Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
MONDAY 22 JANUARY 2007
DR ELAINE
MCMAHON,
MR GODFREY
GLYN, MR
PAUL HAFREN,
MS LORRAINE
MCCARTHY,
MR PETER
HAWTHORNE AND
MR JOHN
BANGS
Q100 Helen Jones: What do you mean
by "specialist"?
Mr Hafren: The unfortunate problem,
I guess, is that "academic" also has connotations of
being bright, does it not, and being non-academic has connotations
of not being bright. In fact, a BTEC National, an Edexcel National
Diploma, is entirely academic, in the sense that it has a lot
of theory but it has a blend of theory and practice, focused on
a particular job or a cluster of jobs. I am with you, on this,
Helen. I think, in some ways, we are compromising, dealing with
a compromise, and simplicity in the system I think would be highly
desirable.
Q101 Chairman: Let us keep Lorraine
on the same topic. You are Head of a comprehensive school, what
has changed for you in looking at this range of qualifications
and routes? Is that something you see as difficult; would you
prefer the simple life?
Ms McCarthy: I think it is all
down to the guidance that is offered to the students. I think
partly it is to do with how the Specialised Diploma is marketed,
and I think that is a little bit beyond us, as institutions. It
goes back to Godfrey's point about how the employers and the higher
education institutions will see the Specialised Diploma. I think
all those are crucial in how successful it will be in the future.
If we go back to the point about the guidance, it will mean quite
a lot of work in talking to students about how they see their
futures, the progress that they are making in certain areas and
helping them to make the right choices; that will be key.
Chairman: Jeff Ennis is going to lead
the questioning on the significance of Diplomas and the timescales
of Diplomas.
Q102 Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Chairman.
The first question follows on from the line of questioning we
have just been pursuing, in terms of the potential transition
that will need to take place from the existing vocational courses,
like BTEC, etc, to the full implementation of the Specialised
Diplomas. Are we envisaging that transition, say, up to 2013,
when we are supposed to be having the full implementation of Diplomas,
or can the transition take place in a shorter timeframe?
Mr Hawthorne: I think the timescales
are already ambitious and I think we should do this properly and
do it well. I think it is important that the Specialised Diplomas
are a success in 2008, 2009 and 2010 and therefore the entitlement
in 2013 is a realistic proposal. I believe that, for schools certainly,
probably many departments of FE, the move from traditional to
BTEC to Diplomas is a stage-by-stage development. We have got
to give time to bed in the collaborative cultures and things of
that nature, so my own view is that we should start small and
ensure they are successful and hit that timetable in 2013 and
congratulate ourselves if we have been successful at that point.
Q103 Jeff Ennis: Thank you, Peter.
Quite a few of the witnesses whom we interviewed last week referred
to the Diplomas as being probably the most important development
in education for quite some time. Do you concur with that, John?
Mr Bangs: Potentially, I do, but
I do not think they are at the moment and I think the Government
needs to say simply, and recognise the reality, that the Diplomas
are a small-scale pilot for 2008. For all the reasons that have
been given by other witnesses, they have got to work in the consortia
of schools and colleges which know and understand the nature,
the specifications and how they come out in practice. If the Government
wants to pursue its 50,000 target by 2008, there has got to be
a whole set of things put in place. There is an extraordinary
silence from our members, and it is confirmed by the LEACAN Report
findings, which says that schools really rather wish it would
go away, and if they put their heads under the blanket then probably
it will. I am afraid that view is brought about by the fact that
local authorities, and I am afraid the Government, have not done
much to put into place the operational procedures and opportunities
to enable schools to understand the implications of what is a
very, very important development. I have called for consistently,
and Steve Sinnott, our General Secretary, has, in the 2007-08
academic year, at least a one-day awareness, a professional development
day, for secondary schools, to give a further day of closure so
that at least local authorities, secondary school head teachers
and staff can get together to understand what the Diplomas are
about. We have heard nothing at all about that. Neither do I understand
that the capacity of most LAs, and obviously they are leading
LAs, has been evaluated to look at how the Diplomas might roll
out in the first, second and third tranche. I do not have any
impression that the majority of local authorities are aware of
how important it is, as you say, Jeff, this particular approach.
What I would like to see is a much more inclusive involvement
of schools, teachers and their representatives and local authorities
at local level to audit what the capacity of schools is, including
what the training needs are of staff, and to get a discussion
going about the nature of Diplomas themselves. It feels at the
moment rather a remote prospect, owned by a small number of people.
Q104 Chairman: John, you are introducing
a sort of "big bang" theory, whereas the Government,
I presume, is wanting to introduce it discreetly from a smaller
scale; is not that the difference between you?
Mr Bangs: I did not introduce
the "big bang" theory. I am afraid it is the Government
that has introduced the "big bang" theory. I am all
in favour of a bit of incremental development over a decent, ten-year
time-line and making sure things work before they move on to the
next one. I agree absolutely with Ken Boston, who said several
times that certainly he wants to see these things work. That is
the most important, top priority. We cannot have another Curriculum
2000. I would run away from the "big bang" theory. I
know my name comes up in this, Chairman.
Q105 Jeff Ennis: Following on from
the point you have just made, John, do you agree with the suggestion,
which some witnesses made last week, that the DfES should carry
out an urgent risk assessment of the implementation programme,
just to make sure that everybody is on side, as it were?
Mr Bangs: Absolutely; certainly
I do and I think it is very wise to put a red tag against the
development of the Diplomas. There are a number of things. We
have got close contact with the Sector Skills Council delivering
the Engineering Diploma, and Graham Lane, who is the Chair of
that, has maintained very close contact. I have to say, that is
not the case with the other development consortia. The DfES does
not talk to the NUT over operation and delivery and I regret that.
We have written to Jim Knight, we wrote to him at the end of November,
setting out our concerns, the initiative overload in 2008, never
mind the content of the Diplomas themselves; we have not had a
reply. What I would say to the Government is enter into discourse
not only with the NUT but with all those other organisations which
have a stake in the success of the Diplomas. The reason for that
obviously is that you want young people to own it, for parents
to be confident, for higher education to know that it is a quality
qualification, and get away from what I believe to be a bunker
approach to the development. You can have a quiet approach and
it is not very important, or you can have a big roll-out because
it is very important. It seems to me, there is a choice and we
are falling between two stools.
Q106 Jeff Ennis: Can I ask if any
of the other witnesses agree with that line, about having a risk
assessment carried out: I will ask Paul?
Mr Hafren: A practical way perhaps
of conducting that risk assessment would be to ask, I think it
is, the Government Offices, which will be doing the assessment
in the Gateway process, to make the criteria absolutely clear
as to what they are assessing against. By that measure, we will
know what the quality mark is, if you like, and what the standard
is and then you can see whether the proposals are meeting those
quality criteria or not. Clearly, if a lot of the proposals are
not meeting certain quoted criteria, there is your risk. I would
like to see, and perhaps you might wish to push on this, a greater
transparency about what the criteria are against which the proposals
in the Gateway process are being measured.
Q107 Jeff Ennis: We have all agreed
that this is a very important development for the future of the
education system in this country. What are the consequences, if
the Diplomas fail, on this occasion, to be delivered: Lorraine?
Bringing me back to where I used to teach, by the way, Mr Chairman,
at Aston Hall Junior School.
Ms McCarthy: A lack of confidence
in all government initiatives, if it fails. I think I would agree
that there needs to be a lot more training opportunities for the
deliverers, because at the moment the structure is loosely in
place but the training has not been put in place and I think that
is very important. If it fails then you have got both the parents
and the teaching force losing confidence in new initiatives.
Q108 Jeff Ennis: Even though we are
trying to establish, Lorraine, parity of esteem, for want of a
better expression, between an academic route and a vocational
one, a specialist vocational route, is it not even more important
to make sure that we have all the bases covered and we get this
particular initiative off the ground, because of the importance
of trying to establish that?
Ms McCarthy: Yes; we are trying
to ensure that all students, of all abilities, have access and
therefore we have got to make this work.
Mr Glyn: I think it has got to
work; it is fundamental to the future of the country, I accept
that totally. I think it would be a total disaster if we abandoned
this development because I think it has got something which has
been missing for an awfully long time. The problem with it, and
I alluded to it earlier, the reservations which I think a lot
of teachers have about this development, is that there is a long
list of vocational initiatives which have been allowed to wilt
and fail in the mainstream education system, and that cannot happen
again.
Q109 Mr Chaytor: Just on this point,
Chairman, I want to ask about evaluation, because the discussion
so far today and in our previous session has been about ensuring
the successful launch of the Diplomas, but whether they work or
not surely depends on an evaluation of the first cohort which
goes all the way through. Realistically, if 2008 is going to be
a very small pilot, in 2009 it might be a slightly bigger pilot,
there is not going to be a substantial first cohort possibly until
2014, but the national roll-out is due to start in 2013. Do you
think it is possible, is it realistic, to have a thorough evaluation
of the project without having a full cohort go all the way through
the Diploma from 14-19?
Mr Bangs: I think it is an important
question. The fact of the matter is that when Tomlinson was rejected,
as a single national Diploma, the ownership of the Diploma by
a very large constituency disappeared; it became a Specialised
Diploma, people felt then that they had to make it a success for
the sake of youngsters. In a sense, if you are going to drive
forward a reform then you need everyone pointing in the right
direction enthusiastically, and you had that with Tomlinson. You
do not have that with the Specialised Diplomas, apart from those
who have been involved integrally with the 14-19 Pathfinders,
local authorities and colleges, which I suspect are more up-to-date
with the developments than are schools. I think what the Government
has got to do is reassess the time-line for its introduction and
scale down the expectations of the Specialised Diplomas. I think
also it has got to inject some vision and hope into the notion
of a national Diploma with its review in 2008, and that has got
to be a substantive review. It has got to say, "Actually,
the 14 Diploma lines aren't the end of the story; we hope that
if these are successful we can move on to more curriculum areas
and" do what Helen Jones is saying "start getting rid
of this invidious academic/vocational divide." To answer
your question, you will evaluate the pilot, but you will not have
evaluated a massive programme. What might be a very good part
of the evaluation is to say "Where did we go wrong, in terms
of proposing such an ambitious programme which it's quite obvious
is not going to be delivered on that scale?" Hopefully, though,
the small-scale pilot will be delivered successfully.
Q110 Mr Wilson: I would like to probe
you on something a bit further, because we are talking about 50,000
students, I think, in 2008, which as I understand it will require—and
this is to you, John—5,000 teachers to be trained properly
to do it. Do you believe there is any chance at all of reaching
that number of teachers being trained to deliver that in the first
year of its operation; if not, how many do you think can be achieved
in that time period?
Mr Bangs: I was reading the transcript
of the evidence session last week and I think one of the witnesses
said that it was very challenging, which is always a metaphor
for "It hasn't got a cat in hell's chance." I do not
want to say "It hasn't got a cat in hell's chance,"
I do not want to be that pessimistic, but I do think that it would
not be good for those taking the Diplomas if there was a forced
roll-out to get to that target. I do not think it would be good
and I do not think it is going to happen. I may be wrong but I
do not think it is going to happen, and would not advise it anyway.
What I do think is that the enthusiastic colleges and consortia
who know what they are doing should be allowed to get on with
it and then evaluate that as a pilot. I would say also, in terms
of the evaluation, that needs to be as open as possible. I do
not think it should be one of those quiet, department, DfES-type
evaluations, which is internal. I think there has got to be an
independent evaluation. I missed a bit of your question, I think.
Q111 Mr Wilson: What sorts of numbers
do you think? You are saying what cannot be done; have you any
perception of what can be achieved?
Mr Bangs: I think that is a question
of counting the number of up and running consortia, and I am not
going to pick a figure out of the air, and that kind of counting
process needs to be done, but I suspect it is considerably lower
than 50,000.
Q112 Mr Wilson: A half; a quarter?
Mr Bangs: I am not going to make
a guess, Rob.
Dr McMahon: I think there is a
better chance of reaching any number, whatever it is, if there
is ring-fencing of funding to consortia, led by colleges, in some
cases, under the increasing flexibility, excellent consortia which
are doing school and college training for delivery of whatever,
but which already exist. That funding will disappear at the end
of this year, and a lot of the consortia effective at working
across, in some cases, city council boundaries, which is another
point which has to be looked at. I think if that could be revisited
and that could be ring-fenced and moved further into the consortia
which work and hit the Gateway but also are existing consortia
which are proving themselves to work collaboratively together
for the benefit of learners, then there would be a chance of not
throwing everything out but building on the good practice which
exists already in many areas in the country and taking it further
forward. It does mean revisiting the ring-fencing which has been
going on already, the funding which has been going on already
for those consortia. If it is all disbanded and we start again,
there is going to be real difficulty in achieving any of the targets
which have been set.
Q113 Paul Holmes: Godfrey, you said
we must not repeat the previous mistakes that we have made involving
various vocational initiatives. I seem to recall, when we introduced
intermediate and advanced GNVQ, it was supposed to be one of the
things that the Diploma was supposed to do, parallel esteem to
the academic route, and all the rest of it. How are Diplomas different
from GNVQs, or have GNVQs failed and Diplomas are another attempt?
Mr Glyn: I think they have got
to be a lot more exciting, they have got to be relevant and they
have got to make use of real, vocational work in their delivery,
and that is where the key lies. I was involved back in the golden
days of CPVE and other such qualifications as that; frankly, it
was fantastic for those of us who did it well, but it did not
succeed because people did not recognise it as being of equal
worth. If you take GNVQ, certainly we were very successful at
my college at introducing GNVQ, both at advanced and intermediate
levels, and that was within the context of a sixth form college.
What became noticeable was that it became more and more like GCSE
or more and more like A level because it was not deemed to be
rigorous enough by society outside, rather similar to the introduction,
you mentioned Curriculum 2000, and the total disaster; frankly,
in many colleges and schools it has been a great success, but
there are certain things which have gone radically wrong. I would
introduce the idea of Key Skills. When we introduced Key Skills
in Curriculum 2000, we introduced it totally integrated into what
the students were doing. I know that because my daughter was in
the first cohort to go through.
Q114 Chairman: I think Jeff Ennis
might have called it a disaster. I did not.
Mr Glyn: Often people say it was,
and I get quite cross about that. However, Key Skills was introduced,
it was integrated, and students were picking up the skills that
we believed employers wanted in higher education. For us, the
death knell came when the first year cohort of students went off
to higher education and asked admissions tutors what they thought
of Key Skills, and almost to a man, or a woman, they turned round
and told our students they did not take any notice of Key Skills,
so the students came back and said, "Well, why should we
be doing them?" It is the outside perspective of what students
do that is so vital. I go back to what I said earlier on. If higher
education rates these qualifications then the students will do
them. A student said to me once, "I want to be a doctor;
shall I do GNVQ Health and Social Care?" I am sure that the
course would have been fantastic for her, but, frankly, no medical
college would have looked at her with that qualification. That
trickles its way right the way down through the education system,
to students who have no aspirations to go to university. Their
curriculum is being determined by that kind of attitude and we
have got to produce a qualification which overcomes that, so it
has got to be absolutely fantastic.
Q115 Paul Holmes: If one of the problems
with GNVQ was that it became too academic to overcome some of
these attitudes, how do we deal with Diplomas then, because, when
Ken Boston, last week, was saying that there have got to be more
general training and thinking skills, they are not actually a
vocational course but how do we square the circle between the
two?
Mr Glyn: They have got to have
vocational relevance and I think they have got to be, at least
in terms of their delivery, delivered by staff who have good,
up-to-date vocational experience. That may not be first-hand,
from actually doing the job, but it has got to be relevant to
the real world and it has got to be relevant to the students who
are going to study it. I heard Ken Boston say "We teach GCSE
history to lots of students who don't necessarily go on to become
historians." I think the whole of the 14 lines of a Diploma
could be seen in that light, but it is a big job to persuade the
country as a whole that is how they should be seen.
Mr Hafren: Just to make a comment
about the resilience of A levels and National Diplomas and First
Diplomas, they seem to be the collective rock upon which the sea
of CPVE, TVEI, GNVQs, AVCEs, and so on, wash against, and what
we are left with is some enduring qualifications. The BTEC National
Diploma route into higher education is a well-trodden path. I
think we need to reflect on that and understand what it is that
is really good about the current arrangement, particularly around
the National Diploma, First Diploma, and take from that the best,
so that we do not throw out the baby with the bath water.
Q116 Paul Holmes: Elaine, most of
the witnesses last week have been rather worried starting the
full-blown thing in September next year and said at most it should
be a small-scale pilot. You seem to be a bit more positive in
what you have said about "Oh yes, we can start next year."
Why is that?
Dr McMahon: Only because my staff
believe they can and the consortium of which we are a part believe
that they want to get on and get underway with this because they
feel positive about it. I think they have got concerns but I do
not think they are concerns that they feel they cannot overcome.
Just to echo what Paul has just said, I believe that they feel,
if the base can be the BTEC National, BTEC First, and it is developed
from that, rather than throwing everything out, there is a real
chance of building on what is already good. You talked about what
is going to make this work; well, we knew what we struggled with
in the GNVQs, we have learned that lesson, and one of the elements
which have to be there, we know, is good, practical experience.
For example, Construction and the Built Environment, next year,
if that were to be just purely theoretical, purely the theoretical
and mathematical building of a bridge, without ever laying a brick,
you would lose the students. I think the staff have gone through
a lot of change in the last decade, they understand the curriculum
a lot better than managers like myself, and that is where I feel
positive, it has come from the grass-roots.
Q117 Chairman: Does Lorraine feel
as positive?
Ms McCarthy: I still maintain
that there needs to be a lot of training put in place for those
people who are delivering it, and it is not just the schools and
the colleges, it is also the training providers that we are bringing
on board as well. They need to understand exactly what the Specialised
Diplomas are all about and that training is not there yet.
Chairman: We will be coming back to that
in "workforce development". Gordon is going to open
the questioning on development of Diplomas.
Q118 Mr Marsden: I want to ask about
people's views of the aims of the Diplomas; if I can ask Paul
and Lorraine on this one. We have heard some discussion obviously
about the involvement of employers and the involvement of the
FE sector. Can I ask you both what your view is of the current
employers, local employers with whom you have links, of these
Diplomas and what their view is; are they enthusiastic for them,
how do they see them?
Mr Hafren: I think a number of
employers in our patch still refer to O levels, so their ability
to keep up with educational change, I think, is that understandably
it is not their priority. I think the key for us is really an
engagement with the Sector Skills Councils, firstly, that there
is an endorsement, if you like, at the sector level. Then what
we have established, in Warrington, is what we call Sector Skills
Networks, where the practitioners plus employers are invited to
look at the development issues and then jointly try to move that
forward. It is difficult though, at the moment, to get sufficient
employers engaged in that process.
Q119 Mr Marsden: I am sorry to interrupt
but we have come across this in other areas as well, in this inquiry.
People say to us "It's all very well talking to the Sector
Skills Councils but it's not the Sector Skills Councils, at the
end of the day, where you're going to do the detailed, on-the-ground
deals that are going to put together a college and its students
with the employers." Are you telling me that the actual engagement
of the employers with whom currently—currently—you
have agreements with this programme is very poor?
Mr Hafren: As a college, we have
some fantastic employer engagement examples. We do air cabin crew
training and we provide a steady stream of workers for Servisair,
who service Manchester Airport. What we would be anxious about
is really that kind of good practice being undermined by introducing
a new qualification which the employer might not fully understand,
that it has some reservations about; that is our anxiety really.
|
