| Background—Tomlinson
|
| | |
| 1. | 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. (Paragraph 13)
|
| | |
| 2. | 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. (Paragraph 14)
|
| | |
| 3. | 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. (Paragraph 15)
|
| | |
| The Long-term future for Diplomas
|
| | |
| 4. | 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. (Paragraph 26)
|
| | |
| Nature of Diplomas |
| | |
| 5. | 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. (Paragraph 37)
|
| | |
| 6. | 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. (Paragraph 40)
|
| | |
| Timescales |
| | |
| 7. | 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. (Paragraph 55)
|
| | |
| Process |
| | |
| 8. | The Diploma development process has clearly been frustrating for many of those involved, and it is commendable that progress has been made in spite of this. The new Diploma development partnership approach—with Sector Skills Councils and employers in the lead—has been experimental, and also highly complex, on account of the number of players involved. At the same time, we are concerned that there appears to have been too little direct involvement in or feedback from small and medium-sized employers who have an important part to play in setting a climate of business acceptance of the new Diplomas. We recommend focused attention is given to involving them more prior to the launch of the pilots. (Paragraph 69)
|
| | |
| 9. | The question remains as to whether more use could and should have been made of existing 'tried and tested' qualifications such as BTECs at the outset. What appears to have happened is that a 'blank slate' approach has been adopted, with the promise that convergence between the Diplomas and other awards would occur at a later stage. While we appreciate that the aim was to create something new and radical, this nevertheless seems wasteful to us and makes it likely that old lessons will have to be learned again. We urge DfES and the awarding bodies to develop urgently a strategy to make clear how existing qualifications can fold into and relate to the new Diplomas, and to spell out the equivalence and transfer possibilities of existing qualifications. (Paragraph 75)
|
| | |
| Qualifications and awards—where are we now?
|
| | |
| 10. | It is a matter of concern that awarding bodies have been given such little time to turn the specifications from the first five Diploma Development Partnerships into workable qualifications which are tied to coherent learning programmes. As with teachers and lecturers, awarding bodies should have been more consistently involved in development work from an early stage; had they been, it is possible that some of the problems that later arose—for example, the unexpected reworking of Diploma content which was undertaken in order to bring about consistency across Diploma lines-could perhaps have been avoided. (Paragraph 81)
|
| | |
| 11. | As it stands, very complicated and detailed work has, in the case of the first five Diploma lines, been uncomfortably compressed. We very much hope that the learning programmes and qualifications which emerge will be of a high-enough quality to be accepted by the groups that matter: students, employers, HE and, of course, those who will deliver them—teachers and lecturers. Understandably given that awarding bodies began qualification development so late in the day, awarding arrangements and longer-term quality assurance procedures are not yet well-developed. (Paragraph 82)
|
| | |
| 12. | It also appears that although full pilots for certain elements of the Diplomas—such as the functional skills units—will have begun in September 2007, the full evaluation of the pilots will not be complete before first teaching begins in September 2008. This is a matter of concern given previous commitments the Government has made to this Committee about ensuring qualifications are properly piloted and evaluated before implementation. We would urge that when the evaluation of the pilots is complete, urgent consideration be given as to whether the current split of the proposed 14 Diplomas into three sub-sets of qualification level, making 42 in all, is likely to prove unduly complex and jeopardise acceptance by employers, universities and others. (Paragraph 83)
|
| | |
| 13. | We are concerned that in relation to some aspects of Diplomas—for example, on the issue of grading—there does not yet appear to be consensus between partners on the approach which should be taken, or even what still remains to be done. We believe it is important that the higher education sector should be more closely involved in this process, so that the acceptance of diplomas as an alternative pathway for some into HE is not compromised. (Paragraph 90)
|
| | |
| End-to-end oversight and risk management—the role of the DfES and Ministers
|
| | |
| 14. | It is unfortunate that, given the obvious scale and complexity of the Diploma programme, coherent end-to-end management, governance and reporting arrangements were not established within the DfES from the outset. We believe that there was a failure to appreciate the sheer scale and complexity of the challenge in hand. Our understanding is that now—five months from the point where the awards should be ready and workforce development is due to begin—a permanent project manager for the Diplomas has finally been appointed, who will have oversight of all management aspects. We also recognise that new arrangements have been put in place at the senior strategic and governance level, whereby Chief Executives of all the relevant agencies—including awarding bodies—meet regularly. It is crucial too that regular ministerial input and oversight of the new management arrangements should remain at the strongest and highest level possible, to ensure that the priority and delivery of diplomas within the Department's overall workload does not slip. (Paragraph 95)
|
| | |
| 15. | Given all the concerns that have been expressed to us about whether the Diplomas are ready to be introduced, and the uncertainty about what the Diplomas are designed to achieve—whether they are vocational or practical or academic—the initial phase is vitally important. The Secretary of State said in evidence that 2008 is the "pilot stream." The Government needs to ensure that it is genuinely a pilot, and if problems are not resolved, or if further problems emerge, then the wider roll out should be delayed or reviewed in order to prevent the failure of the Diplomas. (Paragraph 96)
|
| | |
| Local area partnerships—readiness
|
| | |
| 16. | 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. (Paragraph 103)
|
| | |
| 17. | 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. (Paragraph 104)
|
| | |
| 18. | 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. (Paragraph 113)
|
| | |
| 19. | 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. (Paragraph 118)
|
| | |
| 20. | 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. (Paragraph 121)
|
| | |
| 21. | 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. (Paragraph 124)
|
| | |
| Role of local authorities |
| | |
| 22. | 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. (Paragraph 128)
|
| | |
| Practical challenges—transport, timetabling and tracking
|
| | |
| 23. | 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. (Paragraph 139)
|
| | |
| The Diploma gateway process
|
| | |
| 24. | 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. (Paragraph 143)
|
| | |
| 25. | 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. (Paragraph 146)
|
| | |
| Information, advice and guidance
|
| | |
| 26. | 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. (Paragraph 149)
|
| | |
| Workforce Development |
| | |
| 27. | 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. (Paragraph 156)
|
| | |
| 28. | 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. (Paragraph 158)
|
| | |
| 29. | 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. (Paragraph 161)
|
| | |
| 30. | 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. (Paragraph 164)
|
| | |
| Planned communication programmes
|
| | |
| 31. | 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. (Paragraph 172)
|
| | |
