Memorandrum submitted by the National
Forum of Engineering Centres (NFEC)
NFEC is a self-funding, self-help membership
body of professionals in FE and HE in FE. Our members include
employers, group training providers, professional training companies,
specialist schools and academies, as well as over 80% of FE colleges
or departments.
An independent advisory body, NEFC's main interest
is in the 14-19 agenda, the worked-based 16+ sector and lifelong
learning. Members across the UK share a commitment to the achievement
and exchange of best practice in, and to the consistent delivery
of, best-quality learning in engineering and technology.
Revenue generated from membership and commercial
consultancy and other sector clients is dedicated to providing
NFEC members with practical, problem-solving assistance without
charge or at reduced cost.
NFEC operates through seven regional organisations,
regular regional seminars and a twice-yearly national conference.
A particular strength of NFEC is its close links with awarding
and other bodies in the engineering industries and professions.
Among these are:
— Key Sector Skills Councils such
as SEMTA, the Engineering Employers Federation, and the Engineering
Council UK; professional institutions.
— Organisations in the academic
and vocational education infrastructure, among them QAA and QCA,
HEFCE and LSC, SSDA, Ofsted.
— Awarding Bodies including EAL.
— Organisations responsible for
quality improvement, such as Subject Centres and Quality Improvement
Agency (QIA) and the Learning and Skills Network (LSN)
To the best of NFEC's knowledge, no comment
in this submission is made upon matters before a court of law
or in respect of which court proceedings are imminent.
NFEC SUBMISSION
What progress has been made on the development
of Diplomas to date?
The National Forum of Engineering Centres (NFEC)
is able to give informed evidence on the design and development
of the Specialised Diploma (SD) in Engineering.
NFEC was involved in the development of the
SD in Engineering and maintains close links with the EDDP. There
were presentations, workshops and general discussion on the Engineering
SD at NFEC's last two half-yearly national conferences. NFEC is
playing a pivotal role during the Stage Two development, and is
a member of the EDDP "Delivery Group".
The Terms of Reference for the Delivery Group
throughout Stage Two are:
1. Promote and disseminate the Diploma in
Engineering to key stakeholders.
2. Advise the project team on the evolution
of Stage One deliverables:
Revision of level 3 by the Task and Finish Group.
Pathways through the Specialist Component
of the Diploma.
11-19 Skills Framework Strategy.
Progression into and out of the Diploma
and the links with FE, HE and apprenticeship routes.
3. Support the development delivery and
assessment aspects of the Skills Framework Strategy.
4. Contribute towards the development of
the qualification specification through the Project Team in partnership
with Awarding Bodies.
5. Support the development of the Work—Related
Learning Strategy, including a Guidance Resource for the effective
engagement of employers and deliverers.
6. Advise on Diploma implementation and
delivery, including applied learning, widening participation,
special educational needs, and gender stereotyping.
7. Work with DfES Workforce Projects to
enable effective development of learning materials and resources,
as well as a continuing professional development programme for
all delivery professionals.
The Gateway process is near completion. Consortia
had to register interest in joining the SD pilot phase in December
2006.
Where have been the sticking points
Although NFEC looks forward to helping move
forward the Diplomas from design phase to implementation, we do
so disappointed that the government ignored the Tomlinson Report's
recommendations for achieving parity of esteem as between academic
and vocational qualifications.
Providers and educationalists were not consulted
in any meaningful sense about the design of the SDs. Today's "demand-led"
system makes the same mistake of the "provide" system
of the 70s and 80s. It is "isolationist", in the sense
that, as with "provide", the nature of that "demand"
is as defined by officials and not as by a synthesis of the views
and experience of those directly—involved: employers, providers,
educationalists and learners.
NFEC nonetheless moves on, and is committed
to providing the best implementation models possible, as well
as to monitoring the development of the SD in engineering and
to providing informed, practical advice and comment.
What role have employers and Sector Skills Councils
played in the development of Diplomas?
Consortia of Sector Skills Councils were responsible
for the first year's work on developing the specifications. As
to be expected, given the difficulty in engaging SMEs and micro—organisations,
the employer voice heard was mainly that of the larger organisations.
Yet in engineering 93% of all employers are SMEs, and it is doubtful
that their needs are being met.
In particular, it is very difficult to envisage
the necessary wholesale engagement by SMEs to the SDs given the
unrealistic requirement for employer engagement.
Who is responsible for the co-ordination and development
of Diplomas?
The SSCs and the employers they represent.
QCA, however, is responsible for developing
a meaningful structure to meet the requirements of a nationally—recognised
qualification framework. QCA will engage with award bodies to
ensure content, context and assessment are fit for purpose.
The SSCs nonetheless intend to remain the custodians
of the Diplomas. Tensions may therefore arise, and thought should
be given to an appropriate means of resolution.
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?
QCA should be authorised to ensure qualifications
are fit for purpose.
Is there a clear system for accrediting and awarding
the Diplomas?
NFEC assumes that the SD is regarded as any
other qualification and therefore the QCA's responsibility. But
as we move to a demand—led system, QCA's position may alter
with employers and their representatives becoming increasingly
involved in accreditation and the awarding of qualifications.
NFEC strongly opposes the parcelling-out of
responsibility for SD to various hands. It is crucial the watching
brief on ensuring national standards across the sectors remains
with a single body and not be diffused among competing and overlapping
bureaucracies. This body must ensure the consistent application
of appropriate and sound learning principles, teaching, cognitive
approaches and assessment tools.
QCA has demonstrated its competence to do so.
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?
As educators were in any practical sense excluded
from the SD design phase, it is not surprising that lack of clarity
has ensued.
Too few practitioners have yet come to grips
with the Diplomas and their implications for learning processes
and outcomes. NFEC is preparing proposals for engaging practitioners,
and for this reason accepted the invitation to join the EDDP Delivery
Group for the Phase Two development.
Lecturers and, to a lesser extent, teachers
are prepared for the SD content requirements. Not so learners,
however, for the SD demands a root-and-branch change in the way
learners learn. This is of major concern to colleges and schools,
given the significant lead—in time required, investment
in staff training, continuing staff development and CPD, additional
resources in terms of consumables and the capital investment required
in equipment and improved workshop areas.
The DfES Standards Unit and QIA are promoting
"learning by doing". This is an investigative and practical
approach that relies upon the co-operation of employers, but to
make the transition from `initiative' to demonstrable accomplishment
requires adequate funding, not least for practitioner support.
NFEC was the project manager for the DfES in engineering during
Phase Two.
Besides the funding question, the other great
unknown is whether employers are up to engagement on the scale
envisioned by the SD's designers.
NFEC questions whether employers can or will
offer the necessary work—placement hours. Overall, it is
difficult to see how the "entitlement" of Diplomas can
be achieved in the cities, never mind in rural districts. This
will be more acute with SMEs and in rural areas.
NFEC remains concerned that the appropriate
level of continued professional development required is under—estimated
and that there is not enough investment to secure productive employer
engagement on the scale SDs require to make them worthwhile. Work
also needs to be done to "join up" providers to share
best practice and to avoid duplication. In all of this, NFEC is
well—placed to play a lead role for engineering.
CO-ORDINATION
BETWEEN SCHOOLS
AND COLLEGES
What is the current level of co-ordination between
colleges and schools in local areas?
There are examples of excellent partnerships
throughout the UK, but they need to be evaluated, modelled and
trailed in other areas. The big problem is that nobody is pulling
together these examples of co-ordination
Although there are generic lessons to be learned
in effective employer engagement and developing win—win
scenarios, a vocational or specialist initiative is required to
fuel commitment, develop regional networks and self—help
groups, as well as to create national support for best practice.
NFEC is developing a databank of short case
studies of best practice as a first step to raising awareness
and setting benchmarks. We will pilot vocational working groups
regionally, and then establish a national network to taking a
lead on best practice.
What are the barriers to co-ordination?
1. Unrealistic design and costing:
Officials neither considered nor costed the
actual detail of delivering specialist Diplomas. It is also doubtful
that officials grasp the scale and pace of the changes in teaching
and learning required.
The new approach is investigative, practical
and industry—based. It needs to be resourced, and practitioners
ably supported. Effective delivery assumes provision for the additional
costs, including capital investment, practitioner—development
and continuing staff support. The Gateway process pump—primes,
but the end cost will greatly exceed levels of overall support,
current and proposed.
Nobody knows, because nobody has been told,
whether there will be enough financial backing, let alone where
it is to come from. The new approaches to learning, employer engagement,
flexibility in delivery within formal consortia, and continued
CPD all increase the per—learner—cost. At present,
most school/college working arrangements are not on a commercial
basis, and are small—scale loss—leaders.
2. Pay disparities:
The new `demand-led' market requires co-ordination
between colleges and schools. Yet funding per learner is set unequally
as between colleges and schools, penalising the former.
There is also the issue of disparity of pay
between teachers, trainers and lecturers. At the top end, teachers
receive higher salaries than the rest, and at the bottom, trainers
are the poorest paid. Such divisive disparities are self-defeating,
and cannot be allowed to continue in a system reliant upon joint
delivery and curriculum overlap.
Doing the same work for unequal pay is a great
divider of colleagues, as history shows us.
3. Dispersion of accountability:
Great confusion prevails over the question:
"Who is accountable, who owns responsibility for the learner,
especially when he or she is learning in a place of work?"
The arrangement of work—based learning
placements needs to be seen not as a mere exercise in logistics
but as integral to management structures and to the learning process.
It will be difficult to apportion and onerous
to administer responsibility for pastoral care when pupils will
be expected to travel between and learn in schools, colleges,
and the premises of private trainers and of employers. Consider,
for example, what might happen were an employee not required to
declare any convictions under his or her normal conditions of
employment is now asked to give such information. He or she may
feel entitled to refuse. The possible legal ramifications are
immense.
How is a "safe" environment to be
maintained and "adult" contact to be vetted in organisations
that are not set up for isolating "children" from adults?
Particularly at KS4, but really at all ages up to 18, young people
are now legally "children".
EDDP has documented important Health and Safety
issues and barriers, but it is doubtful whether many smaller employers—engineering's
majority employer—know much about the SD or about EDDP's
H&S advice, and if they do, whether they would be able to
act on that advice?
4. Self-interest:
Self-interest is inherent in any business arrangement.
Colleges and other providers are required to act no longer as
a public service but as pseudo—businesses. They will be
driven to resist co-ordination unless there is a clear commercial
advantage, and in many cases there will not be one. In partial
and informed Information Advice and Guidance (IAG) at Key Stages
3 and 4 is a fundamental requirement.
5. Timetable logistics, transport, and specialist—centre
access:
Virtual environments may help, but are not a
total solution.
What are the lessons that can be learned from
areas where there is strong co-ordination on 14-19?
Barriers there certainly are, but there are
also solutions and they are found daily but not necessarily passed
on. Problem-solving is scattered across the country, so needs
to be collated, reviewed and developed into best—practice
guidelines by local networks.
What are intermediary bodies such as LAs and LSCs
doing to foster co-operation?
Not taking the soft option, NFEC trusts.
The Gateway process and subsequent pilots will
tell us much about the extent to which LA and LSC co-operate,
and how in turn they foster other collaborations. The Gateway,
it seems, will be a success. But it will cherry—pick organisations
with a history of success; and existing collaborators known to
provide results. The Gateway has yet to demonstrate that it can
develop a workable national roll—out model.
How engaged are headteachers and college principals
in the Diploma agenda?
The Gateway process is oversubscribed, evidence
of active engagement
How are the rules on post-16 expansion likely
to affect the rollout of Diplomas?
It is too early to say with confidence.
There are conflicting statements from government
and government agencies on the future of the BTEC qualifications:
how will the SDs interact or relate with BTEC? What will be the
relationship with the SDs and apprentice frameworks? Or with HE
progression, in particular the relationship with the Foundation
Degree programmes?
Much more work needs to done on the types of
qualification and how they relate, as well as upon progression
arrangements post—the introduction of SD.
The "entitlement" is extremely ambitious,
and so are the timescales. It is fanciful to assume that employers
will give the level of support that a successful national rollout
across all the Diploma streams will require.
It would be useful to see the Gateway pilot
analysis on the investment required in employer—staffing
hours, additional costs and other financial investment to make
a national entitlement programme work.
While employers are supporting education they
are not producing. NFEC members await with interest the development
of a demand—led system that does not provoke employer-organisations
into justified outrage at the unrealistic cost to them and to
UK plc. Our members—among them, employers, teachers, and
trainers—have much to offer in the development of such a
Specialised Diploma system in engineering.
January 2007
| 
