Memorandum submitted by Edexcel
INTRODUCTION
This response is in 4 parts:
Part 1 describes who we are and what we do and
as such sets the context for our response.
Part 2 provides an Executive Summary.
Part 3 sets out some of our general observations
on skills issues currently. These arise partly from our long experience
in this field and partly from the prompts in the questions provided.
Part 4 provides brief responses to those specific
questions posed by the Committee for which we have most direct
experience.
PART 1: WHO
WE ARE
AND WHAT
WE DO
1.1 Edexcel is one of the largest awarding
bodies in the UK and a Pearson company. It offers a wide range
of academic and vocational qualifications, testing and assessment
services and associated products and support aimed at helping
teachers to teach and students of all ages to learn and get on
in their lives.
1.2 Qualifications offered by Edexcel include
GCSEs and A levels, Key and Basic Skills, NVQs, professional qualifications
and the BTEC qualification suite. In the UK, Edexcel qualifications
are taken by over 4200 secondary schools, 450 colleges, 80 Higher
Education (HE) institutions, 800 public and private sector employers
and a number of e-learning providers. Internationally, Edexcel
operates in over 100 countries.
1.3 A major part of the Edexcel offer, and
particularly pertinent to this Inquiry, is the BTEC suite of qualifications.
Over the last year alone, the number of learners registering on
BTEC programmes has risen enormously; on BTEC Level 1 qualifications
by 140%, on BTEC Level 2 qualifications by almost 100%, on BTEC
Level 3 by over 20% and on specialist and short courses by almost
40%. Growth in schools has been particularly noteworthy and is
a direct consequence of the inclusion of a work-related learning
component at Key Stage 4.
1.4 An equally significant factor affecting
takeup, according to many schools and colleges, has been the enduring
popularity of BTECs and the widespread recognition of BTEC qualifications
by HE and employers alike.
1.5 BTECs provide a framework that allows
learners to progress from Entry level through to Higher National
(HND/HNC.) Customised, specialised and short courses allow learners
and employers to tailor programmes to needs where necessary.
1.6 BTECs relate to employer generated National
Occupational Standards, are recognised by over 80 professional
bodies and, where appropriate, attract both Achievement and Attainment
Table points and UCAS points. They reflect a form of learning
which may be defined as vocational learning, ie project and research
based, cognitive and applied, learner centred and, importantly,
the embedding of employability skills.
1.7 Since their inception in the 1970s,
the BTEC suite of qualifications have gained a level of national
recognition normally only associated with long standing national
brand qualifications.
PART 2: EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2.1 The development and stature of vocational
learning is being hindered by an elusive search for parity of
esteem. Vocational learning should be valued for what it is, not
for what it might equate to in other forms of learning.
2.2 The BTEC suite of qualifications is
offered as an example of vocational learning which has achieved
high status as a stand alone alternative to subject-based, academic
learning.
2.3 The regulation of qualifications in
a demand led system needs to be seen on a spectrum, or "sliding
scale". If public funds are to be used to support a particular
qualification, then clearly the purpose and regulation of that
qualification needs to be thorough and transparent. However, if
an employer or an individual is prepared to contribute to meet
their needs then the nature of the prescription and regulation
for such a qualification should lessen accordingly.
2.4 Employer engagement, in the sense of
employers working with schools, colleges and training providers,
is best achieved at a local level where mutual needs are clearest
than through a series of centrally driven initiatives. If the
proposed Regional Employment and Skills Boards are empowered to
set locally funded targets, then they represent the best chance
of securing enduring employer engagement.
2.5 Reform of the qualification framework
is concentrated too heavily on some of the headline perceptions
such as the need for qualification rationalisation.
2.6 Government papers do not adequately
recognise the important role that proprietary and own brand qualifications
play in contributing to raising skill levels.
2.7 The learning and skills infrastructure
continues to be subject to considerable review and analysis over
the last year and we would favour a period of adjustment and proven
performance, backed up by detailed performance data.
PART 3: OBSERVATIONS
ON SKILLS
ISSUES
3.1 Vocational learning and the parity of
esteem argument
3.1.1 One of the major problems for the
English skills system is the continuing low regard with which
vocational learning is held; in our view this is the single most
significant barrier to improving skill levels in this country.
Debate continues about how far different labelling for qualifications,
such as applied or vocational might secure long term parity of
esteem. Our view is that there is limited mileage in the parity
of esteem argument—it runs the risk of watering down, rather
than highlighting the special value of vocational learning. We
offer the success of our own suite of BTEC qualifications as evidence
in support of this.
3.2 The demand led system
3.2.1 In our view a demand-led system is
one in which the needs of the state, the stakeholder, who we take
to include employers and universities, and the individual are
openly expressed and equitably met within agreed constraints.
This has been a policy aspiration for adult learning for some
time and is a central thrust in the Leitch Review. While we support
the Leitch model, our view is that the wider architecture needed
for such a system is not fully in place. For example, it is not
clear how individual demand might be expressed, nor what redress
is available if individual empowerment is not satisfied.
3.2.2 Secondly, there appears to be limited
protection for the vulnerable or disadvantaged, with the Leitch
model favouring the vocal and articulate. Third, the balance is
tipped towards the employer rather than individual employability;
fourth, the demand has already been prescribed in the form of
the Leitch "ambitions" and fifth, the market place is
still hugely uneven with regional, institutional and capability
differences which the Leitch overlay could exacerbate rather than
neutralise.
3.2.3 We believe that this is something
the Commission for Employment and Skills should be asked to address.
3.2.4 For the purposes of this inquiry,
we would suggest that the Committee considers the issue of a demand
led system from the viewpoints of: government, employers, individuals.
3.2.5 If government uses public funds to
accredit and support a particular qualification that is required
to meet a national need or perhaps to protect and support a particular
qualification, then it is reasonable to expect that the content
and the accreditation should be fully regulated. At the other
end of the spectrum, if a qualification is designed to meet particular
learners' or employers' needs and they are expected to pay for
this then the level of prescription and regulation should be considerably
reduced; for example checking only that the qualification doesn't
duplicate existing provision and that it provides clear and measurable
outcomes. Our view is that there should be a continuum with national
priorities supported by national funding and nationally defined
accreditation at one end and bespoke provision with individually
defined priorities supported by individual funding and limited
accreditation at the other. In between sit the various shades
of provision and thus of prescription and funding but within a
recognised continuum.
3.2.6 In our submission, we have referred
to the need for a more flexible system of regulation for accredited
provision—ie the levelling and sizing of assessed learning
programmes. We have developed models of how such systems might
work and would be pleased to provide these to the Committee on
request.
3.3 Employer engagement
3.3.1 The Government has, quite properly
in our view, sought to grant employers a much more prominent role
in the education and training system.
3.3.2 In pursuit of this objective, we
have seen a range of initiatives, targets and funding incentives.
Our view is that employer engagement is best developed not through
central targets, but at a local level and over time.
3.3.3 Regional Employment and Skills Boards
are the latest mechanism for bringing employer and provider interests
together, "a more strategic approach to employer engagement,
skills and employment" as detailed in the Local Government
White Paper. We are concerned that this could result in a further
layer of bureaucracy, but are supportive of this approach with
three caveats. Firstly that such Boards are encouraged to "mop
up" other agency activity so that there is a single local
point of reference. Secondly that they are empowered to set local
targets rather than having to adopt blanket national ones and
thirdly that they are granted funds, perhaps released from other
agency activity, so as to be able to power local activity.
3.4 The qualification framework
3.4.1 A commonly held perception amongst
employers is that the qualification system is cumbersome and that
there are too many qualifications. Yet surveys, such as the Learning
and Skills Council (LSC) Satisfaction Survey found learners broadly
happy with their qualification offer and employers, far from confused,
actually pleased with the range of qualifications on offer.
3.4.2. Our view is that too often it is
the qualification that is singled out for further reform, without
consideration of the impact of the system behind it, be it that
of planning, funding or quality. In our experience, qualifications
can take a long time to bed down and gain stature, and continual
upheaval often serves to slow that process. Secondly, we remain
concerned that Government papers tend not to recognise proprietary
qualifications in their assessment of the skills framework, despite
their proven contribution to raising skills. Over the last 20
years, 2.6m learners have gained a BTEC qualification and we estimate
that there are similar numbers from other proprietary qualifications.
3.4.3 Finally, we would argue that one
of the most significant problems in the adult vocational qualification
framework in recent years has been a squeezing out of locally
determined and designed provision—the sort of provision
in the past that was developed to meet the needs of local employers
who might be small, niche and very different from one part of
the country to another. Currently through BTEC qualifications,
Edexcel can offer a service to meet local needs which, with the
introduction of a credit system, could be credit rated as well.
3.5 Demand led funding
3.5 1 We welcome moves to simplify the
funding system and to put greater purchasing power into the hands
of users. There are, however, three points we would make in this
regard:
3.5.2 Firstly, to route all publicly funded
adult vocational skills in England through Train to Gain and Learning
Accounts by 2010 as Leitch proposes may be too sudden. We would
argue for a phased approach on the grounds that during the same
time many elements of a demand led funding system will be going
through their own periods of change, including Adult Learning
Inspectorate, SSCs, LSC.
3.5.3 Secondly, while considerable effort
and funds are being put in to support learners going on to higher
education, those who pursue their learning through colleges or
training providers receive less attention and support. A linked
system of guidance, information and financial support is being
put in place for higher education and a similar approach is needed
for non HE programmes.
3.5.4 Thirdly, we believe there is a case
for looking at incentives and tax breaks for employers who make
significant contributions to their local community and economy
through the provision of sponsorship, mentoring, work placements
and other forms of support.
PART 4: RESPONSES
TO SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS
4.1 Are the Government's priorities for skills
broadly correct—for example the focus on first "Level
2" qualifications?
4.1.2 While we applaud the focus to date
on the first Level 2 platform, we believe the emphasis should
now shift progressively towards the first Level 3. Many learners
are ready to jump to Level 3 and even if not, appear able to find
reasonable employment without a Level 2 and work up from there.
The difference in terms of productivity and wage returns becomes
more marked at Level 3 and, as the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development (OECD) has identified, this country has significant
weaknesses at the higher intermediate level and raising the numbers
here is likely to act as an incentive for raising attainment elsewhere
in the system.
4.2 How do other targets such as the "50%
into HE" fit with the wider skills agenda?
4.2.1 As a measure, the 50% figure is not
particularly helpful, and as the Education Secretary has indicated
might benefit from not being age related. As an instrument, however,
it has been useful in highlighting a higher level aspiration,
particularly one that other OECD countries have already achieved.
4.2.2 We support the thrust behind the
target and believe it can contribute to a higher skills economy.
Universities UK's recent report "Higher Level Learning"
and the Higher Education Funding Council for England's (HEFCE)
recent "Employer Engagement" Strategy are both good
examples of what the Chief Executive of HEFCE called "a new
political economy of higher education", one based on skills
and attributes needed by employers and one that we support. We
would welcome a widening of the interpretation of HE in this context
to include vocationally based HE offers to meet the broader learning
needs of employers and learners alike.
4.3 Do current funding structures support
a more responsive skills training system? How could they be improved?
4.3.1 We have already expressed the case
for phasing the migration towards a demand led funding system.
4.3.2 Two other points we would wish to
make in this area are firstly to register concern about what are
called "full- fat" qualifications, those qualifications
recognised as contributing to the level 2 threshold. As currently
defined, they limit both the type and forms of learning available
because they don't recognise a wide enough range of alternative
qualifications.
4.3.3 Secondly, if only SSC endorsed qualifications
are recognised for public funding, then this will limit the qualification
offer to 25 separately defined sector needs and tend to ignore
the needs of individuals, communities, employers outside a particular
sector and other forms of empowering learning.
4.4 Is there a case for a less regulated supply—side
system with fewer intermediary agencies and bodies? What are the
potential risks and benefits of such an approach?
4.4.1 Yes. The introduction of intermediary
agencies has had the unintended consequence of distancing providers
from their customers, making them less responsive to their direct
needs.
4.4.2 Equally, the various layers of intermediary
agencies have not connected particularly well, resulting in providers
too often working with 20 or more different agencies and not as
part of an integrated system.
4.5 Do we need to consider further structural
reform in terms of which institutions provide what kind of learning?
4.5.1 For the present, no. The Further Education
and Training system has been subject to considerable review and
analysis over the past year and proposals for reform are now in
legislative form—we would favour a period of adjustment
and proven performance—backed up by detailed performance
data.
4.5 Do employers feel closely involved with
the design of qualifications?
4.5.1 We have had much experience of working
with employers on the design of qualifications and this response
reflects that side of the relationship.
4.5.2 There has been very limited appreciation
of how closely many employers already work with qualification
developers. There is much good and established practice already
in the system which should be built on. Whilst few employers,
from our experience, have either the expertise or the desire to
draft qualifications in detail, they do expect to ensure that
the required outcomes and approaches to learning or assessment
are incorporated where necessary.
4.5.3 Many employers are put off from close
involvement by what they see as the bureaucracy involved. The
Qualification and Curriculum Authority's (QCA) light touch accreditation
and the QCF rationalisation programme may help in this regard
but we would welcome consideration as to whether all adult vocational
qualifications seeking accreditation require the same level of
regulation as other national school based qualifications.
4.6 Is the Qualifications and Credit Framework
(QCF) succeeding in bringing about a rationalised system? Is there
a case for further rationalisation?
4.6.1 The QCF is currently in a period of
testing and trialling until 2008 and thus measuring success at
this stage is premature. Equally the QCF has a number of different
aims of which rationalisation is just one strand and needs to
be seen within the context of a revised Framework.
4.6.2 We support the further rationalisation
of the processes and systems that accompany the accreditation
and delivery of adult vocational qualifications, to cut out unnecessary
complexity and bureaucracy. With regard to the rationalisation
of the range of qualifications, we would stress that the QCF should
not be viewed as an agent for this rationalisation of qualifications
and hence control of the market. Its primary and essential role
should be to ensure that qualifications and any associated credit
ratings are robustly quality assured and carry public confidence.
If rationalisation is to be the domain of the QCF, then potential
tensions in the system, for example, as to which qualification
is deemed more economically valuable than another, will hinder
the development of a flexible and responsive national qualification
system.
January 2007
| 
