges which arise due to the multi-site nature of Diploma provision.

Collaboration and area-wide approaches to 14-19

98. The DfES has consistently made it clear that Diploma delivery will require schools and colleges to operate collaboratively, because one institution alone is highly unlikely to be able to deliver even a limited number of Diplomas, let alone provide access to the full 14, as will be required by 2013. Those from whom we took evidence were equally keen to stress the need for a joint approach. Peter Hawthorne, of Wolverhampton County Council argued that:

"[the] most important thing to do is, in each area, one has to establish what we call an infrastructure to facilitate an area approach to curriculum delivery, and I think that is the critical thing for the Diplomas. The Specialised Diplomas cannot be delivered by individual schools and colleges, or even small consortia; it requires an area-wide approach."[

105

Promoting more collaborative work has been the aim of several recent Government policies. In 2002, it was announced that the DfES would fund 39 14-19 Pathfinder partnerships, the purpose of which was to develop closer working relationships between schools and colleges in a local area, and to enable young people to follow courses at more than one local institution. The aims of the Increased Flexibility programme, introduced in 2001, were similar, but encouraged young people in schools between the ages of 14-16 to study part-time at a local college, often following vocational awards.

Local area partnerships-readiness

99. Collaborative working around 14-19 is therefore not strictly 'new', although our evidence suggests that while good practice does exist, the overall picture is a patchy one. Some, particularly those in areas with prior experience of joint working on 14-19, were relatively confident of their ability to deliver the Diplomas using a collaborative approach. Elaine McMahon of Hull College told us that her institution was part of a consortium hoping to offer the Diplomas from September 2008. She said:

"my staff believe they can and the consortium of which we are a part believe that they want to get on and get underway with this because they feel positive about it. I think they have got concerns but I do not think they are concerns that they feel they cannot overcome."[

106

100. The Local Government Association also emphasise the progress that has been made:

107

101. However, the National Association of Head Teachers raised concerns that the positive experience of 14-19 Pathfinders was not widespread, and that many other areas of the country still had a very long way to go:

108

102. Recently, we have been informed that the National Audit Office will be undertaking research investigating capacity at the local partnership level to implement 14-19 reforms. The National Audit Office (NAO) scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament and is independent of Government. Following preliminary work to explore key issues concerning the 14-19 Reform Programme, the NAO is to undertake a study of the Programme which will investigate whether local partnerships are on track to deliver the 14-19 Reform Programme in all areas of England. The study is underpinned by four sub-issues:

Is there full coverage and commitment from local partnerships?
Are partnerships developing the necessary governance capacity and leadership at local level?
Are partnerships planning for sustainability and affordability?
Is there sufficient national support and commitment to local partnerships?

The study is employing a range of methods and will review various sources of information about the local partnerships. Two of the main study methods will be in-depth case studies of six local 14-19 partnerships, and a national assessment of local progress through a survey of the Learning and Skills Council's Partnership Directors. The study aims to make recommendations that will increase the likelihood of the success of local partnerships, given their importance to the overall success of the reforms.[109]

103. We have been impressed by the dedication and commitment shown by those who are already well advanced with collaborative work. It will be extremely important that the lessons of areas already working in this way are fully absorbed and effectively disseminated if Diplomas are to be successful. What is more, it is preferable that only those areas with significant experience of joint working to date are involved in the early stages of implementation.

104. While good practice exists, it is clear that many local areas are some way away from the kinds of working that will be required to successfully deliver Diplomas—especially, those which have not been involved in 14-19 Pathfinders. The National Audit Office is currently undertaking a review to establish the scale of preparedness and the barriers to implementation in local areas. This is extremely welcome and we would encourage the LSC and the DfES to take full heed of the findings in planning for Diploma implementation.

A LACK OF INCENTIVES FOR COLLABORATION?

105. The DfES note that evaluation of local 14-19 partnerships found the most successful were those which had the full involvement of all schools and colleges in their local areas.[110] Many witnesses raised with us the importance of ensuring that a real cross-section of students undertook Diplomas, not just those perceived to be less able, and that a precursor of this would be the full and equal involvement of all different types of schools and not just schools in challenging circumstances. Karen Price of e-skills UK told us:

111

106. We agree: failure to involve all players risks casting Diplomas as the preserve of one type of institution and by implication, particular groups of young people, as opposed to a mainstream option. However, the universal involvement of all providers is far from certain. In particular, it appears that some schools may not be as aware or engaged with the Diploma reforms as might be hoped. John Bangs of the NUT told us:

112

113

107. One particular problem commonly identified in the evidence we received was that the institutional drivers for becoming involved in collaborative arrangements were weak or absent, and tended instead to encourage institutional self-interest rather than collaboration and joint planning. Peter Hawthorne of Wolverhampton County Council told us that there was a track record of successful collaboration in his area, but "up and down the country people are less advanced, quite often. It is quite hard, because you are looking for a culture of collaboration where there are not any real incentives to create that; that is the hard part."[114]

108. Paul Hafren, of Warrington Collegiate agreed, and expanded further:

115

109. One particular area of concern was that of the continued existence of performance tables, which measure individual institutions against one another on the basis of exam results achieved by registered students. The tables, it was argued, had been one factor promoting a culture of competition, as opposed to collaboration, between schools themselves and between schools and other institutions in an area. The Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA) argued:

116

110. The issues raised by our witnesses regarding conflicting drivers have also been noted by the Nuffield Foundation in their most recent annual report on the 14-19 reform programme. They argue:

117

111. Given the concerns outlined above in terms of perverse drivers in the system, we put it to the Minister that other than the willingness of institutions to work together for the collective good of their pupils, there was really very little in the system to positively encourage collaboration. Jim Knight responded:

118

112. Jon Coles of the DfES added that schools, like local authorities, had been placed under a statutory duty in the Education and Inspections Act of 2006 to "deliver all 14 Diploma lines […] There is not a school in the country which could offer all 14 Diplomas at all three levels and do it with any degree of quality. In fact, it is not merely an incentive, it is somewhere close to being a requirement for them to work in that way."[119]

113. It is vital that as many providers as possible in an area are actively and meaningfully involved in local 14-19 partnerships. The statutory requirement in the Education Act 2006 for schools to collaborate is very welcome for that reason. However, the effect of some other policy levers is contradictory. In particular, it is hard to see how individual institutional performance tables will offer a meaningful measure in a collaborative system, or immediately reward those that adopt a collegiate approach. If collaborative approaches to 14-19 provision are to become the norm, the Government needs to look again at the mechanisms for recognising achievements in collaborative provision. Existing tensions need to be resolved, or they risk seriously undermining the welcome messages in recent rhetoric about the importance of collaboration and the adoption of shared responsibility.

FUNDING

114. Several of those giving evidence have pointed out that Diplomas are likely to be a costly option for a range of reasons, including the nature of the specialist facilities and practical learning involved, the costs of travel between sites, the running of smaller classes in some cases, and the administrative requirements of area-wide approaches. The Association of School and College Leaders urged: "the Government must recognise that collaboration costs money. Diplomas are an expensive option and this must be reflected in the funding of schools and colleges."[120] Similarly, the University and College Union describe:

121

115. On the 7 March 2007, the DfES published a consultation document covering early years, school and 14-16 funding in the context of 14-19 reform.[122] The consultation document explicitly states that the current funding system was "unlikely to be robust enough" to support the roll-out of Diplomas, and makes a number of proposals on how Diplomas for 14-16 year olds might be funded during the period 2008-2011.[123] Most importantly, it proposes funding Diplomas for 14-16 year olds initially through a discrete grant rather than through the Dedicated Schools Grant, and seeks views on three models for distributing this discrete Diploma funding to partnerships. These are:

Option 1—the creation of a central funding pool, where funds would be retained by the local authority and distributed to providers to cover costs.
Option 2—the creation of a central funding pool with partial delegation to schools.
Option 3—the complete delegation of funding to schools.

The DfES proposes that the final decision on which particular model to use should be left to local authorities to decide. The consultation is due to close in June 2007.

116. Secondly, the consultation document suggests a model for estimating the actual costs of Diploma delivery. This, it is intended, would provide a basis for institutions such as colleges to charge partner schools for the costs they incur educating 14-16 year olds. The proposal here is to create 'baseline' national rates for elements of Diplomas—in effect, to set out a guaranteed 'minimum' of funding, while also building in mechanisms for a degree of local flexibility in calculating precise costs.

117. Additionally, the LSC has recently undertaken a consultation on funding arrangements at 16-19. This document took forward a previous Government commitment to develop a common funding system for all 16-19 year-olds, regardless of whether they were studying in college, school or at another training provider.

118. We are pleased that the Government is actively consulting on aspects of the funding arrangements for Diplomas, and has explicitly recognised that the current systems are unlikely to be sufficiently robust to support successful Diploma delivery. We are also pleased that the proposals to use a common funding model for 16-18 learners whether in schools or in colleges are being taken forward. We look forward to the outcomes of these consultations.

A SINGLE FUNDING SYSTEM FOR 14-19?

119. Currently, money for students up to the age of 16 is routed through local authorities, while funding for 16-19 year-olds is routed through the Learning and Skills Council. Given that 14-19 is now conceived of by the Government as a coherent phase in education, the question arises as to whether it would ultimately make sense to create a single funding system reflecting this. However, the DfES consultation on 14-16 funding published in March 2007 stated that this option was not being considered further. It explained:

"In broad terms, we propose to retain the current funding arrangements for pre- and post-16 provision over the CSR period […]. Other options, such as the creation of a single 14-19 funding system or funding learners through the institution at which they spend most time, present very significant practical and legislative barriers."[

124

120. We asked the Secretary of State why this was the case, and whether it in fact made sense, in the long term, to maintain separate systems for 14-16 and for 16-19 funding. He told us:

125

121. Given the emphasis being placed on 14-19 as a distinct phase, and the centrality of funding in driving provision, we were initially disappointed that the option of creating a single 14-19 funding system appeared not to be being considered further. The creation of a single funding system for 14-19 learners may indeed present significant legal and practical challenges, as the Government asserts, but the potential rewards of a single system could also be very significant indeed. We therefore welcome the Secretary of State's later clarification that a single 14-19 funding system may still be considered in the medium-term, after the next Comprehensive Spending Review period and recommend that they make an explicit commitment to analysing the likely benefits and costs of such an approach.

16-19 EXPANSION

122. The Education and Inspection Act 2006 introduced new powers for schools to expand 'high quality' provision for 16-19 year olds where there was demand from parents and students. A parallel 'presumption' toward expansion has been extended to FE colleges, where that expansion meets the needs of the new Diplomas. The DfES told us:

"Allowing the expansion of high performing schools and FE colleges to deliver post-16 provision will create a stronger and more robust system for delivering the new Diplomas. Choice is a powerful lever for driving up quality and we believe that it is best delivered by giving institutions greater autonomy in serving their local markets so that successful provision can expand and local strengths be fully exploited. Diplomas will stimulate the development of local partnerships of autonomous institutions, each contributing their individual strengths to create a high quality, broad-based offer that meets the needs of all young people in the area." [

126

123. However, other evidence we have received questions this. Some have suggested that the existence of two parallel presumptions may make local co-ordination of 14-19 provision more challenging, not less so, particularly in an era where there are likely to be falling rolls due to demographic contraction in the 11-19 age group. The Association of Colleges told us:

127

124. We believe this is a valid point: there seems to be a direct contradiction between two different DfES policies. On the one hand, the 'presumption arrangements' seem to be based on the notion that expansion and contraction of provision should be driven primarily by user choice, and that decisions should be taken at the institutional level. Yet, the realities of the Diploma programme are such that areas are unlikely to be able to provide a sufficiently broad range of choice for learners without engaging in some form of rationalisation and joint capacity planning. We remain unconvinced by the Government's argument that the 'choice' and self-determination agenda gels completely with the more co-ordinated and planning-led approach necessitated by Diplomas.

ROLE OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

125. The DfES was keen to emphasise in evidence to us that local authorities held a key strategic responsibility to secure collaboration, as well as a statutory responsibility, under the Education and Inspections Act 2006, to ensure coherent provision at 14-19.[128] We explored with witnesses the importance of the local authority role in relation to Diplomas (and 14-19 provision more generally), and examined whether they were currently delivering.

126. Several of those who gave evidence to us emphasised that strategic leadership at the local level was central to achieving coherent, co-ordinated provision at 14-19. Dr Elaine McMahon of Hull College told us:

129

127. This raises the question of how local authorities are performing, as a whole in their role of promoting and facilitating collaboration. The DfES told us: "Evidence from regional conferences and Government Offices shows that L[ocal] A[uthoritie]s are taking an increasingly strategic overview of 14-19 provision in their areas."[130] However, the University and College Union appeared to challenge this, saying:

131

Similarly, the National Association of Head Teachers, commenting on the assistance and guidance provided by local authorities and LSCs, claim that there is "a range of readiness, from hesitantly enthusiastic to frighteningly unaware".[132]

128. The DfES says it will be up to local authorities to ensure a joined-up approach, and that they have the strategic responsibility for ensuring coherence. Some have leapt at the challenge, and are effectively supporting joint working in their area. However, our evidence suggests that not all local authorities currently see themselves as having this role. The DfES needs to send a clear message that local authorities have the responsibility to co-ordinate local provision, and crucially, ensure they have the means to do so. We have said above that incentives in the system which promote competition must be revisited: it should not be up to local authorities, or a few particularly enthusiastic institutions, for that matter, to 'square the circle'. The DfES also needs to monitor the effectiveness of LSCs in supporting partnerships, given its recent restructuring.

INVOLVEMENT OF EMPLOYERS IN LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS

129. The DfES says it expects employers to be involved not just in the design and development of Diplomas, but also in local partnership arrangements:

"Employer involvement in the teaching of Diplomas is particularly important if the experience for the young person is to be materially different. This is partly about providing good quality work experience, but it is also about [providing] a stimulating curriculum through bringing employers into schools and colleges and generating industry relevant tasks and materials." [

133

130. The DfES also told us that it expected Sector Skills Councils and Education Business Partnerships to play a key role in engaging employers in local partnerships. Some of the evidence we have received suggests that currently, this may not be happening in practice. Dr Elaine McMahon of Hull College indicated that employers in her area were not currently putting themselves forward to become involved:

134

131. However, evidence from Sector Skills Councils themselves pointed to examples whereby productive links had been formed between providers and employers. E-Skills UK, for example, described an initiative whereby local employers and teachers had worked together to jointly establish extra-curricular 'computer clubs for girls', for learners aged 10-13, in 2,000 schools nation-wide.

132. We agree with the DfES that employer participation in local partnership provision will be fundamental to success. However, it is not yet clear whether there will be the hoped-for employer engagement in support of local Diploma activity. Some successful programmes linking employers, teachers and learners do currently exist, but the required scale and quality of employer involvement will be much greater if Diplomas are to be a success. Close attention will need to be paid to the experience of the first Diploma pilot areas, and good practice needs to be widely distributed. We also hope that the report on partnership preparedness (referred to in paragraph 101, above) may take account of the extent to which employers are engaged in local arrangements—and the success or otherwise that Sector Skills Councils and Education Business Partnerships are having in brokering linkages.

133. A particular concern in relation to employer engagement centres on work experience placements. As part of their Diploma programme, learners will be placed with a 'real' employer in a relevant sector for a minimum of ten days. This is in addition to the requirement for 50% of principal learning to be spent in a 'work-related' environment. The challenge of finding sufficient high-quality work placements appears to concern many. The Institution of Engineering Technology comments: "[work experience] is fraught with difficulty and a number of issues need to be addressed not least: the availability of a sufficient numbers of placements; the quality, relevance, consistency and sustainability of placements; health and safety requirements; and administrative workload."[135] Others expressed similar worries, especially concerning the possibility that health and safety regulations may in effect prevent younger learners being placed in some 'real' workplaces—for example, on construction sites.[136]

134. Peter Hawthorne of Wolverhampton County Council described his experience of work placements and broader employer engagement as follows:

137

135. If the Diplomas are to take off in the way that the Government hopes, this will require a substantial increase in the availability of quality work placements for learners, as well as developing the capacity of teaching staff—particularly, those in schools—to liaise with employers and design placements that are mutually beneficial to learner and employer. Again, making use of the experience of those areas already well-advanced with the 14-19 agenda will be vital. This practical knowledge needs to be effectively shared with areas which have less experience in this regard.

Practical challenges—transport, timetabling and tracking

136. Multi-site provision will of course demand more movement between institutions for students and possibly staff, too. The Increased Flexibility and 14-19 Pathfinder areas have been trialling approaches to making this a practical reality, although often on quite a small scale. Challenges identified in evaluation reports for both these projects include: co-ordinating timetables to ensure that young people can choose the options which suit them best; ensuring the availability of safe and cost-effective transport between sites; and monitoring performance, behaviour and attendance among a mobile student population.[138] Those from areas with experience to date of joint working were keen to emphasise the significance of these challenges, although they also stressed that a careful, systematic approach involving all parties in planning could bear fruit. Peter Hawthorne of Wolverhampton County Council told us:

139

137. Lorraine McCarthy of Moseley Park School and also part of the Wolverhampton Partnership indicated that she was confident that their experience to date in dealing with the 'practical' issues of co-ordination would greatly help with Diploma implementation:

140

138. The DfES has provided specific support and encouragement for institutions to manage the more mobile student populations that the Diplomas will create. In November 2005 it published a Manual of Good Practice from 14-19 Pathfinders. This contained "advice on collaborative working and developed case studies to show how any challenges around transport, timetabling and pastoral support could be tackled."[141] In 2005/06, it also established a programme of learning visits enabling those in areas which have advanced quickly in terms of developing collaborative arrangements to share their knowledge and experience with those at a less advanced stage.

139. The multi-site, multi-institutional nature of Diploma delivery inevitably raises significant management challenges around timetabling, transportation, and the monitoring of a mobile student population. These challenges should not be under-estimated—particularly in rural areas where institutions may be located considerable distances apart and travel between multiple institutions may be prohibitively costly, or impractical. However, some areas—and particularly those which have been involved in the Increased Flexibility and 14-19 Pathfinder programmes—now have significant experience of dealing with these challenges in constructive ways. It is vital that their experience is built on, and we see some positive signs that the DfES is doing this—for example, by facilitating 'learning visits' and the publication of best-practice materials. We also hope the National Audit Office's report will suggest ways in which best practice from more advanced areas can be more effectively shared.

The Diploma gateway process

140. In order to deliver the Diplomas, consortia must pass through a 'Diploma gateway'. In effect, this is a screening mechanism designed to assess "the strength of partnerships […] and the robustness of plans to appropriately resource Diploma delivery."[142] Gateway panels are convened on a regional basis, and contain representation from Government Offices, LSCs, and Diploma Development Partnerships. The deadline for the first round of gateway applications (for delivery of Diplomas in September 2008) was in December 2006. 342 consortia applied, and on the 28 March 2007 the DfES published a list of the gradings that had been awarded. 145 consortia, across 97 English local authority areas were deemed to have passed through the Gateway. There will be places for up to 40,000 students in September 2008.

141. Many of those giving evidence to us saw the primary function of the Diploma gateways as strictly controlling the roll-out of the programme, ensuring that only high-quality, experienced consortia were able to become involved in the first round of delivery. Ken Boston of the QCA argued: "it is the essence of the gateway process that it really in fact restricts the take-up of the Diplomas to areas where […] partnerships are effective"[143]

142. When we asked the Minister whether he thought it was important that the Diploma gateways functioned in this way—and what his response would be if the initial number of those passing through was consequently very small, he told us:

144

143. The Diploma gateways, in principle at least, look likely to play an essential role in the success of the reform programme if they set consistently high standards which are independently applied, and they should also provide a safeguard against an overly hasty roll-out. We welcome the Minister's emphasis that the Diploma gateway process needs to be rigorous, and set high quality thresholds. At the time of writing, the results of the application process have only just been announced. It is therefore still too early to speculate on the effectiveness of the gateways as arbiters of quality, but this is an area over which we intend to keep a watching brief.

144. During our inquiry, we took evidence from a number of providers who had been part of consortia applying for the first 'round' of the Diploma gateway. We were left with the impression that the process may not have been entirely satisfactory for them. Some raised the point that the criteria that consortia were being judged against had not been completely transparent—despite general guidance being issued on the areas that would be taken into consideration. Dr Elaine McMahon of Hull College told us in relation to her consortia's application: "we have submitted on the criteria headlines, collectively, we have written it together, with the college leading, but we do not know what the selection criteria are. I do not know, anyway."[145] Paul Hafren of Warrington Collegiate told us that in the long run he would like to see "a greater transparency about what the criteria are against which the proposals in the Gateway process are being measured."[146]

145. The Minister denied that there had been insufficient information provided to consortia, regarding the criteria and standards they would be judged against. He told us:

147

146. This may be true, but it needs to be pointed out that criteria are not the same as standards. While consortia were provided with a list of essential and desirable criteria to write against, it does not necessarily follow that it was equally clear to them where the bar would be set or what weight of evidence would be deemed sufficient grounds for the granting of approvals. At the point when we took evidence, it appeared that there was still a degree of uncertainty about the standards which would be applied to determine whether bids were successful or not—although extended criteria were provided for bidders to write against. This situation was complicated by the fact that the final specifications for the Diplomas were not known by the date that gateway bids had to be lodged. After the announcement of decisions on the first round of applications to the gateway, the DfES committed to giving detailed feedback to particular areas on the reasons for their success or failure. We understand that this has now taken place. This is welcome, but more publicly available information on the criteria and standards which Diploma gateways are applying would be welcome, both to help potential applicants, and also to provide reassurance that gateways are setting consistent, and consistently high, benchmarks.

Information, advice and guidance

147. The Diplomas are intended to increase choice for young people. The introduction of 14 Diploma lines, each offered at three different levels, clearly has the potential to complicate the decisions young people have to make at 14. Many of those from whom we took evidence were keen to impress on us the importance of action to improve the availability and quality of information, advice and guidance [IAG] in support of the Diplomas. Peter Hawthorne, of Wolverhampton County Council, told us:

"I think we have got to put a new emphasis on the aspirational side of the Diplomas, because I think they will be transformational if they can be personalised, and by personalising them we put learners into an incredibly complex myriad of local provision. Communication and guidance will be an absolute premium […]".[

148

148. The LSC told us that they would like to see "a package of workforce development [… made] available for those pastoral managers, teachers, lecturers and guidance professionals who have a role in advising young people and will need to know more about the make-up of the Diplomas and possible progression routes in order to advise young people of career pathways."[149]

149. The DfES says that improvements to IAG are currently underway as part of the overarching programme of 14-19 reform. Proposals to develop a set of quality standards for Information, Advice and Guidance were introduced in the Youth Matters Green Paper, published in July 2005, and the standards are due to be published in April 2007. Additionally, responsibility for the Connexions service is being gradually transferred to Children's Trusts and all funding for this service will be channelled through Trusts from 2008. It is less clear what other activity is taking place, particularly in terms of actual staff training, or whether the plans for improving IAG will be explicitly tied to the timetable for the introduction of the Diplomas. The DfES needs to make clear what plans are underway to develop the capacity of those responsible for guiding young people through the many different options which will be available to them from the age of 14. It also needs to demonstrate that any programme of improvements to information, advice and guidance services planned as part of the wider 14-19 reforms is explicitly tied to the introduction of the Diplomas.

Workforce Development

150. In order to deliver the Diplomas, it will inevitably be the case that many of the staff in schools and colleges need some form of specialised training—whether in technical skills or teaching skills, or more generally in terms of the skills needed to make collaboration successful. The DfES has final responsibility for forming the strategy around workforce development for the Diplomas. Currently, responsibility for this is devolved to a six-organisation partnership, led by Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK), the sector skills council for further and higher education, and the Training and Development Agency for schools. LLUK describe the main components of this programme in their submission:

"Report on good practice in delivering 14-19 pathfinders and increased flexibility programmes, specifically looking at developing and supporting the workforce

A Training Needs Analysis tool to support those centres that pass through the 'gateway'

Guidance as to the professional development needs of teachers delivering the Diplomas

An Information, advice and guidance service on Continuing Professional Development and Initial Teacher Training for schools, colleges and training providers

Industrial updating programme.

An in-service route to QTLS (Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills) status available from 2008 for new teachers.

2.3.7 Review of the needs of support staff."[150]

151. We were concerned to explore the level of staff preparation that would be needed to deliver the Diplomas effectively, both in terms of the first tranche of Diplomas in 2008 and more generally as the national roll-out proceeds. Almost all the evidence we received stressed that there was still a very significant amount of work to be done. Ken Boston of the QCA remarked:

151

152. Karen Price of e-skills UK gave us her assessment of current knowledge about workforce readiness, and suggested a solution for future development. On the issue of whether the workforce would be sufficiently well prepared in time for September 2008, she told us that in her opinion "there is a risk it will not be" and continued that what was currently missing was an analysis of capacity levels in the existing workforce, and planning based on this:

152

153. Godfrey Glyn of Burton Peveril Sixth Form College argued that even in relatively advanced 14-19 partnerships, the development needs were still significant:

153

154. The DfES has proposed that the "essential package" of Continuing Professional Development would consist of three days' face to face training, supplemented by other materials and coaching where appropriate.[154] We asked witnesses whether they thought this was adequate to develop the skills needed. Paul Hafren, of Warrington Collegiate, told us:

155

155. We put it to the Minister that the basic three day entitlement might be considered insufficient. He rejected this, saying:

156

156. The DfES says the essential package of workforce development will initially consist of three days' face-to-face training. This seems to us—and to many of our witnesses—inadequate. It is true that the workforce is not a blank slate, insofar as there are skilled and experienced staff in both schools and colleges with relevant teaching expertise However, we remain to be convinced that the workforce development requirements for the Diplomas have been effectively costed and that sufficient resources have been allocated on this basis. We ask the Government to supply us with information which proves this sort of underpinning analysis has been undertaken or is in progress.

157. One of the key challenges for local partnerships is learning the new ways of working together—across institutions—that Diplomas will demand. Paul Hafren, of Warrington Collegiate, told us there were fundamental development needs around:

157

158. In many places, collaborative working is something staff have been coming to terms with for some time, but for many in areas where partnerships are still in their infancy, the scale of the challenge will be greater. The workforce development needs relating to Diplomas go beyond obvious technical knowledge-base and pedagogy, and are especially acute around collaborative, cross-institutional working. We see little immediate sign of this being reflected in current workforce development strategies or plans, and would like to see this rectified.

159. Another key issue relating to workforce development is the timeframe for the delivery of the various training packages, and also the target groups. Teaching for the first Diplomas is due to begin in September 2008. In the section above, on the development process surrounding the Diplomas, we suggested that a failure to involve teachers at an early enough stage in the process has left them to some extent in the dark regarding the final shape of the Diplomas. Clearly, time is now limited for remedying this.

160. The Association of Colleges points out that a 'natural window' for training and development activities was the end of the summer term 2007—at the time of writing, only three to four months away.[158] However, it appears that the workforce development activities proper will not begin until October 2007 at the earliest. The DfES told us that the tender for the delivery of the workforce development package had already been let to two companies.[159] In terms of actual courses:

160

161. It is unfortunate that the delivery of formalised workforce development activities in support of the Diplomas cannot be started in the natural window which will be present at the end of the summer 2007 term. It is now imperative that the plans for workforce development delivery arrangements are clearly communicated, and information about when training will be available is communicated to those who will be expected to undertake it.

162. The DfES initially told us that resources for workforce development would initially be concentrated on those who pass through the gateway for first teaching in September 2008. Some of those from whom we took evidence were concerned therefore about what priority would be afforded to support and guidance for consortia which applied but failed to pass through the gateway, or to areas which did not apply and/ or have the furthest distance to travel. Lifelong Learning UK, one of the key partners in the workforce development activities surrounding the Diplomas recommended that: "support is put in place for those that fail the gateway to ensure that by 2010-13 they are ready to start delivering the Diplomas. This is particularly important in rural areas."[161] The LSC makes a similar call.[162]

163. When the Diploma gateway results were announced, however, the DfES indicated it was now expecting to extend resources for workforce development also to those areas that had been judged not ready to begin delivery in 2008, but likely to be going ahead in 2009.

164. Initially, the DfES implied that workforce development support would be focused on successful gateway applicant areas. Subsequently, they have confirmed that support will be extended to those due to begin offering Diplomas in September 2009. This is very welcome. However, it is less certain what support will be extended to those areas with the furthest to travel—and the risk is that they could fall even further behind in relative terms. The DfES and partners need to produce, with some urgency, forward plans for specific, costed, and time-tabled actions to address the staff development needs in the least advanced areas if the entitlement in 2013 is to be deliverable.

BUNCHING OF REFORMS

165. Alongside the introduction of the first five Diplomas in September 2008, parallel changes are planned to other parts of the school curriculum. These include changes to the GCE A Level framework and the introduction of functional skills units into Maths and English GCSEs, plus the launch of a revised version of the key stage 3 curriculum. The NUT told us that they were worried about this bunching of reforms and said that it was "unacceptable".[163]

166. We asked the QCA, which has responsibility for curricular issues, whether it foresaw problems following from the number of changes which were occurring at the same time. Ken Boston told us:

164

167. The introduction of significant changes to qualifications such as A levels and GCSEs alongside the first Diploma lines needs to be very carefully managed if it is not to cause 'initiative overload', especially in areas that will deliver the first Diplomas. What is more, the crowding of curriculum revisions in 2008 seems to us another major justification for keeping the Diploma implementation on a small-scale initially, giving other changes a chance to bed down.

Planned communication programmes

168. As we noted in section one of this report, Diplomas already appear complicated in terms of their aims, objectives and structures, which would need careful explanation if they were to be a success. In this section, we therefore focus on the measures that are being proposed to ensure wider understanding, recognition and acceptance of the Diploma programme among schools, colleges, employers, higher education—and crucially, parents and learners.

169. With regard to support from higher education, the union Amicus (some of whose members work for awarding bodies involved in developing the Diplomas) suggest there is very little room for complacency, even at this early stage. They told us that they were "getting indications that only the former polytechnic universities will take it [the Diploma] seriously in terms of UCAS tariff."[165] If proved true in practice, this would be very alarming. Early in our inquiry, Ken Boston of the QCA delivered a stark warning, saying that should Diplomas fail to appeal to the full ability range, they would not be accepted by universities and as a consequence "will fail".[166] Very many others submitting evidence to us reached similar conclusions, including Godfrey Glyn of Barton Peveril Sixth Form College, who told us "It is the outside perspective of what students do that is so vital […] If higher education rates these qualifications then the students will do them."[167]

170. As noted above, witnesses told us that in order to be a success, the Diplomas need to attract the full ability range, and not be seen as the preserve of those with lower attainment levels.[168] Much of the evidence we have received emphasises that communications strategies and activities need to be in place to reach parents and students, and the schools and college staff who often have an important role to play in steering young people's choices. The AoC goes as far as to suggest this activity needs to be prioritised above other actions:

169

171. The DfES told us it was planning a "major awareness raising campaign for young people and parents for the spring" when it knows where the Diplomas will be available in 2008."[170] At the time of writing, the Gateway decisions had just been announced, and so it is to be presumed that the promotional activities will shortly be underway. This will be welcome, as is the decision to focus at first on promoting the Diplomas in areas where they will actually be available.

172. In December of 2006, the Government appointed four 'Diploma Champions', whose role it would be to "promote the Diplomas and wider [14-19] reforms with their sectors".[171] The appointees were:

For higher education

For schools and colleges:

For employers:

On the whole, our evidence suggests support for the appointment of the four Diploma champions to promote the awards. We agree that in principle the appointment of the Diploma champions is a sensible step, and it is to be hoped they will play a positive role. Clear, consistent and timely communication will be a significant factor determining acceptance and uptake of Diplomas. This said, clever marketing cannot and should not be expected to make good any shortfalls in the quality or integrity of the Diploma programmes themselves. Ultimately, Diplomas will stand or fail on the quality of the awards, and the partnerships that deliver them. Diplomas, to some extent, need to 'sell themselves'. Publicity campaigns—and also the appointment of the Diploma Champions—therefore only make sense in the context of a prior focus on rigorous quality assurance and exacting project management standards, to ensure a high-quality product emerges.

104 Ev 106 Back

105 Q 86 Back

106 Q 116 Back

107 Ev 218 Back

108 Ev 84 Back

109 Information supplied by National Audit Office. Back

110 Ev 55 Back

111 Q 60 Back

112 LEACAN, Current Developments towards implementation of 14-19 reform in local authorities, August 2006. Back

113 Q 103 Back

114 Q 158 Back

115 Q 159 Back