Memorandum submitted by the Association
for College Management (ACM)
The Association for College Management is the
TUC affiliated trade union and professional association that champions,
represents and supports managers in the post-16 education and
training sector. Our membership embraces academic and business
managers at several levels including principals. We welcome the
select committee inquiry into 14-19 developments and are ready
to contribute to this work in any way that might be helpful.
KEY OBSERVATIONS
1. Status of the developments
There is an increased sense that the development
of the Specialist Diplomas is accorded the status of a pilot or
trial rather than a fully-fledged implementation. The original
government statement that the first Specialised Diplomas would
be "implemented" from 2008 has more recently been changed
to say that they would be "piloted" from this date.
KEY CONCERN
It would be helpful for students, families and
professionals to have clarity concerning the overall time scale
for the new qualifications.
2. Vocational nature of SDs
This Association believes that SDs should be
vocationally related while retaining a broad general base and
the capacity to be shaped to individual student needs. Sector
Skills Councils appear to agree with at least the first part of
this judgement. However if SDs are not regarded as fully "vocational"
this raises the question of why employers are taking the lead
in their development. In our view it is important that the new
qualifications meet distinctly different learning needs than those
met by A levels. We should not fall into the old trap of imagining
that the only way to secure parity of esteem is to make the vocational
side qualifications resemble academic side qualifications. Indeed
we suggest that the parity of esteem debate is unhelpful: let
us concentrate on developing first rate qualifications that offer
all of our young learners an excellent, modern and accessible
education. That, rather than parity of esteem, is our major goal:
when we succeed, the parity of esteem issue will wither away.
We are concerned therefore that the draft SDs (except in Construction)
have very little practical content. We are particularly concerned
that the SDs should respond to the needs of those not currently
achieving level 2. Our failure to meet the needs of this group
is the main barrier to increasing participation in post-16 learning.
At a higher level Specialist Diplomas should provide good progression
to Foundation Degrees.
The draft materials produced so far display
an essentially academic approach to learning (eg "describe/list/define"),
rather than the applied approach common to, for example, BTEC
Nationals. Furthermore, the learning content as indicated by the
draft specifications for the SDs suggests a rather "academic"
approach to their development. There is also evidence of significant
diversity of approach across the different strands, and in some
cases we are not confident that all of the specifications are
appropriate to the level to which they are addressed. Awarding
Bodies were concerned about the variability in those elements.
In particular there was significant variation in the scope they
appear to allow for moving between pathways, and the relative
emphasis on general and vocational learning.
KEY CONCERN
It is essential that this new pathway meets
learning needs distinct from those of the students who choose
A levels. By this we mean the needs of young people who benefit
from a vocational focus to their work and contextualised, applied
learning. It should create and support visible, valuable progression
routes. While the SD should be vocationally focused, that focus
should be based in a broad programme of learning, with vocational
elements coherently integrated. This, in our view, will best serve
the interests of learners. At present we are not confident that
we are on course to achieve this consistently across all strands.
3. Longer term reform
We remain unclear as to whether the SDs 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).
While recently there has perhaps been less talk
about the A level "gold standard", there is still a
paucity of debate about the shortcomings of A levels (for example
the increased dependence on rote learning and standardised answers);
it would be helpful to promote a fuller debate about the quality
of learning A levels provide.
The Association remains convinced that the optimal
framework would offer:
— Comprehensive Diploma system for
all 14-19-year-olds subsuming all current qualifications, and
embracing apprenticeships.
— Multi-level system from Entry Level
upwards.
— Common core of learning.
— Appropriate assessment for learning.
— Personalised programmes within a
common framework.
KEY CONCERN
We hope that the current developments will pave
the way for more thorough going long term reform towards the kind
of model we have outlined above. ACM supports a comprehensive
Diploma system for all 14-19-year-olds—one which subsumes
current qualifications and embraces apprenticeship.
4. Workforce development
Professional development for the implementation
of the SDs is important to their successful introduction. There
are three elements to this work: post-16/school partnerships;
leadership; and quality materials. The programmes will cover all
14 strands. A wide range of interested parties are contributing
to the DfES working group. However development work in many areas,
such as CPD, is difficult to take forward until the final versions
of the SDs are available.
KEY CONCERN
We need sufficient clarity about the new arrangements
to begin the process of professional development. We are some
distance from this at present.
5. Information, Advice and Guidance
New IAG quality standards should be in place
by April 2007. These are intended to have an impact on IAG practice
in schools and colleges across the 11-19 age range, both in terms
of independent external provision and on provision internal to
organisations.
KEY CONCERN
Advising and supporting young people on to
the right course is the sine qua non of success and it
is of great importance that the new standards truly impact on
practice and values in the field of IAG. At present we remain
anxious that much of the guidance given in schools is more concerned
about the interests (numbers in the sixth form) of that institution
than the interests of the young person.
6. Aiming for excellent, appropriate programmes
for all
At present students on programmes of all types
are assessed in ways that too often de-motivate them rather than
enable them to learn more effectively. Teaching methods, contexts
and materials are insufficiently varied, inadequately considered
and reviewed, and often subject rather than learner-centred. At
present there are serious shortcomings in 14-19 qualifications.
Neither academic nor vocational programmes are sufficiently well
constructed, challenging or accessible.
We are concerned too that current developments
neglect the long standing and respected idea that there are some
things that all young people need to learn as citizens or to keep
their progression options open.
KEY POINT
It would be helpful to encourage genuine and
wholesale reflection on assessment for learning and on inspirational
pedagogy. It would be helpful to have the scope for coherent,
personalised programmes within a common framework that takes account
of broader demands that may legitimately be made of education.
7. Operational issues
In our view reflections on the development of
the SDs should be led at all times by the needs and interests
of students. However in this the final section we would like to
make a series of points about how the work demanded of schools
and colleges and other organisations (including awarding bodies)
could be helped and supported so that they are able to provide
the very best provision for students:
— The vocational nature of the SDs
necessitates a good deal of partnership working. Funding the new
SDs should take into account the costs of that mode of working.
— The "Gateway" stage, will
assess whether sufficiently robust arrangements are in place to
operate the SDs. How will it properly assess the expertise of
the people running the programmes? There is also potential confusion
since those who get through the "gateway" stage may
assume they have full approval, whereas approval by Awarding Bodies
is determined at a separate, later stage.
— How will Awarding Bodies influence
the content of the SDs? Formally the Diploma Design Partnerships
are in charge of designing the content of the Diplomas. At present
the Diploma for construction appears to include only construction
modules, whereas awarding bodies are likely to wish to include
elements of broader learning. By contrast, the emerging model
from the creative and media SSC seems to envisage a wide range
of option combinations. The case for variation—if there
is one—must be based on students' needs and interests.
— It is unclear whether QCA will be
regulating with respect to whole qualifications, or against individual
components (units).
— QCA's consultation document Framework
for Achievement envisaged a move towards a unitised, credit-based
system. It raised the prospect of a centralised bank of units,
with qualifications based on different mixes of units drawn from
this bank. Discussions were originally led by QCA and LSC on how
to make such a system work, but DfES has now taken control, and
set up a group called the National Vocational Qualifications Reform
Group. This group has in turn spawned separate sub-groups, each
looking at a different strand of activity: sector qualification
strategies (led by SSDA)/qualifications design (led by the regulators)/funding
issues (led by the funding bodies)/rationalisation of existing
qualifications (led by the awarding bodies)/communications strategy
(led by DfES).
The aim appears to be that all qualifications
should be subsumed within a new framework which would replace
the existing National Qualifications Framework. However GCSEs
and A levels are currently outside the scope of these discussions,
whereas the new Specialised Diplomas are included. The latest
document envisages that, over time, GCSEs and A levels will be
subsumed in the framework; in our view this is essential for system
coherence.
KEY POINT
We hope we have illustrated there persists a
good deal of structural confusion and over complication around
the process of designing, developing and implementing the SDs.
Greater clarity and rationality would benefit all concerned.
January 2007
| 
