Examination of Witnesses (Questions 240
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 31 JANUARY 2007
RT HON
JIM KNIGHT
MP AND MR
JON COLES
Q240 Mr Marsden: What I would like
to ask Jon Coles, because you are leading this programme, are
you not, Jon?
Mr Coles: Yes.
Mr Marsden: Let us imagine that I am
a generalist journalist and I come for an interview with you about
this and I ask you for a one-sentence description of what these
Diplomas are intended to do, what would you say?
Q241 Chairman: It is a pleasure to
have a full trained teacher working in the Department at high
level; it is a very refreshing change.
Mr Coles: Thank you. If you were
a journalist I would refer you to our Press Office of course,
but leaving that aside for the moment—
Q242 Mr Marsden: I hope they would
be well briefed. What would you tell your Press Officer to tell
us?
Mr Coles: Could I do this by way
of an example? I think nowadays it is easy to go to schools and
see young people in Key Stage 4, who are doing things which are
clearly vocational training and they are spending perhaps half
of their timetable doing something which is quite narrowly focused
on, say, motor vehicles as a subject area. I would say two things
about that. The first is that for 14-16-year-olds to spend half
or two-thirds of their timetable on that is too narrow. Secondly,
what we see from young people who are doing that is that they
are often much more motivated and much more focused on learning,
and that is to do with the style of learning and the style of
teaching; it is to do with place and where they are learning and
the reality of what they are experiencing; and it is to do with
subject matter as well—they are looking at something and
doing something that they are interested in, engaged by and motivated
by. So the point of the Diploma is to capture that motivation,
that engagement which comes from style of teaching and learning,
subject matter, place, environment, real subject experience, but
to produce something which is broader, which develops people's
cognitive skills and is not just training for a specific occupation.
So that is the key purpose.
Mr Marsden: I would accept that as a
description. I am not going to pursue this point ad nauseam
but there is a very specific reason why I do press it and that
is that we have heard, for example, considerable concerns that
unless this Diploma is accepted in the HE area, and if it is not
accepted by significant employers, all your good work in terms
of getting these programmes through the Gateway and all the rest
of it will be set at nought. What is the Department going to do
to communicate that clear message—and I am sorry, Jon, but
one of these days you will be cornered by a journalist and you
will not be able to refer him to your Press Office. Minister?
Chairman: Through the Chairman, please.
Q243 Mr Marsden: Sorry, Chairman.
Jim Knight: That is, in many ways,
why we have engaged the champions—that is precisely why.
We understand that it is quite difficult for us to accurately
get out our message through the media, and even when we manage
to speak directly to employers or direct to university Vice-Chancellors,
as politicians we are not as credible as people listening to their
own. So Alan Jones, Chairman of Toyota, heading up the engagement
with employers, Mike Tomlinson with schools and colleges and work-based,
learning providers, and then two Vice-Chancellors, Deian Hopkin
and Michael Arthur, are credible voices who will work closely
with us, will understand the programme and how it is developing
and will perhaps do a better job than we are able to do for you
now in succinctly and pithily putting the benefits to their sectors.
Q244 Mr Marsden: I understand that
and they are all, as you say, good and worthy people. But, again,
what are you going to do—and I am not suggesting that they
are all going to go off on one—to make sure that the message
that they give is a coherent and consistent one? Are you sitting
down or is someone in your Department sitting down with them on
a month-by-month basis and saying, "Do we all agree what
the message is? Do we agree what the challenge is?"
Jim Knight: Yes, and one of the
new features that we have introduced in the last six months has
been the Chief Executives' Group, which brings together the chief
executives of the various bodies upon which we are dependent for
the successful delivery of the Diplomas, and the first meeting
that we had—and these meetings are chaired by myself and
Phil Hope—identified from all of those chief executives
the need to get this communication script right and alongside
sharing each other's risk management. At our meeting in February—so
some time in the next few weeks—we will be pinning those
down and agreeing amongst all of us what the communication lines
are and to share our risk profiles as well has having a discussion
on the Gateway. That is the agenda for the next meeting. Obviously
the champions will inform that discussion on communications and
be able to away what we agree and run with it.
Q245 Mr Marsden: Through you, Chairman,
I just want to ask a bit about how that process of these Diplomas
is going to mesh in with existing or previous qualifications,
because you have a big job to do out there.
Jim Knight: Yes.
Q246 Mr Marsden: One of the issues
with A levels, particularly with employers, is that they may not
necessarily have known what they were designed to do but they
have been there for a while and that was one of the reasons why
they accepted them. The Principal of Hull College said to the
Committee that she thought it would be preferable for existing
qualifications, like BTECs, to be retained in the medium term
while the Diplomas became embedded. Do you have a view on that?
Jim Knight: We do not have the
powers to turn off BTECs. If the awarding bodies want to carry
on offering them and institutions want to carry on offering them
and learners want to take them then they can do that, but obviously
our ultimate aspiration is to have Diplomas.
Q247 Mr Marsden: So what is the phasing
out period that you envisage? I accept that you cannot wave a
magic wand but what is the phasing out period?
Jim Knight: I do not know. Have
we put a timetable to it?
Mr Coles: It is certainly the
case that we would not start phasing anything out until 2013 and
the national entitlement, and I think one of your earlier witnesses
who you referred to was saying that you would need a period of
parallel running beyond that, and I think that is right; that
you would need to do that and to be phased out over that period.
Jim Knight: One of the other reasons
for doing the Diplomas is because there has been quite a lot of
confusion amongst employers about the various range in vocational
qualifications and that one of the strengths of the approach of
putting the Sector Skills Councils in the driving seat of the
initial development of the qualifications is that they have been
carrying out extensive consultation with employers about the content
of the Diplomas—of the initial five we have 1,000 employers
for each Diploma being consulted, 5,000 employers in total.
Q248 Mr Marsden: A very quick question,
through you, Chair. On that specific point—and I am familiar
with the work that the Sector Skills Council has been doing, but
we have heard views expressed from members of the Sector Skills
Council to this Committee that there are concerning imbalances
in terms of content between the first five Diplomas and that there
may not be an easy mechanism at the moment as to how to resolve
those imbalances between the various groups. It comes back a little
to the earlier point about communication to ensure consistency
in terms of the content of those first five tranche Diplomas.
Jim Knight: We had a period in
late summer, early autumn of last year, where on those first five
there was a negotiation that, at times, had quite a degree of
friction between the Diploma Development Partnerships and QCA.
QCA has a role to ensure that there is consistency and that the
bar is set in the same place across all of the Diplomas so that
employers understand roughly what a level 1, level 2, level 3
Diploma is worth in terms of the learners.
Q249 Mr Marsden: You have three sections
to each one, of course, that is the point.
Jim Knight: Yes, that is right.
So it is quite complicated and, inevitably, when you get something
that is led by the five sectors in terms of the content they would
balance what is in the principal learning tier with what is more
specialist and what is in the work related sections of the three
out of the four slightly differently, and then QCA have that job
to create that consistency, and that is an ongoing challenge for
them as a regulator.
Mr Coles: Could I add very quickly
that I would have confidence that the line criteria, the regulatory
criteria that QCA has published, does give consistency between
the lines? There was an extensive piece of work done between June
and November to make sure that that was the case. I have confidence
that that is the case now across the five lines, so I would not
be sitting here saying that there is another piece of work to
be done on these five to make sure that that is the case.
Jim Knight: And having done it
for the first five it is much easier for the remaining nine because
we have an agreement.
Chairman: Paul, in many of these things,
is our secret weapon with his long experience of teaching, and
he has been very patient. Paul Holmes.
Q250 Paul Holmes: I was interested
in trying to define one sentence for a journalist, and equally
thinking back to my experience as a teacher and head of sixth
form, in one sentence how would you describe to a college lecturer,
a teacher, a parent, a student what exactly is the difference,
the advantage that a Diploma has over GNVQs or BTECs?
Jim Knight: The advantage they
have is a new engaging form of teaching and learning that not
only offers practical work-related skills but the motivation for
academic strength.
Q251 Paul Holmes: If the student
or the parent said, "But there are three different things
on offer, how do I know which one to pick; why are you running
three together?"
Jim Knight: You mean three different
Diplomas?
Q252 Paul Holmes: The GNVQ, BTEC,
Diplomas?
Jim Knight: Again, you would say
that those more traditional vocational qualifications are what
I have just described them as—traditional vocational qualifications.
The Diplomas are something new because of the strength of their
academic content, and if you want to progress with strong level
2 qualifications, strong level 3 qualifications and a good balance
of academic and skill base learning then the Diplomas are uniquely
the right choice for you.
Q253 Paul Holmes: But you would envisage
that by 2013 or whenever the Diplomas are going to replace all
the other alternatives?
Jim Knight: I guess I would say
to you that I think over time the others would wither on the vine,
as the Diplomas win the argument really.
Mr Coles: I think one of the other
things that we need to secure over the period between now and
2013 is that as those qualifications change, which they do on
a much more regular basis than GCSEs and A levels, for example,
that they evolve in the direction of Diplomas, so that in due
course the best of what is on offer comes within the Diploma framework,
so that we are also not losing very specific things from the qualifications.
Q254 Paul Holmes: The Minister said
earlier on that it would be too easy to lose sight of the genuine
excitement of people involved about what Diplomas offer, but certainly
listening to the witnesses we have had so far, all of whom are
people who are generally excited about Diplomas and want to be
in the first wave of delivering them, they are also very, very
concerned about lack of clarity, lack of information, lack of
involvement, and a number of people have talked about the comparison
to Curriculum 2000, which, when it was first introduced, was a
bit of a disaster, where the people delivering it in schools did
not know until very late on how it was going to be assessed, and
so on. You have read what the witnesses have said to us so far;
do you think that they have been alarmist?
Mr Coles: I think there are really
important differences with Curriculum 2000 because in that case
there were changes to pre-existing qualifications with which people
were familiar; there were changes that were going to be universally
applied from day one in every school to every learner who had
taken those qualifications, and there was not a quality Gateway
process to be gone through. We are confident in the Department
that we have learnt the lessons from that, from the mistakes that
were made, and QCA equally have done so, and so that we are not
introducing these on a universal basis there is a really strong
quality threshold that people have to go through to ensure that
from day one these qualifications work.
Q255 Paul Holmes: The teachers and
lecturers, for example, who gave evidence to us on 22 January,
which is Monday of last week, were all from colleges and consortia
that wanted to be in the first wave but they were saying that
they did not feel they had the chance to be involved so far properly
at all in developing these Diplomas.
Jim Knight: Obviously that is
unfortunate. We think we have been involving them; we have schools
and colleges on Diploma Development Partnerships; we have a stakeholder
group that includes college principals; we take the issue of the
development of the Diplomas on a regular basis to the workforce
agreement monitoring group, so that all of our various social
partners are involved in that. I am obviously aware that in the
communications we are in a slightly awkward place at the moment
where the workforce does not yet have the detailed specifications
of the Diplomas and that until they have those they are frustrated
because they want to have a better understanding of exactly what
they will be teaching. It is inevitable that we will go through
that process and in our communication programme and through this
year we will try to overcome that and give a little more comfort
and certainty to the workforce.
Chairman: We will be moving to workforce
development in a minute, so if we do not go into that too much
now. I think what Paul is pushing on is that John Bangs had felt
particularly unloved and un-embraced by the Department and thought
that unions generally had not been included in what was going
to be a workable curriculum for this new qualification. Is that
right, Paul?
Q256 Paul Holmes: That was one of
the witnesses, but the ones from the colleges and the schools
who were bidding to be involved had much the same concerns. Equally,
with the employers' side, the Sector Skills Councils gave evidence
and they were concerned about some of the pasting over but they
thought that there was a good involvement from employers, but
we have had evidence submitted from individual employers saying
that they think there is a problem. For example, Mark Snee of
Technoprint PLC in Leeds is an employer member of the Manufacturing
Diploma Development Partnership steering group, so he has been
in from day one. He has written in to give evidence saying he
thinks that you certainly cannot say that these are employer-led;
that the Sector Skills Councils cannot be regarded as a proxy
for employers.[2]
Tight timescales mean that employer consultation and discussion
has been inadequate, the project is dominated by people with a
training provider background, HE, FE, et cetera, and that
proper employer engagement and debate are only likely to take
place if the timescales for developing the Diploma are relaxed.
His Diploma is not due to come in until 2009 but a lot of the
other witnesses have said that even the 2008 date might need to
be relaxed if you are going to do this properly instead of going
off at half cock like Curriculum 2000 did.
Jim Knight: I certainly do not
think we are going off half cock and I am certainly very confident
about September 2008, particularly as we are looking at the results
of the Gateway. There is a degree of inevitability that there
will be some tensions between the Sector Skills Councils, and
Lord Leitch in his report clearly signalled the importance of
Sector Skills Councils representing employers in respect of skills
development, so I think they are the right body to be using. But
there will be some tensions between those who have their clear
vision of what they want as an output and those with the experience
of designing qualifications and teaching qualifications who will
provide the educational input. Sometimes there will be some disagreement
and we and QCA, our regulator, have a job to negotiate that and
to make sure we have something that in the end is credible between
the two, and there have been times when there have been tensions
because of that difference, but I think we getting more aligned
now. Jon, do you want to add to that?
Mr Coles: Just to say that particularly
in relation to schools and colleges, of course it is true that
we have not engaged every single one of the 3,200 secondary schools
or the 400 colleges in the development work, and that is not something
we have ever set out to do or thought was feasible at all. On
the communications point, we have taken a very clear decision
that it is not sensible for us to go out and market to young people
or parents or in very detailed ways to individual teachers the
benefits of Diplomas before we are clear who has got through the
Gateway. We need to go and do that when we are clear who is going
to be offering the Diplomas in year one, and actually get the
message across to those people who are offering Diplomas in year
one and the young people in those areas, rather than setting out
a false prospectus to young people that, "you can do this
in year one," when actually we know that it is going to be
a clear minority of young people who have that opportunity in
year one. So we judge that as really part of the communication,
not to oversell at this point, but to communicate very clearly
and in a very focused way once we are clear who is through the
Gateway. So that has always been in the plan.
Q257 Paul Holmes: As I say, most
of the witnesses we have had are people who are bidding to be
involved in the early stages, and they are saying that they do
not know exactly what the criteria are that they are going to
be judged on to see whether they get through the Gateway in the
first place, and if they do not even know that detail they certainly
do not know any of the detail of what comes next, and that is
rather alarming given that we are already half way through the
first development stage.
Mr Coles: I do feel that the guidance
that went out with the assessment for the Gateway, and what the
Minister has already described in terms of what they have had
to fill out in the form, does given them a very clear idea about
what are the criteria for getting through the Gateway. It is those
five areas; it is answers to the three questions under those five
areas; that is the basis of the assessment. So what they have
submitted is the basis of the criteria and there is nothing hidden;
there is no further secret assessment process about which we have
not told people, and if people were worried about that that is
really not the case.
Chairman: We should move on to workforce
development, and Stephen is going to lead us on that.
Q258 Stephen Williams: Thank you,
Chairman. This is quite a big innovation, is it not, in the educational
world? It will require some new skills for the teachers that will
have to deliver the programme and then assess it. The Department
has said that there should be an essential three days worth of
training, but is three days going to be enough to make sure that
this pilot or first tranche in 2008 is going to be a success?
Jim Knight: I think three days
is broadly enough in respect of that element of the teaching force,
and that is what the CPD, the TDA and LLUK are leading for us,
given that we are building on existing skills because we do have
the academic qualifications currently being taught, we do have
the vocational qualifications being taught and taught successfully.
So we have a workforce with the skills and, again, that is something
that we are measuring through the Gateway. The process of the
three-day CPD for the teaching workforce is to take those parts
and add value by bringing them together to fashion this new culture
of teaching and learning and, in some cases, to give some refresh
to what happens in the workplace, and one of the days would be
in a workplace setting. So a certain amount of updating of what
is practised at the moment. I am happy that we have it about right
in terms of the three days.
Mr Coles: I just want to add that
John Bangs described in his evidence to you or in his appearance
before you a model of professional development, which is to say
some input from external experts, the opportunity to go and observe
practice and the opportunity to have feedback on your own practice
and further external input, and that is precisely the model of
professional development which underpins what we are doing. So,
yes, there are three days' training, and we deliver two at the
start; there is a network of support from expert practitioners
who will come in and provide support in the classroom and they
will be able to be observed and they will observe practice and
have conversations about practice. There is a further day of professional
development at the end of that process and it is all supported
by a set of online materials upon which teachers can draw at a
time that is appropriate for them.
Jim Knight: In the TDA and LLUK
three day CPD offer there is the work that NCSL with CEL are doing
on leadership; there is the work that SSAT—
Q259 Chairman: Could you spell those
out for Gurney's!
Jim Knight: The National College
for School Leadership and CEL is the Centre for Excellence—it
is the pre-16, post-16 split. They are doing the leadership work.
SSAT, the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust and QIA, the
Quality Improvement Agency are doing the work on the resources
subject by subject, and then the Quality Improvement Agency again
and the National Strategies are doing the work for us on functional
skills. So it is important to understand that this is not just
about the three days, there is quite a lot more on offer for workforce
development than just that.
2 Ev 176 Back
| 
