Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY 2007
DR KEN
BOSTON, MR
GEOFF FIELDSEND,
MS KAREN
PRICE AND
MR JOHN
ROGERS
Q20 Paul Holmes: You would disagree
with Ken. You think we probably should wait a year?
Ms Price: No, I am saying it is
time to do a proper risk assessment across all the constituencies
to look at readiness, and now is about the right time to do it.
Q21 Chairman: Geoff and John, you
are nodding. Do you agree with that?
Mr Rogers: I very much agree with
Karen on that. Basically that is not indicating that we are definitely
saying that we think we should delay but certainly the risk should
be analysed. Basically there are risks in delaying and risks in
going forward.
Ms Price: The prize is so great
in terms of the ambition for this qualification.
Dr Boston: May I add that the
qualification does not become an entitlement until 2013. The roll-out
can be managed without the notion that it has to be a ubiquitously
available qualification before that time. Each development phase
has three full years of evaluation, both of the qualification,
its assessment and grading, its delivery, its curriculum and so
on as this roll-out occurs, so that we will be monitoring and
assessing performance as this is unpacked. To me, that is the
sort of brake, along with the gateway project, on excessive galloping
forward and then finding that we have lost the plot.
Q22 Paul Holmes: To go back to the
management question on the timescale, I know there was a lot of
concern, certainly last autumn, that the management just was not
happening; there was nobody in charge and making sure the thing
went forward in a coherent way and to time. As recently as just
in the last few days, the BBC have reported that the QCA had this
flagged up as a "red risk" programme. You have been
slightly more optimistic. You said that you have made these representations
and the Government has heard and responded to that and you have
four champions. Has it all turned around in the last two or three
months? Are you confident that you have a grip on the management
now?
Dr Boston: There was a very significant
change in December as a result of representations, not only by
QCA but by others. Those changes have occurred. I believe that
that will work. It is not everything that everyone was recommending,
including what the QCA was recommending, but the Secretary of
State has made a decision in relation to it. The structure we
have now been shown and we are now involved in delivering and
participating in I think will work provided, as I said, we all
focus on the issue not of defining what our roles and descriptions
are but increasingly and overwhelmingly on the risk: how does
my organisation relate to these two organisations, Geoff's organisation,
the awarding bodies, City and Guilds and OCR and other people
who are doing part of this work? Those interdependencies have
to be visible, and we all have to be accountable. We all have
to have time lines and deliverables to meet. I think that can
happen through this structure. We were much less confident about
that some months ago.
Q23 Paul Holmes: Do we need a Diploma
tsar, the person who carries the can for this?
Dr Boston: We have four people.
I am not sure how one describes four. There are four people who
are the public face of all of this. Presumably they will have
a very serious interest in the delivery of it.
Mr Fieldsend: I think it is very
important that we have the public face representing the commitment
of employers. That would be extremely useful. Equally, the Department
for Education and Skills is responsible for this. I would not
want to see a situation where somebody was brought in ostensibly
with responsibility whereas in fact it is the DfES machine which
has to manage the process. We should certainly see the DfES as
being accountable for the overall managements.
Chairman: The buck stops in Sanctuary
House?
Q24 Paul Holmes: It has been said
that we have this incredibly tight timetable of five months to
produce a major new Diploma. Do we know what that Diploma structure
should be? Ken said it should be more about the thinking skills,
whereas many people out there, politicians and businessmen, might
say that a Diploma is about vocational skills. We have the same
problem with advanced GNVQs. My school was one of the first 30
in the country to offer them when they were introduced. All the
way through the route to GNVQs there was this dichotomy: is it
about thinking skills being the equivalent of A level or is about
actually learning a vocation. You are saying quite clearly it
should be for skills.
Dr Boston: On the issue of five
months, we are not starting from scratch. We have been working
on this for well over 18 months to two years. We now have criteria
for all of the five Diplomas on the website. This is the qualification:
it tells you the size, content, what students will study (I gave
some examples of that in my introductory statement), number of
guided learning hours, and the balance between principal learning,
the generic learning specialist and additional learning. Of course
this is a series of qualifications of the same size and standard
as a result of the work which has been done. The qualification
is there. There is not a great deal of scrambling around the content
of the specification to be done within the next few months. The
key issue is delivery. As for the actual purpose of it, I think
there is unanimity amongst the sector skills councils and the
awarding bodies that the fundamental purpose of this is to use
a business driven or employment driven curriculum for educational
purposes; it is vocational education not vocational training.
We are producing a qualification that will prepare youngsters
for life and not necessarily to go out and lay 100 bricks in a
straight line in an hour because that is the purpose of an apprenticeship.
They will be using a curriculum which has great involvement in
the workplace. Half the possible learning at least has to be done
in a work-related environment. What they do will be very hands-on,
but the key objective is, as I said, growing and exercising that
learning muscle up here. All learning is hand-mind-eye co-ordination
and reasoning, judging, doing, whether it is in the area of solving
an equation, writing a sonnet, producing a fine piece of furniture,
designing a website or working in automated practice. Education
is about thinking, judging, reasoning and doing. By expanding
the range of curricula which we are now offering, as many countries
well ahead of us on the OECD tables have done, although not necessarily
within a baccalaureate or a Diploma structure, we will have many
students who are currently taking existing qualifications finding
a programme which is more interesting to them, and many students
who are dropping out of existing qualifications finding a set
of activities and a new set of disciplines in which they can engage
and keep going. Although the Diploma is new, the actual use of
industry-driven curricula for fundamental education rather than
training purposes is not new. It is a characteristic of all those
countries like Belgium, Holland, Germany and the Scandinavian
countries that are well ahead of us on the OECD tables.
Q25 Paul Holmes: Are employers quite
clear that Diplomas are not an apprenticeship in bricklaying or
becoming a software programmer but a higher level qualification?
Ms Price: I am absolutely confident,
and I speak of all five Diplomas. The interesting thing that the
employers have identified is that what they are looking for is
a strong foundation for employability. Therefore, one of the things
they like about the Diploma brand is the emphasis on the functional
skills in English and maths and also the personal learning and
thinking skills, the softer skills that they are always talking
about, being embraced within Diplomas. This is about a strong
foundation for employment. There is an extraordinary synergy between
the requirements expressed by higher education and employers.
I am confident that the higher education institutions that have
been involved in the development of the first five are comfortable
with the content of the foundation for degree programmes.
Mr Rogers: I support what Karen
and Ken have said. That is the case. This is about applied learning
and employment readiness, not job readiness.
Q26 Mr Pelling: I want to draw this
issue about timing to an end with two short quotes from responses
we have received. The Institute of Engineering and Technology
has said that the introduction of Diplomas has been rushed. Do
you think that was a polite and timid description of what has
happened and would you accept what they say about it?
Ms Price: I think the original
timescales as set out in the White Paper did not take account
of the radical reform we are now talking about. I am absolutely
confident that the IT Diploma is going to be radically different
to anything that has been offered in IT education in schools.
From the beginning to where we are now, the scale of the task
before us has grown. I think that has put pressure on the timescales.
Had it been merely a tweaking of the system, we would probably
all have been very comfortable. That is why I think it is timely
to take another look at the timescales.
Q27 Mr Pelling: The University and
College Union recommends that the second and third wave of Diplomas
be delayed. Do you feel that is a good recommendation?
Ms Price: I would not understand
the logic of that. The second and third waves, to the best of
my knowledge, are proceeding extremely well because they have
a policy environment in which to work and a lot of learning has
gone before them. The lessons will have been learnt for the 2009
and 2010 roll-out and structures will be in place for that.
Mr Fieldsend: It is an entirely
new process. The first five have gone through a new process and
how the process should work has bedded down now. Nobody had worked
out before exactly what would happen when you brought in employers
and started to think about the content they wanted and then tried
to convert that into qualification and curriculum material. Having
learnt the lessons of how that works, we are much clearer now
about how long it takes. They a have had a longer timeline to
do their work. That probably would not be a sensible suggestion.
The real focus is on whether the system will be ready for the
first wave.
Q28 Chairman: Three of you are nodding
your heads about the need for a risk assessment urgently. Ken,
are you for a risk assessment but not delay?
Dr Boston: I do not want delay.
I will come to risk assessment. The essential thing about the
time line is that there is no full entitlement till 2013. If the
understanding was that every school and college in the country
would be able to offer these things in 2008, 2009 and 2010, it
would be undeliverable, but if it is managed in such a way that
we are working to a full entitlement in 2013, it is achievable.
On the risk assessment issue, I think that the constant assessment
of risk is absolutely critical. In our submission we make the
point that the OGC gateway review process is a very good process
and we use it in the QCA always on major procurement exercises.
I am sure the DfES people will agree because I have discussed
it with them. We should be having, as we move through to 2013,
regular, independent, OGC gateway assessments of our performance
and report publicly on how this is proceeding. It is absolutely
critical that that is done.
Q29 Mr Marsden: I would like to probe
further how the development process is going to be managed and
developed. I turn to you first, Ken Boston. In the context of
what we have just been hearing about timelines, I was interested
in the concern about delay and other things. I think you emphasised
the point that this is not just a single Diploma but 14 Diplomas
at three levels and 42 separate qualifications, if my note is
correct. In the light of the concerns that are being expressed
about roll-out, timelines, deadlines, call them what you will,
is that not perhaps too many?
Dr Boston: No, I do not believe
so. The three levels are very closely related to each other. They
are a progressive and sequential set of qualifications. We do
not anticipate that the numbers taking the qualifications at level
1, at least initially, will be high but there could be substantial
numbers at level 2 and level 3, or people wishing to take it at
level 2 and level 3. Provided again, as I said, that the gateway
process works effectively, I think the implementation can be managed
and the development of the Diplomas through the SSCs at these
three levels is in fact there. Each of these documents which sets
out the criteria specifies what the content and the size is at
each of those three levels. The awarding bodies still have a great
deal of work to do to deliver all of that but we are certainly
on target and on course with that.
Q30 Mr Marsden: You said at the beginning
that you do not think there is much difference between the various
levels. What about the actual range? We have heard from witnesses
just now about how important it is, and you yourself said this,
that these are not seen as bespoke training Diplomas. With 14,
is there not a danger that, even if they are not that, to the
outside world, to colleges and employers, they may be seen as
such, simply by virtue of the numbers?
Mr Fieldsend: One of the confusions
here is between occupations and sectors. These are sectorally
based qualifications; they are equipping people for a range of
different occupations but they are quite broad. The construction
industry is quite broad and at different levels. We did a lot
of work to try to think through the right configuration of these
Diplomas. From all the people with whom we consulted, I think
14 is about right.
Q31 Mr Marsden: Please understand
that I am not saying that they are not right. I am saying there
is a danger about what the perception of the outside world, when
they are presented with something as novel and radical as has
been described, will be. You are going to need to make a very
clear effort to bring across the points that you, Ken, and others
have made.
Mr Fieldsend: There is a huge
communication issue.
Dr Boston: Could I add that while
there are these 14 lines of learning, 14 different Diplomas, not
all the content is different from Diploma to Diploma. The core
learning, the requirement for maths, English and ICT and the personal
learning and thinking skills which make up the core, are common
to all these Diplomas at each level.
Q32 Mr Marsden: Will that be clearly
delineated to employers and to people looking at this?
Dr Boston: Yes. The additional
learning is a matter of choice. A student could, for example,
in the additional learning at level 3, take an A level or some
units of an A level qualification within it, so there is flexibility
there. The principal learning and the specialist learning are
the particular elements that distinguish the 14 parts.
Q33 Mr Marsden: Geoff Fieldsend,
I wonder if I could return for a moment to the issue of capacity,
which obviously we have talked about. We have talked about the
level of management in DfES, the need for someone to be there,
whether we call them a tsar or whatever, to manage the process
end-to-end. I am slightly concerned, no matter who this paragon
eventually turns out to be, whether there is going to be enough
capacity in the Department for all the day-to-day, nuts and bolts
stuff. Are we not in danger of having not enough Indians as well
as perhaps not having a permanent chief?
Mr Fieldsend: I do not know exactly
the number of people that they will have dedicated to the Diploma
work. It is also important that people who are dedicated to Diplomas
are not responsible for other issues. Certainly capacity in all
of the key agencies, including the DfES, has been part of the
review that was carried out, but I cannot comment on that.
Q34 Mr Marsden: I accept that and
I am not asking you to do that. Would you not accept that if we
agree—I think the Chairman said that the buck stops in Sanctuary
House—that that is the case, then it is crucial that the
capacity for delivery for just chasing things up below that co-ordinating
civil servant should be sufficient, precisely because we are on
extremely tight timelines?
Mr Fieldsend: I absolutely agree
that we should never under-power any new initiative of this sort.
Ms Price: I come from a business
background. As the Chairman has said, this is a huge change management
programme. Certainly, from a business perspective, this would
be manned by a large team of highly capable and qualified people.
We must not underestimate the capacity issues. If there is recognition
of what we are trying to do and address, then we will stand a
much better chance of success.
Q35 Mr Marsden: I would like to continue
with you, Karen, and talk about some of the issues on the balance
between the various Diplomas. You said in your written evidence
to us that the creation of the subject criteria had been very
challenging. One or two of the people who have sent us written
evidence, including the NUT, have expressed concern about the
balance between the various different Diplomas. I think the NUT
for example in their evidence to us said, and this in terms of
volume, not necessarily in terms of the level: "The Creative
and Media Diploma, for example, seems to be very heavy in content
compared to the IT Diploma." I am obviously not asking you
to comment on which Diploma is heavier in volume. I am interested
to know—maybe John Rogers wants to say something about this
as well—what co-ordination and discussion there has been
between the various sectors in terms of developing the Diploma
to make sure that there is a reasonable degree of comparability
in terms of volume and density, or however you want to call it,
which is one of the issues to which the NUT is drawing attention.
Ms Price: My answer to that is
yes, there has been coordination across the first five and there
should be now consistency across all five in terms of weighting
because we have the policy framework to work against in terms
of weighting and hours et cetera. It is probably a misperception
if it is seen that there is greater volume in one than others
but nonetheless what I would argue for is that we must not let
the drive for consistency across all of these 14 Diplomas deny
the inevitable sectoral differences and flexibilities. My employers
are very clear in terms of what they are looking for from the
Diploma. It will be different for other sectors. If we do not
take on board that requirement employers will disengage and, if
they disengage, the young people will not be well served.
Q36 Mr Marsden: It is a balance between
coordination and making sure you do not end up with the lowest
common denominator. Is that your perception?
Mr Rogers: To a certain extent,
you probably have to look at where various people are in terms
of the actual information that they are commenting on. There has
been a lot of work between the Diploma partnerships across the
different sectors in terms of looking across and probably I would
point the question more towards Ken in many ways in that the responsibility
of the Qualification Curriculum Authority is to make sure that
this, as a national qualification, has broad equivalences across.
I think that work has been done and we have done a lot of work
with the QCA and colleges on that.
Q37 Mr Marsden: You will have seen
from the thrust of my questions earlier on the concern that I
am trying to articulate. There might be seen to be too many elements
of this. Looking at it from the outside, a number of us have joked
many times about having a diagram to explain the various qualifications
and links in the skills sector. Is there a perception out there
that this is a process that has had too many cooks spoiling the
broth?
Dr Boston: The Diplomas?
Q38 Mr Marsden: Yes.
Dr Boston: It is key to this new
qualification that it does draw on a number of different partners.
Unlike, for example, the area of National Curriculum tests or
the general qualifications, the QCA has absolutely no curriculum
role in relation to this. It rests with the sector skills councils,
with business, and the expression of it is through the DDP. Our
curriculum role is restricted to working with the SSCs in relation
to the core skills, not in relation to the principal and specialist
learning, which is the bulk of this work. Inevitably through that
there have been other partners coming in which in other qualifications
there would not be. When you go across 14 sectors you have 14
sector skills councils, each of which is an agglomeration of different
businesses and employers so it is very complex. Our task has been
to ensure consistency. We are responsible for if you like the
template into which the qualification fits. We have to make sure
that the balance between the core skills, the principal learning
and the specialist and additional learning is the same, that the
level of demand being made across the qualifications is the same
so that level 3 means a level 3 across all of them and a level
2 means a level 2 across all of them. That consistency has been
a constant goal. There is also—and this is the richness
of the qualification—the bespoke nature of the principal
learning and that is reflected in the different ways in which
the criteria have been put together.
Q39 Mr Marsden: Do you think because
it involves all the various elements you have talked about, the
bespoke elements and the various different contributors, the employers'
priorities will change and develop sometimes very rapidly? Does
that mean that we are looking at Diplomas that are going to need
more rapid revision than traditional qualifications?
Dr Boston: I think that is absolutely
true. They will need revision and development. They will need
to remain responsive to the needs of industry. It is clear that
we will need to have something like the Diploma Development Partnerships,
whatever they might be called, as ongoing monitoring. One of the
beauties of this qualification being modular is that you can update
different modules without having to recast the whole qualification.
| 
