Memorandum submitted by e-Skills UK
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Progress (see section 3)
1.1 Progress on Diploma design and development
has been excellent in many regards. Highlights include:
— The level of employer support and
the significant added value contributed to the design and development
process by employers.
— The level of Higher Education support.
— The creation of a new model of partnership
working between employers, Higher Education, Awarding Bodies,
DfES and QCA.
— The delivery of high quality Subject
Criteria, in line with the vision of the Diploma Development Partnerships
and agreed in detail with Awarding Bodies.
Issues (see section 4)
1.2 However, the speed of development has
caused particular issues. Specifically:
— Work which would have more easily
and logically been undertaken sequentially has had to be delivered
concurrently.
— It has been very challenging to implement
in a quality manner a number of policy decisions which were made
relatively late in the development process, in particular those
affecting Diploma structure which were made in October 2006. There
has been insufficient time to assess appropriately the implications
of many decisions prior to those decisions being made (for example
policy decisions which could compromise employer or HE support
for the Diploma or which could affect the range of students likely
to be attracted to the Diploma).
— The Diploma is breaking new ground
in the way the various partners work together to achieve outcomes,
yet it requires time to establish trust and effect culture change.
1.3 Very late in the process came a strong
drive for consistency across Diplomas, which has given rise to
a particular strategic concern. Consistency will tend to force
all Diplomas into a common ground in terms of positioning in the
market (for example, in relation to student cohorts and Higher
Education perception), whereas, in fact, the needs by sector are
very different. Some sectors (such as IT) recruit predominantly
at graduate level or higher, while others have a significant intake
at level 3 or level 2. A desire for consistency which does
not account for these sorts of differences remains one of the
biggest risks to success of Diplomas.
1.4 Communications are too often focusing
on the "increasing participation" objectives of the
Diploma at the expense of other purposes; this presents significant
risks in terms of retaining employer and Higher Education engagement.
Recommendations (see section 5)
1.5 There are currently three major risks
to success in terms of the Diploma in IT:
— The qualification could still drift
away from the DDP vision, and thus fail to ensure employer support.
— Insufficient teacher skills and inappropriate
delivery strategies could compromise the quality of implementation.
— Diploma brand positioning and the
drive for consistency could compromise the ability of the Diploma
in IT to meet its target market (which includes future potential
IT professionals, entrepreneurs and business leaders).
1.6 We make the following recommendations
to address these risks:
(a) Undertake a review of governance and
programme management of the end-to-end activities for Diploma
introduction, to ensure:
— Clear overall accountability and exemplary
programme management across the whole, through to, and including,
successful introduction.
— Clarity of accountabilities, with levers
in line with responsibilities, including ensuring one senior individual
is responsible for Diploma communications and branding across
all partners.
— Effective risk management, with particular
focus on risks concerning employer support, HE support and quality
of delivery.
(b) Ensure that the leadership role of the
SSC is supported throughout; SSCs represent the voice of employers
and Higher Education and lead the DDPs which bring together the
key partners. In order to retain the engagement of these partners,
they must (via the SSC) be sufficiently influential in all key
areas, including the development of grading strategy; policy concerning
Functional Skills and Additional Specialist Learning; the implementation
of Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills; and the implementation
of the Gateway and Centre Approval processes. Without this influence,
the Diploma is drifting away from the DDP vision and could ultimately
fail due to lack of employer and HE support.
(c) Ensure effective support for the employer-led
DDP role in terms of endorsement of qualifications, clearly communicated
to all parties (for example establishing that public funding will
only be available for qualifications which have been endorsed
by the DDP).
(d) Identify the Critical Success Factors
for 2008 implementation, specifically considering the outstanding
technical and policy matters,[1]
the needs of students and schools and colleges, and the requirements
to ensure continued support from employers and HE.
(e) Undertake a comprehensive assessment
of the complete range of teaching and learning materials, delivery
mechanisms and teacher upskilling activities required to ensure
successful delivery for each line of learning.
(f) Undertake a full risk assessment and
create appropriate risk mitigation plans, including risks emanating
from grading decisions, the very short qualification development
timescale and workforce development needs.
(g) Control volumes and timing to ensure
that implementation will be of consistently high quality. Depending
on the outcomes of the risk assessment, this is likely to involve
either a very small, tightly controlled introduction in 2008 with
extensive hands-on support or else a delay until 2009.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 This memorandum is to provide input
to the Education and Skills Committee inquiry into 14-19 Specialised
Diplomas. The submitter, e-skills UK, is the Sector Skills Council
for IT & Telecoms. e-skills UK is responsible for the development
of the Diploma in IT, one of the first five Diplomas which are
due for first teaching in September 2008. The vision, mission
and Board Membership of e-skills UK is attached in the Annex (not
printed).
2.2 The terms of reference for the inquiry
set out a series of questions, categorised into three subject
areas: "Design and Development of Diplomas"; "Teacher
and lecturer training"; and "Co-ordination between schools
and colleges". e-skills UK provides input here to the questions
raised within the first two of these subject areas.
2.3 Section 3 below provides factual information
relating to the questions raised. Section 4 highlights issues
arising and Section 5 suggests specific recommendations for consideration
by the Committee.
3. INFORMATION
Design and development of Diplomas
Q: What progress has been made on the development
of Diplomas to date? Where have been the sticking points?
3.1 Progress on Diploma design and development
has been excellent in many regards. Highlights include:
— The level of employer support and
the significant added value contributed to the design and development
process by employers.
— The level of Higher Education support.
— The creation of a new model of partnership
working between employers, Higher Education, Awarding Bodies,
DfES and QCA.
— The delivery of high quality Subject
Criteria, in line with the vision of the Diploma Development Partnerships
and agreed in detail with Awarding Bodies.
3.2 The Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) responsible
for leading the development of the Tranche 1 Diplomas established
an employer-led Diploma Development Partnership (DDP) for each
"line of learning"[2]
and commenced work in the 4th quarter of 2005. The primary
output of the first phase of the development work was to produce
a "Statement of Content" for each Diploma line of learning
by the summer of 2006. All Statements of Content were delivered
on schedule.
3.3 Each DDP followed a similar process.
For the IT line of learning, the work began with an analysis of
employer skills needs and Higher Education requirements, moved
on to a definition of the desired structure and balance of the
Diploma, and then to a definition of learning outcomes that would
meet the needs of employers and Higher Education. These were encapsulated
in the "Statement of Content" for the Diploma in IT
which was delivered on 31 July 2006.
3.4 It had been our expectation that these
Statements of Content would provide the basis for qualification
development (led by the Awarding Bodies, working in partnership
with the DDPs). However, on 26 July, the DDPs were advised that
a new step would be inserted in the process in order to help achieve
greater consistency across the Diplomas. QCA would appoint a new
team for each line of learning, involving Awarding Body writers
and a QCA technical writer, with the responsibility for creating
"Subject Criteria" for the line of learning. These Subject
Criteria would be based on but would replace the Statements of
Content as the starting point for qualification development, and
they would be delivered by 30 September 2006.
3.5 The creation of the Subject Criteria
proved to be very challenging, as in some lines of learning there
started to be significant deviation from the original employer
vision for the Diploma. On 25 September, in a meeting involving
DfES and QCA, it was agreed that the SSC writers should pick up
the work and complete it to deliver a consultation draft which
would retain the support of the employers and wider DDPs. These
were all delivered on schedule by 30 September 2006. At this point,
the intention was that the final draft Subject Criteria would
be published on 31 October 2006.[3]
3.6 During and following the delivery of
these Subject Criteria consultation drafts, a number of new policy
decisions were made. These concerned the structure of the Diploma,
the size of units within the Diploma, the size of the project
at level 3, assumptions about the treatment of Personal Learning
and Thinking Skills, and criteria for Additional/Specialist Learning
options.
3.7 The most significant change was concerning
structure. On 12 October 2006, DDPs were advised that a common
structure for each level must be applied to all lines of learning.[4]
For some lines of learning, this would involve significant work
in creating new content along with restructuring of existing content.
This would in some cases involve major changes from the Statements
of Content which had been produced in detailed consultation with
employers and the rest of the DDP over the preceding months. It
was clear that it was not feasible to deliver DDP-endorsed, high
quality Subject Criteria documents which incorporated these new
rules by the end of October, and the decision was made that these
would now be delivered by the end of November. To minimise the
impact of this decision, QCA decided to compress their accreditation
period (from April-June 2007 to May-June 2007) so that the time
available to the Awarding Bodies for qualification development
would not be affected. However, there was still very little time
to deliver major content revision due to the change in policy
direction, and no time to assess the implications of the decisions
on students or Higher Education.
3.8 For the Diploma in IT, a new development
team was established, building on that appointed by QCA but also
including other DDP members (in particular employers, HE and FE
experts) as well as Awarding Bodies. This team worked intensively
to complete the necessary re-works of the Subject Criteria to
meet the new requirements, and the final draft Subject Criteria
for the Diploma in IT was delivered to QCA on 24 November.
3.9 Awarding Bodies are now working on qualification
development, having agreed the principles of the process by which
they will work with the SSCs and DDPs. The purpose of this process
is to ensure that the qualifications continue to meet the vision
of the DDPs and thus can be endorsed by the DDPs prior to submission
to QCA at the end of April 2007.
3.10 Information on issues arising from
the process to date is provided in the Section 4.
Q: What role have employers and Sector Skills
Councils played in the development of Diplomas?
3.11 Employers have been central to the
development of Diplomas to date. Sector Skills Councils have led
the development, representing the voice of their employers and
leading the Diploma Development Partnerships.
3.12 Taking the Diploma in IT as an example,
employers have led the strategy and design. At the outset of the
work, e-skills UK established a Diploma Employer Steering Group
for the Diploma. This included senior managers representing organisations
including: Vodafone, IBM, Oracle, Cisco, Microsoft, LogicaCMG,
EDS, BT, CA, John Lewis, Centrica, the Government and the MOD
as well as Small and Medium Enterprise representation. This group
physically met regularly (typically monthly) as well as contributing
extensively outside of meetings. In addition, more than 600 employers,
statistically valid by size and geography, contributed to the
design through detailed telephone interviews.
3.13 Through this design work, employers
were able to clearly articulate, at a sector-wide level, the key
principles they would like embedded within the Diploma in order
for it to be a valued qualification and a boost to student employability.
This included, for example, the centrality of improved standards
in skills in English and maths and how this could be achieved
through engaging, work-relevant contexts, and innovation in the
development of the Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills, which
employers often value more in new recruits than specific subject
matter expertise.
3.14 Employers also want to seize the opportunity
to radically improve the IT-related curriculum for 14-19-year-olds
through exciting, up to date content delivered in an innovative
way. The Diploma in IT is, in response to the overwhelming view
of employers, based on the three themes of Business, People and
Technology. Academic learning will be brought to life through
applied real-world contexts such as the transformational potential
of the internet and mobile communications; the exploitation of
technology in the music industry; or the integration of computing,
design and art in multimedia projects. Employers envisage supporting
the delivery of such content through an interactive resource bank
of up to date materials, case studies and challenges.
3.15 In addition to the Diploma Employer
Steering Group, the Board of e-skills UK is also offering support
to Diploma development. They see the Diploma as the opportunity
to make IT-related education fit for purpose in the global economy,
to transform uptake of IT education and careers, and to address
the gender divide which plagues the sector. E-skills UK Board
members include the CEOs of IBM, Cisco, Cable & Wireless,
Vodafone, Oracle, EDS, LogicaCMG, Accenture, Microsoft, HP and
BT Global Services and the CIOs of BA, Centrica, Royal Mail, Unilever,
CPS, Innocent Drinks, Carphone Warehouse, UK Government, UBS,
Whitbread and Reuters.
3.16 Whilst designed to be particularly
appropriate for the technology professionals, entrepreneurs and
business leaders of the future, employers were particularly keen
to ensure that the Diploma in IT will open doors for all students,
by equipping them to work effectively in a professional environment,
deliver successful projects and understand how technology can
contribute to business success in any sector.
3.17 In terms of the role of Sector Skills
Councils (SSCs), E-skills UK, as the SSC for IT & Telecoms,
is responsible for the development of the Diploma in IT. The company
established and leads the DDP, providing strategic direction,
employer engagement and HE engagement. E-skills UK also established
and led the operational Diploma development team including experts
from industry, education and awarding bodies. The company represents
the voice of the DDP for the Diploma in IT at the many meetings
on Diploma both operational and strategic, and acts as a member
of the Skills for Business Network (cross-SSC) team in bringing
together collective DDP views. The CEO of e-skills UK, Karen Price,
represents the collective voice of Sector Skills Councils at meetings
including the Diploma Project Board.
Q: Who is responsible for the co-ordination
and development of Diplomas?
3.18 The DfES has overall responsibility
for the creation of Diplomas, but different organisations—in
particular Sector Skills Councils, Awarding Bodies, QCA and workforce
development partners—perform different leadership roles
within the overall programme of work.
Q: 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?
3.19 We believe it is essential that an
extremely senior individual has overall responsibility for the
success of Diplomas. This person should have the responsibility
for strategy and the ability to make policy decisions and direct
operational activities end-to-end (design, development and delivery).
He or she should come from an industry background (in keeping
with the employer-led nature of the qualifications); have the
explicit backing of Ministers; and have the programme management
expertise to direct and ensure successful delivery of a highly
complex, collaborative programme.
Q: Is there a clear system for accrediting
and awarding the Diplomas?
3.20 This is being developed. As set out
at 3.9, Awarding Bodies have agreed the principles of the process
by which they will work with the SSCs and DDPs. The purpose of
this process is to ensure that the qualifications continue to
meet the vision of the DDPs and thus can be endorsed by the DDPs
prior to submission to QCA at the end of April 2007. We are
currently working with Awarding Bodies to agree the detail of
this endorsement process. Awarding Bodies which become Diploma
Awarding Bodies will need to put in place the systems and processes
for awarding the Diplomas.
3.21 The Grading strategy for the Diploma
is still under development. The finalisation of this is an essential
element of the critical path as qualification development needs
to be aligned with the grading approach to be adopted.
Teacher and lecturer training
Q: What are current levels of teacher/lecturer
training activity in preparation for Diplomas? Is this sufficient
to make Diplomas a success?
3.22 The Diploma in IT is significantly
different from current 14-19 IT provision. Specifically, it focuses
on IT professional (rather than IT user) skills, and it demands
an integration of IT and business skills (rather than focusing
only on IT technical matters). E-skills UK is very concerned about
how workforce development requirements will be met; unless delivery
is of a sufficiently high quality, students will suffer and the
major employers currently engaged with and supporting the Diploma
would choose not to be associated with it.
3.23 Most teachers and lecturers of this
Diploma, although highly experienced in their disciplines, are
unlikely to have relevant (IT professional) industry experience.
To help overcome the consequent lack of subject matter expertise,
we would like there to be serious consideration of innovative,
e-enabled delivery models for the Diploma.
3.24 We believe that the following is essential:
— An assessment of typical teacher
skills levels in different types of consortia.
— A gap analysis between this and what
is needed for the Diploma to be successfully delivered.
— The development of a costed implementation
plan which includes the complete range of teaching and learning
materials, delivery mechanisms and teacher upskilling activities
required to ensure successful delivery for this line of learning.
3.25 This evaluation of needs and solutions
must be executed in step with the Gateway process so that the
output of that process does not end up out of kilter with a realistic
implementation plan.
4. ISSUES ARISING
4.1 Whilst progress has been excellent in
many regards, the speed of development has caused particular issues.
Specifically:
— Work which would have more easily
and logically been undertaken sequentially has had to be delivered
concurrently.
— There has often been insufficient
time to assess the implications of decisions prior to those decisions
being made (for example policy decisions which could compromise
employer or HE support for the Diploma or which could affect the
range of students likely to be attracted to the Diploma).
— Although the Diploma is intended
to be SSC-led to ensure the voice of employers is at its heart,
decisions have often been made very quickly with insufficient
consideration of SSC input. This presents significant risk in
terms of employer and HE support.
— The Diploma is breaking new ground
in the way the various partners work together to achieve outcomes,
yet it requires time to establish trust and effect culture change.
4.2 This was essentially an iterative development
process; certain work had to be undertaken in order to make well
informed decisions, and those decisions then require rework which
needs time allocated. All parties agree that the development process
would have run more smoothly had some of these decisions referenced
in paragraphs 3.6 and 3.7 been taken much earlier. Whilst there
are undoubtedly lessons to be learned from the process of development,
much of the impact of late decision making is now history—key
decisions have now been made and following tranches will not face
the same difficulties as the first five in terms of the practicalities
of implementing late policy changes.
4.3 However, there are some outstanding
concerns in terms of the implications of policy decisions, many
of which were made to drive consistency across Diploma lines.
For example, the implications of decisions on assessment strategies
have not, to our knowledge, been assessed in terms of Higher Education
acceptance of the Diploma; the decision regarding the volume of
Principal Learning at level 2 has not been assessed in terms of
attractiveness to different cohorts of students; and decisions
in terms of the handling of Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills
have not yet been assessed in terms of delivering value to employers
or the HE sector.
4.4 The drive for consistency has also given
rise to an important strategic concern. Whilst we endorse the
need for consistency of underpinning policy principles across
the Diplomas, an over emphasis on consistency of structure and
content at the expense of appropriateness to the industry context
will be counterproductive. Consistency will tend to force all
Diplomas into a common ground in terms of positioning in the market
(in relation to student cohorts and Higher Education perception),
whereas, in fact, the needs by sector are very different. The
IT sector, for example, recruits predominantly at graduate level
or higher. For the Diploma in IT to be relevant to prospective
future employees in the sector, it must therefore be attractive
to, and appropriate for, high achieving students, including those
aspiring to the most challenging degree courses. Other sectors
however have a significant intake at level 3 or level 2. A
desire for consistency which does not account for differences
in typical student cohorts remains one of the biggest risks to
success of Diplomas in some lines of learning.
4.5 As an example, throughout the design
and development process, e-skills UK has become increasingly concerned
that communications have focused predominantly on one particular
objective of the Diploma, which is its contribution to the "increasing
participation" agenda. It is clear to us that the Diplomas
will only succeed overall if they are built, delivered and consistently
positioned as a mainstream offering which is as appropriate for
the most academically able as well as those who are disengaged
with the current system. Different lines of learning are likely
to appeal to different types of students. However, if "increasing
participation" is perceived to be the primary objective,
then the Diploma brand will be seen as predominantly for students
unlikely to succeed in GCSEs or A levels. If this is not addressed,
it will cause industry disengagement and will marginalise the
Diploma from a Higher Education perspective.
4.6 Other outstanding risks at this stage
of development include the following:
— The endorsement of the qualifications
by DDPs is central to the promise that these qualifications are
underpinned by employer support. However, this requires the introduction
of a new way of working in partnership between SSCs and Awarding
Bodies and timeframes are very tight. There is a risk that lack
of time to establish and implement new mechanisms could cause
difficult tensions during the coming four months and could, if
not addressed properly, lead to the unacceptable situation of
Awarding Bodies having invested in development which DDPs are
not happy to support.
— The grading strategy is still in
development. This makes the current qualification development
work of Awarding Bodies challenging as they will need to accommodate
decisions late within their work.
— Functional Skills are central to
the Diplomas at levels 1 and 2. However, the content of Functional
Skills and their relationship to GCSEs is not yet clear. Further,
there are significant issues yet to be addressed regarding the
role of Functional Skills and Additional Specialist Learning in
terms of grading and Diploma achievement.
4.7 Finally, this is a complex collaborative
programme of interdependent projects, which requires effective,
interdependent working of numerous organisations whose expertise
is essential to its success. It is breaking new ground, and demands
new styles of working and management. In particular, it needs
a single point of leadership across the whole programme and effective
programme management across all aspects of work on which its success
depends.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 There are currently three major risks
to success in terms of the Diploma in IT:
— The qualification could still drift
away from the DDP vision, and thus fail to ensure employer support.
— Insufficient teacher skills and inappropriate
delivery strategies could compromise the quality of implementation.
— Diploma brand positioning and the
drive for consistency could compromise the ability of the Diploma
in IT to meet its target market (which includes future potential
IT professionals, entrepreneurs and business leaders).
5.2 We make the following recommendations
to address these risks:
(a) Undertake a review of governance and
programme management of the end-to-end activities for Diploma
introduction, to ensure:
— Clear overall accountability and
exemplary programme management across the whole, through to, and
including, successful introduction.
— Clarity of accountabilities, with
levers in line with responsibilities, including ensuring one senior
individual is responsible for Diploma communications and branding
across all partners.
— Effective risk management, with particular
focus on risks concerning employer support, HE support and quality
of delivery.
(b) Ensure that the leadership role of the
SSC is supported throughout; SSCs represent the voice of employers
and Higher Education and lead the DDPs which bring together the
key partners. In order to retain the engagement of these partners,
they must (via the SSC) be sufficiently influential in all key
areas, including the development of grading strategy; policy concerning
Functional Skills and Additional Specialist Learning; the implementation
of Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills; and the implementation
of the Gateway and Centre Approval processes. Without this influence,
the Diploma is drifting away from the DDP vision and could ultimately
fail due to lack of employer and HE support.
(c) Ensure effective support for the employer-led
DDP role in terms of endorsement of qualifications, clearly communicated
to all parties (for example establishing that public funding will
only be available for qualifications which have been endorsed
by the DDP).
(d) Identify the Critical Success Factors
for 2008 implementation, specifically considering the outstanding
technical and policy matters,[5]
the needs of students and schools & colleges, and the requirements
to ensure continued support from employers and HE.
(e) Undertake a comprehensive assessment
of the complete range of teaching and learning materials, delivery
mechanisms and teacher upskilling activities required to ensure
successful delivery for each line of learning.
(f) Undertake a full risk assessment and
create appropriate risk mitigation plans, including risks emanating
from grading decisions, the very short qualification development
timescale and workforce development needs.
(g) Control volumes and timing to ensure
that implementation will be of consistently high quality. Depending
on the outcomes of the risk assessment, this is likely to involve
either a very small, tightly controlled introduction in 2008 with
extensive hands-on support or else a delay until 2009.
January 2007
1 Including those relating to Grading, Functional
Skills, Additional/Specialist Learning and Personal, Learning
and Thinking Skills. Back
2
Each Diploma Development Partnership including Employers, Higher
Education, Further Education and Schools, Awarding Bodies and
other partners. Back
3
"Final draft" refers to the documents against which
qualification development would commence. The final version would
be produced in January 2007, to take account of Grading and Assessment
strategies which are currently under development. Back
4
Previous guidance had allowed for differences between the various
lines of learning. Back
5
Including those relating to Grading, Functional Skills, Additional/Specialist
Learning and Personal, Learning and Thinking Skills. Back
|
