Memorandum submitted by the University
and College Union (UCU)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. UCU believes that the curriculum for
14-19-year-olds should give young people the fundamentals of communications,
literacy, numeracy, information technology and lifelong learning
on which to base further and deeper learning for employment and/or
further study. In its post-16 stages this phase of education and
training should further develop knowledge and skills needed for
adult life which may include more specific occupational skills.
2. The union was disappointed in the direction
taken by the Government in the White Paper, 14-19 Education and
Skills (February 2005), particularly over the proposed introduction
of specialist Diplomas.
3. The union felt that the creation of another
separate route and set of qualifications for young people would
maintain the divide between the academic and applied/vocational
routes and the lack of status and esteem in which this latter
route and qualifications had been held. The union had supported
the Tomlinson proposals for an overarching Diploma at four overlapping
levels.
4. 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.
5. UCU fears that similar mistakes are being
made in relation to the introduction of specialist Diplomas.
6. The union considers that the time line
for the introduction of the first five of the 14 lines of the
specialist Diploma, with a subsequent roll-out of the remaining
lines to 2013, is too tight. We believe it will not allow proper
and realistic piloting and evaluation, publication and dissemination
of syllabus content and supporting materials or workforce development
to support teaching the Diplomas.
7. The actual purposes of the specialist
Diploma may be problematic as they seem intended to serve multiple
and perhaps conflicting purposes.
8. UCU is concerned that because each of
the specialist Diplomas is being developed by a separate employer-led
group, the balance between the three elements making up each Diploma—an
element of principal learning, additional/specialist learning
and generic learning—may be very different.
9. UCU is concerned that those developing
the Diplomas for employers and Sector Skills Councils may not
have the curriculum expertise required.
10. Apart from possibly at partnership or
institutional level, UCU is not aware of any current teacher/lecturer
activity in preparation for the Diploma. Indeed one of our main
concerns is around the timeline for the Diplomas being such as
to allow sufficient time for such activities. There would appear
to be a total lack of concerted action by those responsible for
the creation of programmes of workforce development. The change
envisaged in the establishment of the Diplomas needs considerable
workforce development.
11. It is our understanding that single
awarding bodies will be responsible for awarding the full Diploma
but that any awarding body can create the units that make up the
full Diploma. This seems a sure recipe for confusion and delay
between the awarding bodies themselves, and between the regulator
and the awarding bodies.
12. The Education and Inspection Act gives
local authorities the statutory responsibility to deliver an entitlement
to all 14-19-year-olds to access the Diploma. But it is not clear
what powers local authorities will have to enforce the entitlement
or to ensure the introduction of all the Diploma lines within
a local area.
13. In terms of co-operation and collaboration
at local level, UCU is uncertain as to the current level of coordination
between schools and colleges in any local area.
14. There is still much that is unknown
about the final funding of Diplomas.
15. UCU considers that overall the information,
advice and guidance services for young people are in a state of
turmoil and confusion and may not be in state to offer the quality
of advice and guidance necessary.
16. Competition between institutions—whether
school-school, college-college, or school-college—can severely
damage the capacity and willingness of colleges and schools to
work in partnership to deliver the Diplomas.
17. There has for a number of years been
a glaring disparity between the funding of schools and colleges
for similar work. One of the practical outcomes of this is the
disparity between salary levels for teachers in schools and lecturers
in colleges. UCU calculate this still to be significant.
RECOMMENDATIONS
18. UCU recommends 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.
19. UCU also recommends that the review
of A levels in 2008 promised when the 14-19 White Paper was published,
should be brought forward and widened to consider progress on
the introduction of Diplomas. We would urge that further consideration
is given to the introduction of an overarching Diploma in which
both A levels and the Diploma could be located.
20. UCU recommends that the actual roles
and responsibilities of the principal "players" [ie
QCA, DfES and the Skills for Business Network] are made clear
and there is a clear understanding where ultimate responsibility
for delivering specialist Diplomas lies.
21. We understand there are at least six
agencies responsible for work-based development in support of
the Diplomas. We recommend that all these agencies are brought
together with the teacher and lecturer unions to begin to identify
the issues involved in the delivery of Diplomas and the consequent
workforce development needed. To date this has not happened.
22. UCU recommends there is a clear government
commitment to closing the funding gap between schools and colleges
post 2010.
UCU
23. UCU represents 120,000 academic and
academic-related staff in universities, FE colleges, adult and
community learning and prison education services. All UCU members
have a strong interest in the development of specialist Diplomas
for young people aged 14-19. UCU members working in higher education
will be admitting young people achieving these new qualifications.
UCU members in further education colleges and prison education
will be delivering specialist Diplomas in partnership with schools,
work-based learning providers and employers.
SPECIALIST DIPLOMAS
24. UCU believes that the curriculum for
14-19-year-olds should give young people the fundamentals of communications,
literacy, numeracy, information technology and lifelong learning
on which to base further and deeper learning for employment and/or
further study. In its post-16 stages this phase of education and
training further develops knowledge and skills needed for adult
life which may include more specific occupational skills.
25. The union considers that the terms academic
and vocational are not useful when describing 14-19 education
and training. We prefer the terms "general" and "applied"
education and training. In a world where specific skills that
may be required in the workplace rapidly become obsolete given
the pace of technological change, the term `vocational' for a
curriculum for young people is a misnomer. Similarly "academic"
knowledge and skills have application in employment.
26. UCU would like all young people to have
the opportunity and an entitlement to develop the more general
skills which can provide the basis for developing more specific
occupational skills for employment and for adult life.
27. NATFHE, one of the unions making up
UCU, had long-standing policies on 14-19 education and training.
The aim of these was the creation of a coherent and inclusive
curriculum and set of qualifications that recognised and valued
the full range of young people's achievements.
28. Although NATFHE had reservations about
the possible implications of some of the recommendations of the
Tomlinson Working Party on 14-19, which reported in late 2004,
it supported them as they were aimed at achieving a coherent and
inclusive curriculum and qualifications framework. The union was
disappointed in the direction taken by the Government in the White
Paper, 14-19 Education and Skills (February 2005), particularly
over the proposed introduction of specialist Diplomas.
29. The union felt that the creation of
another separate route and set of qualifications for young people
would maintain the divide between the academic and applied/vocational
routes and the lack of status and esteem in which this latter
route and qualifications had been held. The union had supported
the Tomlinson proposals for an overarching Diploma at four overlapping
levels.
30. It considered that this would have provided
the motivation for those young people who were currently often
alienated and de-motivated by the national curriculum and more
academic qualifications, and could provide challenge and stretch
for the more able young people in the age cohort. An overarching
qualification would have given the opportunity for assessing the
"softer" of the key skills such as problem-solving,
team work and lifelong learning so valued by employers. It would
also have given more opportunity for mixing components of general
education and the applied curriculum.
31. Despite its disappointment in the direction
set out by the 14-19 White Paper, NATFHE considered that it was
important to work with all partners and stakeholders to ensure
that the development of specialist Diplomas was a success. We
felt that young people and the 14-19 education and training system
could not afford yet another missed opportunity to develop a quality
curriculum as well as qualifications in this area.
32. 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.
The specifications for these qualifications did not arrive in
schools and colleges until after teaching on them had started.
Curriculum materials had not been published and the necessary
workforce development had not happened.
33. UCU fears that similar mistakes are
being made in relation to the introduction of the specialist Diplomas.
34. The union considers that the time line
for the introduction of the first five of the 14 lines of the
specialist Diploma, with a subsequent roll-out of the remaining
lines to 2013, is too tight. We believe it will not allow proper
and realistic piloting and evaluation, publication and dissemination
of syllabus content and supporting materials or workforce development
to support teaching the Diplomas. UCU would argue 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.
35. UCU would strongly urge also that the
review of A levels in 2008 promised when the 14-19 White Paper
was published, should be brought forward and widened to consider
progress on the introduction of the Diplomas. We would urge that
further consideration is given to the introduction of an overarching
Diploma in which both A levels and the Diploma could be located.
DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT OF
DIPLOMAS
What progress has been made on the development
of Diplomas to date? Where have been the sticking points?
36. It is difficult for UCU to know what
progress has actually been made in the development of the Diplomas
or what have been the sticking points as UCU, along with the other
teacher unions, has not been party to the detail of the developments.
The teacher unions have been invited to QCA conferences and briefings
on the Diplomas, and some of the Diploma Development Partnerships,
such as that for engineering, have included serving teachers and
lecturers but others have not.
37. Teachers and lecturers who will actually
deliver the new Diplomas should be seen as key partners in reform
and not passive deliverers of an externally determined model.
Teachers and lecturers will be motivated to work towards a new
system of Diplomas over a development period only if they are
included in developing curriculum models, modes of assessment
and approaches to learning and teaching. The role of teachers
and lecturers has not been made explicit in the designing or the
delivery of the new Diplomas. This will not inspire teachers'
confidence to deliver imposed curriculum specifications/courses.
38. UCU is concerned that the following
may be sticking points within the development of Diplomas:
39. Purpose—The actual purposes of
the specialist Diploma may be problematic as they seem intended
to serve multiple and perhaps conflicting purposes. They seem
to be intended to provide learning programmes for disaffected
young people, for those who have failed to get five A*-GCSEs—the
benchmark at 16, for those wanting to pursue a high quality employer-recognised
qualification and those wanting a more "applied" route
to higher education. There may be particular issues for those
taking the specialist Diploma pre-16 where in some subject areas
there may be legal barriers to workplace experience.
40. Content—UCU is concerned that
because each of the specialist Diplomas is being developed by
a separate employer-led group, the balance between the three elements
making up each Diploma—an element of principal learning,
additional/specialist learning and generic learning —may
be very different. It is also likely that the balance of these
three elements will be different between the different levels
of the Diploma. This may render their application by end users
difficult (be they employers or education establishments) as comparisons
and equivalences between achievements among the Diplomas may be
difficult, as well as both horizontal and vertical progression
within and between the different lines of the Diploma. We are
also worried that the content between Diplomas and between levels,
does not at this stage appear to be consistent in terms of the
knowledge and skills and demands made on the learner.
41. The exclusion of apprenticeships from
the Diploma framework may make progression from the Diplomas to
full apprenticeships problematic.
42. Assessment—Making assessment within
the Diplomas "fit for purpose", clear, understandable
and affordable. Some of the elements of the Diploma will be graded,
whilst other parts will need "mastery", ie will need
to be passed.
What role have employers and Sector Skills Councils
played in the development of Diplomas?
43. The Government's intention was that
employers should play a leading role in the development of specialist
Diplomas. It is our understanding this has happened through the
involvement of the relevant Sector Skills Councils on the Diploma
Development Partnerships. However it may well be that both the
involvement with employers in their Sector Skills Councils and
their involvement with the Development Partnerships may be patchy
and vary between the different lines of the specialist Diplomas.
As we have stated above, our concern has been with the involvement
of practising teachers and lecturers in developing Diplomas. UCU
is concerned that those developing the Diplomas for employers
and Sector Skills Councils may not have the curriculum expertise
required and that they are having to adapt a pre-determined template
for them which may not necessarily match their needs. We are also
concerned that the awarding bodies who do have the expertise in
designing qualifications have not as yet had a central enough
role, and the role they have may conflict with their position
as producers of existing comparable qualifications.
Who is responsible for the coordination and development
of Diplomas?
44. It is our understanding that the Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority with the DfES and the Skills for Business
Network are responsible for overall lead, coordination and development
of the Diplomas. The detailed work on developing the Diplomas
has been given to Diploma Development Partnerships led by the
appropriate Sector Skills Council. Further, it is our understanding
that there is an implementation group at the DfES for 14-19 policy
and that developments on the Diploma are reported to this body.
UCU is represented on this implementation group. Clearly all would
benefit if the actual roles and responsibilities of the principal
"players" were made clear and it was defined who exactly
is going to take ultimate responsibility, especially if the development
of Diplomas becomes problematic, as UCU believes it will.
Is there a case for a stronger co-ordinating role
for one of the agencies involved, or for the appointment of a
senior responsible officer or champion?
45. UCU believes that the role of QCA and
its partners should be sufficient for coordination of developments
around the specialist Diplomas. To appoint a senior responsible
officer or champion may well confuse matters and lead to problematic
lines of communication between the main stakeholders. Nonetheless,
we refer to our response above stating that there does need to
be greater clarity as to roles and responsibilities and which
agency or department is ultimately responsible.
Is there a clear system for accrediting and awarding
the Diplomas?
46. There appear to be clear systems emerging
for accrediting and awarding Diplomas. However UCU does have some
concerns about how understandable some of these systems will be
especially those around assessing the Diplomas. There are issues
around the grading of the Diploma overall; for example which units
within the Diploma will require pass/fail results and not be graded;
for which units will there be "compensation" allowed
from other parts of the programme, and which units where "compensation"
will not be allowed; and how functional skills will be embedded
within programmes and assessed.
47. Additional complications for the process
of creating the new Diplomas and establishing a clear system for
accreditation and awarding arise from the decision to create a
"free market" in awarding the Diploma and constructing
the units that will go to make up any Diploma. It is our understanding
that single awarding bodies will be responsible for awarding the
full Diploma but that any awarding body can create the units that
make up the full Diploma. This seems a sure recipe for confusion
and delay between the awarding bodies themselves, between the
regulator and the awarding bodies. It will also be very confusing
for young people, parents and end users such as employers and
higher education institutions.
TEACHER AND
LECTURER TRAINING
What are current levels of teacher/lecturer training
activity in preparation for Diplomas? Is this sufficient to make
Diplomas a success?
48. Apart from possibly at partnership or
institutional level, UCU is not aware of any current teacher/lecturer
activity in preparation for the Diploma. Indeed one of our main
concerns is around the timeline for the Diplomas being such as
to allow sufficient time for such activities. There would appear
to be a total lack of concerted action by those responsible for
the creation of programmes of workforce development. The change
envisaged in the establishment of the Diplomas needs considerable
workforce development.
49. Although school teachers, college lecturers
and work-based trainers all have experience of some part of the
areas covered by the Diplomas, all will need additional support
for areas that are relatively new to them: school teachers in
vocational/applied work, college lecturers and work based trainers
in working with under 16s and in the delivery of the National
Curriculum.
50. All those working on the new Diplomas,
as well as requiring professional development in areas that are
particularly pertinent to them, need to be brought together with
teachers, lecturers and trainers in the spread of partner organisations
to develop the curriculum and materials across the Diploma curriculum
no matter where it is delivered. Teachers need to pick up on what
happens in colleges, work-based training and with employers; lecturers
and trainers need to know what has happened in schools. In a survey
of NATFHE members on their experiences of work in colleges with
students under 16, one of the chief complaints made was the lack
of information from schools about the students they were expected
to teach.
51. UCU, in association with the Institute
for Learning, the professional body of post-compulsory teachers
and lecturers is in the process of surveying its members as to
the continuous professional development on offer to college lecturers,
including that around 14-19 education and training. We will be
happy to share the results of this with the select committee.
In two surveys conducted by UCU branches, the development and
training on offer for work with under 16s in colleges was minimal.
52. LEACAN, a national network of local
authority advisers inspectors, advisers, officers and consultants
working on 14-19 surveyed their members on 14-19 developments.
(LEACAN "Challenges facing partnerships" 2006). The
questions they asked included a number around the priority given
to staff development within local authority strategic planning.
They found that although the majority of local authorities are
planning to upskill staff to deliver the Diplomas, some had not
targeted either staff development or workforce reform for the
Diplomas within their strategic plans. LEACAN commented:
53. "The current situation may have
implications in terms of local authorities' capacity to work towards
introducing the proposed curriculum reform measures, considering
that a significant proportion of vocational provision is currently
delivered in school by school staff with limited sector experience."
54. LEACAN also asked the respondents to
their survey to identify the key barriers to delivering the Diplomas.
The two most mentioned responses were "engagement and will"
mentioned by 96% of respondents, and "capacity and skill"
mentioned by 85%. LEACAN considered the high response rate on
the first barrier demonstrated that schools were either poorly
informed or antagonistic to the changes or expected the whole
initiative "to go away". It may be that a concerted
effort to deliver workforce development that was rooted in the
real experiences of teachers, might begin to build some of this
engagement and will.
55. The LEACAN survey indicated that even
where there was a willingness to engage with the 14-19 agenda,
the "distance to be travelled" to 2013 and full roll
out of the Diplomas, is significant. Many of the LEACAN respondents
commented on the lack of infrastructure and questioned the feasibility
of building capacity required with no explicit and sustainable
funding stream for support. LEACAN went on to comment:
56. "There were concerns about the
availability of appropriately qualified staff to delver the specialist
learning components of the Diplomas."
57. The report went on to describe comments
from respondents that there were current difficulties around recruitment
of staff and the challenge of accessing high quality staff development,
including the issue of getting staff released for training, and
the fact that in many cases capacity is currently insufficient
to meet the potential demand that might be made by delivering
the Diplomas.
58. We understand there are at least six
agencies responsible for work-based development in support of
the Diplomas: the Training and Development Agency (TDA), Lifelong
Learning UK (LLUK), The Specialist Schools Trust, The Centre for
Excellence in Leadership (CEL), National Schools Leadership College
and the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA). No organisation representing
teachers and/or lecturers is in touch with all these agencies.
UCU has good working relations with LLUK, CEL and QIA, but not
with the TDA, Specialist Schools Trust or the National Schools
Leadership College. The position is reversed for the school teacher
unions. UCU has asked repeatedly at the DfES 14-19 Implementation
Group that all these agencies are brought together with the teacher
and lecturer unions to begin to identify the issues involved in
the delivery of Diplomas and the consequent workforce development
needed. To date this has not happened.
59. It is worth remembering that although
the first Diplomas are aimed to be delivered in September 2008,
to be ready teachers and lecturers will need to start on training
and development by at least September 2007. Given the long summer
break this would seem to indicate that such workforce development
programmes should be ready by June/July 2007. It would be helpful
if the six agencies concerned with the delivery of such programmes
consulted the organisations representing the teachers and lecturers
who will be actually teaching the new programmes at the earliest
opportunity.
CO-ORDINATION
BETWEEN SCHOOLS
AND COLLEGES
What is the current level of co-ordination between
colleges and schools in local areas?
60. The recent Education and Inspection
Act gave the strategic lead on 14-19 to local authorities. Other
recent statements seem to give local authorities the lead role
in 14-16 provision and the LSC on 16-19. UCU is unsure how these
arrangements will work in practice. For example who arbitrates
if a local authority's strategic lead role leads it to decisions
on 16-19 that conflicts with those of the LSC in respect of this
provision?
61. There are additional complications in
that both local authorities and the LSC are subject to current
and recent restructuring and change. The Further Education and
Training Bill currently before Parliament will abolish local LSCs.
In their place the LSC, after three reorganisations in five years,
is creating 153 local teams which will largely be coterminus with
local authorities. This could mean greater integration between
decision making in the local authority and LSC in respect to 14-19.
However there are concerns about how local voices will be heard
by the regional LSCs and whether LSC local teams have the status
and power to negotiate successfully with local authority officers.
62. The Nuffield Foundation is conducting
a long term review of 14-19 education and training. In its most
recent Annual Report 2005-06, it describes the lack of capacity
at local level in the LSC and in local authorities. The Report
quotes the LGA in saying that local authorities have shed many
of their post-16 specialists and had "staff, skills and resources
stripped out" The latter indeed are no longer even local
education authorities but Childrens' Trusts sometimes with an
educationalist in overall charge, sometimes not. Many unitary
local authorities, are very small and may not have the staff to
carry out the functions envisaged in the 14-19 Implementation
Plan.
63. The Education and Inspection Act gives
local authorities the statutory responsibility to deliver an entitlement
to all 14-19-year-olds to access the Diploma. But it is not clear
what powers local authorities will have to enforce the entitlement
or to ensure the introduction of all the Diploma lines within
a local area.
64. Local co-ordination is not assisted
by the Gateway process for the introduction of Diplomas. It is
rigorous which UCU welcomes. It is also lengthy and somewhat bureaucratic.
Possible providers of the Diploma have been asked to form consortia
to put in expressions of interest at a point when the Diplomas
had not been completely designed. These consortia were asked to
indicate how many learners were likely to take the Diplomas: a
difficult task with the uncertainty about the content of the Diplomas
and with many other qualifications still being offered in this
part of 14-19 education and training.
65. In September 2006 the DfES published
more detailed criteria for selection of eligible partnerships
to deliver each of the Diplomas, and interested consortia had
until December 2006 to submit more detailed proposals. The results
of this are expected in early 2007. Such a process makes the timetable
of the delivery of the Diplomas even more problematic, giving
around a year for the successful partnerships to make their preparations
for delivery, including the necessary staff development and training.
66. The LEACAN Report had asked a series
of questions about local authority preparations around the introduction
of Diplomas. The results are not encouraging. Although all the
local authorities responding indicated that they were auditing
their curriculum provision as part of their 14-19 developments,
many also indicated their inability to match current provision
to that required for the Diplomas. Future planning was difficult
when details and resources required were unknown.
67. The report concluded that there was
"significant distance to travel in order to move from a random
and sometimes opportunistic approach to planning across a local
authority area to a more structured, coherent and agreed delivery."
Although the majority of local authorities managed the strategic
oversight of 14-19 development through a Strategic/Executive/Task
Group consisting of representatives from providers and strategic
partners, there seemed to be no discernable pattern for other
structures or groups involved in supporting 14-19 developments.
LEACAN stated "that the pattern at local level appears to
be driven by a combination of opportunity and circumstances…there
is no consistency in the structures/groups responsible for 14-19
development. Care should be taken in assuming such structures
exist and they have common features."
68. In terms of co-operation and collaboration
at local level, UCU is uncertain as to the current level of coordination
between schools and colleges in any local area. We assume that
it is patchy even within one area. Where schools and colleges
are already in partnership then it may be expected that the co-ordination
is at least satisfactory. From investigations made at the start
of the Increased Flexibility funding for 14-16-year-olds, NATFHE
found that relationships between one college and a number of schools
could vary greatly, with good coordination reported in some and
others "dumping" school pupils with behaviour problems
or before external examinations or Ofsted inspections. The LEACAN
report noted that the majority of vocational provision for students
over the age of 16 is delivered independently and thus these schools
feel little need to co-ordinate. Choice of vocational courses
currently on offer in schools for young people 14-16 is limited.
The average choice is between two or three lines. "The capacity
to deliver all 14 lines at three levels will be logistically difficult
as we do not currently have the staff to do this."
What are the barriers to coordination?
69. As we have already stated UCU does not
yet have a detailed picture of what is happening on the ground
with regard to the introduction of the Diplomas. To the ever present
difficulties of partnership working, which a leading FE practitioner
once likened to "the suppression of mutual hostility in pursuit
of funding", we would argue that certain characteristics
of the introduction of the Diplomas makes co-ordination at local
level even more difficult. We would identify the following:
70. Precarious funding—the introduction
of Diplomas has been preceded by a Pathfinder programme across
39 areas in England to test and pilot various aspects of the 14-19
reform including cross-institutional collaboration. Whilst the
final evaluation report identified nine key legacies including
examples of best practice, the Nuffield Report reported that funding
for these Pathfinders combined with the other uncertainty around
the Diploma introduction, militated against the dissemination
of this good practice. The Report stated that the Pathfinders
"are often not in a position to form sustainable networks
of trust."
71. There is still much that is unknown
about the final funding of Diplomas. In relation to funding for
the Diploma for 14-16-year-olds, the final details of this funding
are awaited but there are still a number of important issues to
be addressed, such as funding to sustain teaching in schools where
many 14-16-year-olds are "off-site" taking Diploma programmes
at colleges, work-based trainers or employers. For colleges there
are questions of how necessary activities that are not teaching,
such as lunch time and supervision between lessons, are going
to be funded.
72. Timetable—as we have attempted
to indicate we would argue that the whole timetable for the introduction
of the Diplomas is too fast as there are still too many unknowns
for those who are intended to deliver these programmes. If the
"playing field" is not yet completely known, this cannot
help local coordination and collaboration.
73. Uncertainty from the Gateway process—Again
as we have already indicated because the Gataeway process is both
lengthy and somewhat bureaucratic, the results of who will actually
first deliver the Diplomas is as yet unknown. The period from
when the results are known and the first actual delivery of the
Diplomas will be relatively short and, it is UCU's contention,
too short for proper preparation and workforce development.
74. Information, advice and guidance—The
key to successful introduction of any 14-19 curriculum change,
especially one involving young people and their parents/carers
taking crucial decisions as to future routes of learning and achievement
depend on the quality of the information, advice and guidance
available to young people, their parents and carers. UCU considers
that overall the information, advice and guidance services for
young people are in a state of turmoil and confusion and may not
be in state to offer the quality of advice and guidance necessary.
75. These services have been through a number
of re-organisations, the latest being the creation of Connexions.
Since the publication of the Green Paper, Youth Matters
(2005) the intention has been to give local authorities the overall
responsibilities for information, advice and guidance for young
people, although the Green Paper suggested that schools and colleges
should have the right to directly contract for such services if
those under the responsibility of the local authority were considered
not be of a high enough quality. Some have suggested that this
could lead to fragmentation of these services.
76. The Government in its "Next Steps"
response to the consultation on Youth Matters has modified
these proposals. Nonetheless there has to be some concern that
the information, guidance and advice services will be sufficiently
strong and robust enough to give the independent and impartial
information and advice that young people will require when making
crucial decisions about what learning programmes to take from
the age of 14.
77. The evaluation of the DfES 14-19 Pathfinders
revealed that the division of responsibilities between schools'
career staff and Connexions advisers has been ambivalent. If the
new arrangements for IAG are to be shared between local authorities,
Children's Trusts and schools and colleges, then the coordination
of such work must be made transparent to all the providers named.
Local partnership arrangements set up by Children's Trusts must
effectively incorporate schools' work on children's well being
and pastoral care, as well as individual advice and guidance for
pupils.
78. Institutional competition: In the judgement
of UCU the largest barrier to co-ordination between schools and
colleges is the focus on institutional competition that lies at
the heart of government policies towards both schools and colleges.
At the very least there can be seen a contradiction between the
institutional co-operation and partnership which the government
seeks to underpin its plans for 14-19 education, and especially
the delivery of the Diploma, and the competition between institutions.
79. This can be seen in the White Paper
Higher Standards, Better Schools for All (2005) and the
Education and Inspection Act 2006 which focus on institutional
diversity, specialisation and the creation of new school sixth
forms with reinforcement of school autonomy, parental choice and
competition for the most able learners at 11 and 16.
80. This kind of institutional competition
is underpinned by the existing mechanisms of the school performance
tables with their focus on the importance of the five A*-C GSCE
benchmark at 16. Colleges will increasingly face the severe penalties
of competitive tendering for all or part of their provision, should
it fall below what is perceived as good or excellent. Thus many
believe that individual institutional performance has been incentivised
at the expense of collective thinking and area planning.
What are the lessons that can be learned from
areas where there is strong co-ordination on 14-19? What are intermediary
bodies such as LAs and LSCs doing to foster co-operation?
How engaged are head teachers and college principals
in the Diploma agenda?
81. UCU is unable to give responses on these
questions as we do not have the information on these issues as
to what is happening at local level.
How are the rules on post-16 expansion likely
to affect the roll out of Diplomas?
82. We have argued above that competition
between institutions—whether school-school, college-college,
or school-college—can severely damage the capacity and willingness
of colleges and schools to work in partnership to deliver the
Diplomas. The new procedures and rules on post-16 expansion, including
extending the presumption to colleges that the most successful
should be able to expand, and introducing competition for 16-19
provision in localities where this is judged to be weak, may affect
adversely the roll out of Diplomas in some areas. Potential partners
in these areas may be focused on preserving their existence rather
than working to collaborate on qualifications that are as yet
unknown and untested.
CONCLUDING POINTS
83. As we have already stated, UCU would
have preferred to see an overarching Diploma along the lines recommended
by the Tomlinson Working Party. We have also stated that given
the recent history of qualification change we do want the work
on Diplomas to come to fruition. But UCU has severe reservations
as to whether Diplomas can fulfil the ambitions of the Government,
again most recently described in the Leitch Report. Diplomas will
have to coexist with GCSEs and A levels and with successful known
and respected "applied" qualifications such as BTEC
National awards. In UK education there is always the ever present
danger of academic drift with "vocational" qualifications
for young people becoming more general so that they can be taught
in schools. Despite the avowed intention that Diplomas must be
delivered by partnerships of schools, colleges, work-based trainers
and employers, this possibility hangs over the proposed Diplomas.
84. UCU would identify a number of additional
barriers to the ones we have already described, to successful
delivery of Diplomas:
85. Disparities in pay and professional
status—There has for a number of years been a glaring disparity
between the funding of schools and colleges for similar work.
Even the Government now acknowledges this and is committed to
reducing the funding gap from the current 13% to 8% by 2008 and
by another 3% by 2010. This however will mean that there is still
a 5% funding gap which works to favour schools over colleges.
One of the practical outcomes of this is the disparity between
salary levels for teachers in schools and lecturers in colleges.
UCU calculate this still to be significant. It is a source of
great anger among college lecturers that they are paid so much
less for teaching what increasingly are the same students. With
the introduction of Diplomas and increasing numbers of young people
being taught in both schools and colleges, these pay differentials
become ever more difficult to justify and serve to lower the morale
and willingness of college lecturers to become completely involved
in the preparations to deliver the Diplomas. Similar disparities
exist in the professional status of school teachers and lecturers.
In September 2007 Qualified Teacher Status is being introduced
for college lecturers. This has not equivalency with Qualified
Teacher Status in schools. The position will be that school teachers
with QTS (Schools) will be able to teach in FE colleges, yet lecturers
with QT(Learning and Skills) will not be able to teach in schools.
This disparity of esteem and status continues to rankle with FE
and does nothing to promote collaboration and partnership.
86. The engagement and willingness of schools
to engage with the 14-19 agenda—With so many initiatives
hitting schools at present there are doubts about how they will
cope with Diplomas. There is in addition cynicism following the
decision not to implement Tomlinson, and a fear that Diplomas
will be a second-class option. Finally, where schools are at present,
varies enormously, in terms of experience, local links and staff
expertise to deliver vocational provision.
87. The uncertainty and instability in colleges—The
multiplicity of initiatives and policies facing schools has resulted
in uncertainty and doubts, and is mirrored in the uncertainty
and instability in colleges because of the introduction of contestability
and colleges are under threat where quality of provision is considered
weak or even "coasting". There are also major changes
proposed in the very recently published Leitch Report on future
skills, which proposes that all adult vocational learning is turned
over to the employers through Train to Gain programmes and individuals
through learning accounts.
88. Funding—We have highlighted some
concerns on the part of both schools and colleges around funding
and its uncertainty. For schools the issues are around off-site
delivery and the cost involved. For colleges the concern is especially
the cost of non-teaching activities. The biggest issue overall
is uncertainty. This includes concerns about the volume of future
funding and the resources needed to sustain Diploma provision.
89. Communication and understanding—The
Government is talking about a three year pilot for each Diploma
wave. It is hoped that this will lessen the concern surrounding
stage 2 (the working up of the qualification). The DfES Implementation
Plan calls for communication strategies around the introduction
of the Diploma. UCU has made the point in the DfES 14-19 Implementation
Working Party that all too often these communication strategies
are aimed at the leaders and managers of institutions and agencies
rather than the practitioners who will actually teach, lecture
and train on the new Diploma programmes. We still await plans
for the kind of communications strategy that will garner ownership
among practitioners for the Diplomas.
January 2007
| 
