14 to 19 Diplomas

Evidence of the Association of School and College Leaders to the Education and Skills Select Committee of the House of Commons

A Introduction

1 The Association of School and College Leaders represents 13,000 members of the leadership teams of colleges, maintained and independent schools throughout the UK. This places the association in a unique position to see the diplomas from the viewpoint of the leaders of both secondary schools and colleges.

2 ASCL welcomes the Education and Skills Committee's Inquiry. School and college leaders have long campaigned, through this association and other bodies, for a more coherent, unified system of 14 to 19 qualifications. We were strongly supportive of the recommendations in the Tomlinson report and, although we were disappointed that the government did not accept these recommendations in full, we support the introduction of the diplomas as a major step on the way to the 14 to 19 system that we believe to be necessary for England in the 21st century.

3 These diplomas offer the possibility of a curriculum at KS4 in particular that may be better suited to the needs and interests of a significant proportion of young people.

4 While supporting the introduction of the diplomas in principle and practice, ASCL is concerned about several aspects of the present situation and these concerns are outlined below.

B Structure

5 ASCL has viewed with concern the statutory entitlement, enshrined in the Education and Inspections Act 2006, for all young people to study one of 14 diplomas by 2013.

6 We believe that this will inevitably create an extremely complex structure, which will have two major problems.

7 First, with 14 diplomas at three different levels, it will be difficult for schools and colleges, even when supported by careers services, to explain to students and their parents the full implications of the choices that lie before them at the ages of 14 and 16. Yet, without a clear communications plan, it will be difficult to recruit to diplomas all the students who would benefit from them.

8 Second, the sheer size of the structure will almost inevitably lead to a massive amount of bureaucracy falling on school and college leaders.

9 It has to be remembered that the diplomas will in practice work quite differently in KS4 from post-16. At the later stage there is already a tradition of courses more similar to these, and students will very likely move to a new college or school to take the diploma of their choice. (Most young people already change institutions at age 16.) At KS4 the expectation is for students to stay at their current schools, spending part of the time taking a diploma, in many cases at another institution.

10 Because of the complexity of the proposed eventual structure, ASCL strongly supports the gradualist approach adopted by the government for the introduction of the diplomas. Although we recognise that many school and college leaders are hoping to introduce diplomas in their institutions in 2008, we believe that the system will be best served by a small-scale start in 2008, and a further small cohort starting diplomas in 2009. ASCL believes that these two initial cohorts should be treated as a two-year pilot - surely a minimum period for a trial of so large and important an initiative as this.

11 Although 2013 seems to be a distant date, the target for all young people to have access to all diplomas at all levels is a very demanding one that may not be possible. ASCL would urge that every effort is made to make sure that this large curricular change is made well rather than to what will prove a tight deadline.

12 The Welsh Baccalaureate and the Secretary of State's announcement in December of an encouragement of the International Baccalaureate are other developments which may compete for the attention of teachers and their leaders in schools and colleges. The Welsh Baccalaureate has proved successful in early trials, and some schools and colleges in England have already expressed an interest in it if permitted to offer it to their students. Alan Johnson's announcement about the International Baccalaureate included an expectation that its expansion might be largely in sixth form colleges, but the leaders of these colleges will in most cases also have to involve themselves in the partnerships required for the specialist diplomas.

C
Collaboration

13 ASCL is strongly supportive of partnership working between schools, and between schools and colleges. We see the 14 to 19 diplomas as giving a considerable boost to school/college partnerships; indeed, the government has already acknowledged that it will be impossible for single institutions to deliver diplomas.

14 ASCL hopes that the diplomas will help the school and college system to move from the culture of competition that has been evident for the last 20 years to a culture of collaboration, in which institutions work together to broaden opportunities and raise achievement of all young people in the area.

15 However, many of the policy drivers in the system still promote competition. The accountability structure, for example, relates to individual institutions. It hardly makes sense, where there is fully collaborative local provision, for each institution to be held separately to account publicly for the results of its own registered students, many of whom will have done some of their courses in other schools or colleges. If the imperative towards joint working in the 14 to 19 sector is to mean anything, joint performance indicators are a pre-requisite.

16 The demographic dip in pupil numbers in secondary schools, which coincides with the period of introduction of the diplomas, will - at least, in some parts of the country - lead to increased competition between schools. This could easily work against the efforts to collaborate on 14 to 19 provision.

17 It is possible that the new system will lead to 14 year olds transferring from one school to another not just for their diploma work, but outright. If that becomes significant it could again increase competition and undermine collaborative structures.

18 The difficulties of timetabling the diplomas simultaneously in several institutions should not be under-estimated. Joint timetabling always has to take precedence over all other curriculum priorities in the single institutions and this often leads to unacceptable compromises elsewhere in the timetable, particularly in the lesson arrangements for 11 to 14 year olds. If lesson patterns and timings are inappropriate, or specialist staff or facilities not available when needed, this could have a deleterious effect on standards in KS3 or elsewhere in the post-14 curriculum.

D Cost

19 The government must recognise that collaboration costs money. Diplomas are an expensive option and this must be reflected in the funding of schools and colleges. ASCL has been attempting to estimate the scale of the extra cost, and the relatively technical paper prepared by our funding expert is attached as an appendix.

20 The major cost of offering diplomas as a school/college partnership is the cost of transport for students studying some of the week at an institution other than their 'home' school or college. This is substantial in most urban settings. It will be prohibitive in many rural settings without additional funding.

21 Partnerships require management structures and this, too, requires additional funding, both for additional posts to lead the collaborative and for the governance of the joint work.

22 Joint timetabling between institutions also has additional costs if there are not to be major compromises for other students, as mentioned in the previous section.

23 There will be considerable costs associated with the professional development of the school and college workforce to enable the diplomas to be delivered successfully.

24 ASCL is concerned at the potential costs of the diploma assessment arrangements. Vocational course examination fees have always tended to be greater than those of traditional academic examinations. ASCL sees no need for this to be case with diplomas. External examination fees already take up far too big a proportion of school and college budgets and are often the second largest budget item after staffing.

E Credibility

25 Because the government made the decision not to include GCSEs and A-levels within the diploma structure, there is a grave danger that the diplomas will be seen as second-class qualifications and all the hopes of creating greater parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications, promoted by Sir Mike Tomlinson in his report, will have come to naught.

26 The credibility of the diplomas is therefore of great importance to their success and the government should continue to give consideration to how to address this question with employers and higher education. The recently announced champions will be good ambassadors in this respect, but much more will need to be done.

27 In particular, because A levels are not part of the diploma system, ministers will need to persuade the Russell Group universities and the major independent schools of the depth and rigour of the diplomas, so that bright students from both maintained and independent sectors see diplomas as a credible alternative path to a degree course at a prestigious institution. Without declarations from the Russell Group universities that they will accept diploma qualifications for entry to the most competitive courses, the major independent schools will not offer diploma courses to their students. Without the imprimatur of the Russell Group universities and the participation of the major independent schools, the task will be made immeasurably more difficult for state schools to persuade bright students to study for the diplomas.

28 As well as the new diplomas being demanding enough to allow bright students to demonstrate their capability they must also be accessible to a wide range of abilities. And if they are to provide a real alternative they must not simply emulate academic courses in pedagogy or assessment methodology.

29 The new diplomas will have to establish credibility in a very hostile context, which means that they cannot afford to have widespread significant failings, of organisation, delivery or assessment, in their early years. This again underlines the need for a small number of carefully chosen pilots in 2008 and 2009 to minimize the danger in those years and to allow for lessons to be learnt before a complete implementation in later years.

F Conclusion

30 ASCL welcomes the new diplomas. School and college leaders hope that they will succeed in breaking down the academic/vocational divide and hierarchy and in offering a genuine alternative to many young people not well served by our present qualification structure.

31 Several earlier initiatives have failed to do this. If the diplomas are to be such a success the significant concerns outlined above must be fully addressed and the new courses must be very carefully prepared by awarding bodies, by school and college leaders, and by teachers.

32 It is therefore imperative that there is a proper pilot phase, with a small number of carefully chosen consortia in 208 and 2009, and with sufficient time allowed for proper evaluation before the diplomas become generally available.

Martin Ward

Deputy General Secretary

Association of School and College Leaders

January 2007

APPENDIX

Diplomas 14-19: how can the funding system best support the proposed new curriculum?

1 Principles

1.1 The diplomas for 14-19 year olds are a new curriculum with the potential to improve the opportunities and educational experience of many 14-16 year olds and improve participation rates in education and training post 16. So the first questions are:

� What does the new curriculum involve?

� How does it differ from the existing curriculum?

� What elements are new, what stays the same and what can be adapted?

� How do we ensure that there is flexibility within the system so that students are not locked into one path chosen at 14?

1.2 One thing is already clear, schools and colleges will have to collaborate to ensure that the full entitlement to all possible diplomas at all levels is available for all students - this is what is meant by an entitlement curriculum. So the next questions are:

� How are we going to deliver this?

� What will be the changes to the existing structure?

� Who will manage the provision of entitlement in an area?

1.3 The funding system has to support the new curriculum. Currently 14-16 year olds are funded through local authority formulae and 16-19 year olds through a national LSC formula. We need coherence 14-19; the funding for an individual student 14-19 must not depend on the institution attended but on the cost of delivering their course. The questions for the funding system are:

� What is the cost of the new curriculum?

� What are the additional costs of collaboration?

� Are there additional costs within post 16 institutions in dealing with 14-16 year olds?

� What are the possible savings within the existing structure?

� How can the funding for the new curriculum be delivered across all local authorities (14-16) and the LSC funded elements (post 16)?

2 The new curriculum

2.1 All 14 -19 year olds will be able to choose to follow any one of 14 different vocational pathways, starting at three different levels based on their prior levels of attainment. It is relatively easy to plan (and cost) for students choosing to enter a vocational pathway at 16 because, although there are changes to the curriculum provision, there are not significant changes to the existing structures. Students will be able to choose different paths available at different institutions or providers or through existing or similar patterns of collaboration between institutions and providers.

2.2 The planning for students choosing a vocational pathway at 14 is more difficult. Presumably the cost of delivering the diploma will be the same whether a student is 14 or 16. However 14-16 year olds will also have to meet the requirements of the national curriculum core and RE. There are still unanswered questions about the curriculum structure.

� Will the diploma be a coherent package with some integration between the elements of core skills, vocational elements and work-based learning?

� How will this change the current provision in school of separate national curriculum core subjects, some option subjects, RE and personal, health and social education?

� Will there be integration between the levels of each diploma or common themes across the same level of different diplomas?

� How will students be able to move between diploma areas?

� How will the guidance programme in Key Stage 3 need to be changed to ensure that students make informed and appropriate choices?

� How will all this fit into the Key Stage 4 curriculum for students not choosing to take one of the diplomas?

Until we have some models answering all these questions, it is difficult to estimate the additional costs for 14-16 year olds.

2.3 At present funding for students 16-19 is greater than funding for 14-16 year olds to reflect the cost of smaller class sizes as a consequence of more choice and specialised teaching. The cost of delivering a diploma for 14-16 year olds will include all these inherent costs plus any additional curriculum (most full time 16-19 year olds are not taught for 25 hours a week, Key Stage 4 students are). If some 14-16 year olds are going to spend time at an FE college or other provider, there will be spare unused capacity in their home schools. Schools will not be able to fill this spare capacity because all 14-16 year olds have a place in the system. Whilst there may be some small savings in schools if fewer classes are being taught, there will be no savings in overheads such as site, occupancy and management costs.

3 Delivery

3.1 Collaborative arrangements will be needed to deliver the diplomas. What are the characteristics of these collaborations? They will need to:

� Ensure that students have access to all diplomas without unnecessary duplication of resources or uneconomic provision within an area.

� Be different in different circumstances - rural or urban, proximity of institutions, travel patterns.

� Not necessarily involve students travelling - teachers can travel and there could be small specialist facilities in some schools.

� Arrange work experience to suit both the learning needs of the students and the employers.

3.2 The present structure of buildings and resources will need to change.

� If local colleges and other providers have the capacity to provide for some 14-16 year olds then the changes may be minimal, involving changes to the working practices of schools and colleges.

� If there is no suitable arrangement of schools and colleges or the colleges do not have the capacity to meet the needs of 14-16 year olds then there may be the need for capital investment - including establishing small workshop facilities in rural areas (perhaps based on a school) and moving teachers rather than students.

� The main changes to existing structures will be in the working practices of staff.

3.3 There will need to be changes to the organisation and work of staff in schools and colleges. Collaboration between schools and colleges requires a formal organisation with a clear management structure to cover:

� Information and guidance for Key Stage 3 students to enable them to choose an appropriate path from the full entitlement.

� Organisation of the timetable of collaborative provision, including matching school and college term dates.

� Ensuring good curriculum links between different institutions so that the diplomas form a coherent curriculum.

� Ensuring quality control so that all partner institutions are satisfied.

� Ensuring good pastoral links across partner institutions so that students are monitored and there is satisfactory reporting to parents

� Efficient and safe travel for students, particularly 14-16 year olds, between institutions

� Organisation of the work experience element - including health and safety checks, Criminal Records Bureau checks for all relevant staff and ensuring the work experience fits into the diploma curriculum.

3.4 FE and Sixth Form Colleges and other providers will need to consider for their staff:

� Time for liaison with schools to ensure the diploma curriculum is coherent.

� Qualification to teach 14-16 year olds.

� Additional statutory responsibility for 14-16 year olds in providing supervision on site when not in classes and reports to parents.

� Any additional activity needed to safeguard younger students including Criminal Records Bureau checks.

3.5 Schools will need to consider for their staff:

� Time for liaison with colleges to ensure the diploma curriculum is coherent

� How the core curriculum can be organised to ensure that the school timetable meshes with the college part.

4 How much more will the diplomas cost?

4.1 The LSC has already done some work on costing some elements of the diploma. What is needed now is a cost for delivering the whole diplomas for 16-19 year olds as this gives us the starting point for costing diplomas for 14-16 year olds. 14-16 year olds will have additional curriculum requirements to meet the national curriculum.

4.2 Where will there be savings? It is unlikely that there will be larger classes for 14-16 year olds in the practical elements of the diplomas; indeed there may be an argument for saying that classes for the younger students should be smaller. It is possible that the core elements of the diploma, delivered mainly in schools, will be able to be in slightly larger classes than in post 16 simply because schools are already organised to teach larger core classes in Key Stage 4. However the key question is how the core in a diploma course matches the core national curriculum.

4.3 If a school has to provide a different core curriculum for students on diplomas, it will cost more. If students are at college for their practical options whilst other students are covering core areas there will need to be extra core classes for the diploma students. If the core in diplomas needs to be more integrated into the diploma curriculum, it may not be possible to run diploma and any other core classes together. Will it be possible, provided the practical elements are at the same time, to provide the same core for students on different diplomas? If students from the same school are at the college on different days for different diplomas (highly likely) all the above will be even more complex. Until we have the answers to some of these questions it is not possible to see if there will be any savings in schools. At the moment it looks as if the new diplomas are likely to lead to more choice in schools, not only for the "option" part of the curriculum but also within the core - and choice is always more expensive.

4.4 The principle that students should not be double funded is important so we need to consider where the savings in schools are when some students are taught elsewhere for part of the week. There is one simple way of estimating the savings through students attending another institution. For all schools you can calculate the unit cost of a lesson - how much it costs that school to put on one extra lesson per week throughout the school year. For an 11-16 secondary school outside London in 2006-07, the cost is about �1600 for one lesson in a 30 period week. If we assume that the students on a diploma course are spending the equivalent of 1 day a week at the College, then the theoretical saving to the school is 6 lessons at �1600 or �9600. This assumes that a whole class of students from the option block goes to the college and that the school runs its option blocks in the times the students are at college so that they rejoin the school for the core curriculum and there is no need to put on additional core classes. As explained above, this ideal scenario is very unlikely. Even if 20 students (approximately a whole class in a KS4 option scheme) were all taking diplomas, they are unlikely to be the same diploma or even on the same day of the week and it is highly unlikely that all the students will have come from the same option class in the school. It is far more likely that they will have reduced 4 or 5 classes by 4 or 5 students.

4.5 Another way of looking at it is to consider the amount the school receives per week for each student and reduce it at an appropriate rate for the students being taught at the college. The typical 11-16 school used in the above example receives �3500 per Key Stage 4 student. A very simple model would be to assume that the student is at the college for 1 day per week, so the school can contribute 1/5 of the amount per student or for 20 students �14000. However there are several problems with this. First of all the school provides more than simply 30 lessons for each student, there is all the pastoral and support time and the student has also to contribute to the administration and site running costs for the school and these are unlikely to change simply because 20 students are out of school for 1 day. So perhaps it would be fairer to take only 1/7 of the amount per pupil or �10000 for 20 students. It is not satisfactory to use the Age Weighted Pupil Unit to estimate the savings per student because many authorities use elements of the site costs per pupil in the calculation of their AWPU and so the AWPU varies in make up throughout the country. Again any saving depends on a class group of students from the school going on the same day of the week to the college. Schools where a significant proportion of students choose diploma courses will make some savings but savings are unlikely until at least 40 (two groups) of students are involved and the range of diplomas chosen is small.

4.6 There is an inherent extra cost in the new curriculum - schools will become smaller because, in effect some 14-16 year olds will be part-time in the system. Schools will not be able to get more 14-16 year olds to fill the gaps because all 14-16 year olds are already in the system. It is unlikely but possible that there could be some reorganisation of secondary provision where very large numbers of students go part time to college at 14-16 so that two small schools could amalgamate knowing that a large Key Stage 3 cohort would be a predominantly part-time Key Stage 4 cohort but the opportunities will be limited and not apparent for some years until we know the take-up of the new diplomas.

4.7 The real problem with either of these calculations is that they depend on all the students being out of school on the same day, all coming from the same option subjects in the school so that the school can offer fewer classes in their option blocks. It also assumes that it is not necessary to change any of the core classes. It is very unlikely that all these conditions will be met. If as a result of some pupils choosing to take diplomas, a school has to offer fewer subject choices in their option blocks, you are constraining the curriculum of those students not choosing to take the diplomas.

4.8 In summary, what are the additional costs in the system?

� More choice at 14 will cost more. The most efficient timetable is one for a totally core curriculum.

� The additional provision is in practical areas where the class sizes will be smaller than classroom based subjects.

� The cost of collaboration in itself is considerable.

5 How can the funding system support the new curriculum?

5.1 The simplest way would be to extend the LSC system for 14-16 year olds undertaking diploma courses. Schools would have to plan and enable their students to choose their Key Stage 4 course early in Year 9. The combination of a plan and a funding system for diplomas on the same basis as 16-19 year olds on diplomas would then operate. The funding rate for a Key Stage 4 student would need to recognise that their curriculum will include more taught hours than a post 16 student. The school receives the funding for the students on diplomas on this new rate and purchases through a collaborative any elements of the diploma that it cannot deliver itself.

5.2 There would need to be some adjustment of the local authority funding for the school. The local authority funding formula would apply for those students not on diploma courses. There would need to be some further abatement to correct for the institution costs inherent in the LSC funding model - in the same way that local authorities already correct for the post 16 funding (but with more regulation and clearer guidelines so that there is some coherence and fairness across local authorities). The school would be accountable to the LSC for the delivery of their planned diplomas for Key Stage 4 students just as they will be accountable to deliver their planned provision for post 16. The planning element in the formula is essential as we are assuming diplomas will grow steadily both in number of courses available and take up for at least the first ten years of the programme.

5.3 The LSC funding rate for all diploma courses will need to take into account the cost of the necessary collaboration. If this element of the funding is in the student rate, then the schools and colleges taking part in the collaborative jointly fund the organisation of the collaborative.

5.4 The first essential step is to be clear about the structure and content of the diplomas. It is not possible to plan a sensible funding system unless we are clear about what activities schools and colleges will be expected to provide and what activities will no longer be needed. The LSC formula for post 16 is fundamentally based on an analysis of the costs of providing a course and is a very good place to start an analysis of the new diplomas once we are clear about their structure and content.

5.5 It is difficult to see how a funding system for 14-19 diplomas based on actual student take-up can fit into the Dedicated Schools Grant and multi-year budgets. Even in the first year of a multi-year budget, the local authority has to know in November the level of the DSG for the following April. It is highly unlikely that all Year 9 students will have made their choices for Year 10 courses in time to influence the level of DSG.

5.6 There will need to be a balance between planning and funding stability, particularly in the first years until all diplomas are in place and the system has settled down. Schools will need to plan in January to March for the following September diploma starts and know that the funding is stable, even if some students change their minds between March and September (not unknown amongst 14 year olds).

Lindsey Wharmby

ASCL Funding Consultant