Clause
3
Level
3
qualification
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 3, page 2, line 11, after
‘means,’,
insert—
‘(a) the Cambridge
Assessment Pre-U qualification in two subjects,
and,
(b)
’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 72, in
clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 23 and
24.
Mr.
Gibb:
Clause 3 defines what is meant by a level 3
qualification for the purpose of clause 1(c). It is defined
as
“the level of
attainment (in terms of breadth and depth) which, in the opinion of the
Secretary of State, is demonstrated by the General Certificate of
Education at the advanced level in two
subjects.”
Levels are a
new, Government-created notion that is part of a forlorn attempt to
pretend that different things are the same. Parity of esteem between
vocational and academic qualifications is a laudable objective, but it
will not be achieved by pretending that a vocational qualification in a
particular activity is the same in terms of breadth and depth as a GCSE
in Latin or physics. It is like comparing apples and pears. It would be
perfectly possible to create a GCSE in plumbing that had the same
breadth and depth as a GCSE in physics: it would be very academic and
would involve Archimedes’ principle, the melting temperature of
copper and the chemical and physical properties of various metals and
their expansion rates. However, to create parity of esteem, there has
to be parity of esteem in society between different types of
jobs.
Having lived in
Canada as a child, I was astonished, when we returned to Britain when I
was nine, by the class consciousness in this country compared with
Canada and the United States, where it barely exists. In those
countries, esteem is determined by endeavour; to be blunt, it is
determined by income and wealth. In the US, the owner of a large
plumbing concern has a higher status than a small-town lawyer. In
Britain, we are moving ever closer to that type of society, which I
welcome, but we will not achieve that faster through a patronising
pretence that it is just as difficult to pass one type of exam as
another. If we really want parity of esteem and a more equal society,
we will achieve that by ensuring that everyone is educated to the
best of their ability. If we pretend that a particular
qualification is something that it is not, it is the poorly advised and
the less well resourced and those who attend weaker schools who will be
led down a route that is not necessarily in their best
interests.
6.15
pm
We have seen
that with some of the newer A-levels, which Cambridge university does
not recognise as an entry requirement, particularly if a candidate has
more than one of those types of A-level. The Minister for Schools and
Learners insists on claiming that there is no difference between those
A-levels, and he may or may not be right, but Cambridge university
takes a different view. At least it has been honest and has published
on its website the list of those A-levels that, if a candidate takes
more than one of them, it will not regard as sufficient for entry to
the university.
Mr.
Laws:
I am listening with interest to the argument that
the hon. Gentleman is developing. How does he think vocational
qualifications could achieve parity of esteem with some of the more
traditional subjects? Is it that they must have some kind of academic
content, as I thought he was implying, or is he simply concerned that
at the moment they do not have sufficient robustness and
rigour?
Mr.
Gibb:
My view is that one cannot create parity of esteem
between two qualifications simply based on the number of hours of study
that they require. A qualification will gain status in society by the
outcomes that it generates in later life. If a particular vocational
qualification leads someone to acquire a high-paid job or enables them
to establish a business that generates a high income, it will, of
itself, become a qualification of high status and will have equal
esteem with those qualifications of an academic nature that also lead
to high-income or high-status jobs. That is how to create parity of
esteem between two sets of qualification.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry (Portsmouth, North) (Lab/Co-op): I am trying
to follow the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Is he saying that
esteem only comes with high
income?
Mr.
Gibb:
I am saying that largely, in the United States and
Canada, which have far more equal societies than ours, that is the way
in which status is determined. I am not saying that I want to go down a
route where everything is determined by money, but we are more likely
to create parity of esteem between qualifications if those
qualifications lead to well paid, well established jobs, than by
pretending that a qualification created by somebody in an office,
because it requires 280 or 1,000 guided hours, will have the same
status as a different qualification with 1,000 guided hours. That
simply will not happen in reality. My concern is that in the weaker
schools—I will provide evidence for my argument in a
moment—some students will be advised to take qualifications that
are not in their best interests, simply because they have been led to
believe that these qualifications are identical in their outcomes
because of the guided hours attached to them, and not because of the
reality of the qualification and its results when those young people
leave study and enter the workplace.
Jim
Knight:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking an
intervention as I want to keep my remarks down to a couple of minutes
when I speak, to help the
Committee to make more rapid progress. Given his argument about
achieving parity of esteem, I am interested to know how his
prescription would work in response to the rapidly changing nature of
work and the need for qualifications to be developed fairly quickly to
deal with the skills needs of newly emerging industries, if we have to
wait for outcomes to get that parity of esteem. We might, by necessity,
need an industry to get those skills in very
quickly.
Mr.
Gibb:
Yes, there is nothing that can be done. A
qualification will fall or rise on the basis of the quality of the
qualification and the quality of the syllabus that leads to that
qualification. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deepings has repeatedly said, we need to ensure that vocational
qualifications are of very high quality, and that is what will
determine the status of that qualification, whether it is in a new
industry, a new science, or a more traditional subject area. That is
always going to be the determinant of the status of a particular
qualification—the quality of the qualification itself. No amount
of pretence will determine otherwise in the real world that we live
in.
In its briefing
on the Bill, the Association of School and College Leaders said of
level 2 diplomas being made the equivalent of seven
GCSEs,
“this could create
a perverse incentive for the sake of league table standing as well as
Government policy, to pressure students into taking a diploma when they
might be better advised to take another
course.”
That is my
concern about the rush to create parity of esteem between various
qualifications when, in reality, that parity may not exist.
In her book “Diminished
Returns”, which has been widely quoted by many Liberal Democrat
and Conservative members of the Committee, Professor Alison Wolf gives
a helpful analysis of the use of the terms level 1, 2 or 3
qualification. On page 12, she
says:
“The
assigning of qualifications to a level began with National Vocational
Qualifications, the first major set of English qualifications created
directly by Government. Launched in the late 1980s, NVQs promised a
comprehensive set of vocational qualifications, encompassing the whole
occupational range, and arranged in 5 levels. In 1989, the CBI proposed
national education and training targets...Targets have been
central to English education policy ever since, and their growing
importance, and use of levels led inexorably to a full-blown
“National Qualifications Framework”
”.
She goes on to
say:
“No one
outside the education sector and the relevant parts of the Treasury
talks about a “level 2 (or 3, or 4) qualification”. When
journalists have to explain the usage they generally refer to level 2
as “the equivalent of 5 good GCSEs”, or to level 3 as
“meaning” the same as A-levels. This is deceptive.
“Good” GCSEs (grades A* through to C) are indeed assigned
to level 2 as are, for example, the NVQ2 in food processing and cooking
offered by Education Development International, or the text processing
certificate from OCR. But they are equivalent only in that circular
sense. Employers and sixth form gate-keepers who are looking for good
GCSEs in maths and English do not treat...an AQA level 2
certificate in enterprise and employability as something that will do
perfectly well
instead.”
That is a
preface to the amendment, to caution ourselves about the use of those
levels when trying to assert that things are equal when it is not
necessarily so in the real worlds of work and of
academia.
Amendment No. 9 would ensure
that level 3 includes the new pre-U qualification. That qualification
was developed by Cambridge Assessment in response to concerns expressed
by the independent sector about the quality and rigor of the A-level,
caused by curriculum changes and modularisation. The pre-U exam is not
yet recognised by the QCA and thus once the qualification is up and
running, we could face a situation in which a 17-year-old with a pre-U
qualification but no A-levels is subject to the duties of the Bill when
in fact he or she ought to be exempt under clause 1(c). Wendy Piatt,
the director general of the Russell group of universities said of the
pre-U qualification:
“We believe that the
Cambridge Pre-U promises to be an acceptable preparation for university
courses. We welcome the academic rigour of the new
qualification’s linear approach and the retention of subject
specialism”.
Cath
Baldwin, head of recruitment and admissions at the London School of
Economics said:
“The LSE would accept
the Cambridge pre-U qualification as suitable for admission to its
undergraduate courses. In particular, LSE would welcome the academic
rigour of the new qualification’s linear
approach”.
Graham Able,
headmaster of Dulwich college
said:
“I expect
that more than 50 independent schools will offer the pre-U, mostly
instead of current A-levels...I also expect that many state
schools will wish to do
so.”
However, because the
pre-U, like the iGCSE, is not recognised by the QCA, it is not
permitted for any state school to offer the pre-U to its students. That
blatant unfairness must be removed. I hope that the Minister will
confirm that it is his policy to have the QCA approve the exam in due
course.
The
headmaster of Eton says:
“We want the best
courses that challenge our students and, if that means doing the pre-U
instead of A-levels then we will do
it”.
He said that they
have
“real concerns
about the future of A-levels,”
particularly in the sciences, which he
worries may be further dumbed down.
Mr.
Hayes:
My hon. Friend may be coming to this point,
and if he is, I apologise, but the arguments against the academic
diplomas have been made largely because of the competition that they
will offer to A-levels. I think that those are good arguments. In the
light of his earlier remarks, does he share my view that their other
effect will be to dilute the integrity of vocational diplomas? Diplomas
were meant to be high-quality vocational qualifications that would
achieve the parity of esteem that he described, but now the waters have
been muddied.
Mr.
Gibb:
I agree. The announcement of three academic diplomas
is a sign that the Government have decided to go ahead with the
Tomlinson agenda, which under the previous Prime Minister they had not
decided to do. It is a retrograde step, and if we adopt the Tomlinson
agenda, it will do enormous damage to the education system. Not
everyone shares that view, but I think that that agenda is about less
external assessment and trying to pretend that things are not what they
really are. It is a huge error, from which we as a country will suffer
in the years to come.
A large number of universities
have given written notice that they intend to accept the pre-U as an
entry qualification, and I believe that more will follow as it is taken
up by an increasing number of independent schools. If the gap between
the independent and state sectors is not to widen further—for
example, the independent sector now secures more than 60 per cent. of
all A grades in science A-levels—it is vital that the Government
allow the state sector to use the pre-U qualification. It is important
that it is recognised as a level 3 qualification for the purpose of
clause 3.
Amendment
No. 72 would remove subsection (5), which gives the Secretary of State
the power by regulation to amend subsection (2) and
“substitute a different
qualification for the qualification for the time being referred
to.”
The explanatory
notes to the Bill say:
“In Clause 3, level 3 is
defined as the level of attainment which is demonstrated by two A
levels. The clause enables regulations to set out the qualifications
that will count for this purpose. It is intended that these will
include the Progression Diploma and the Advanced Diploma once these are
available.”
The concern
is that the provision gives the Secretary of State a huge amount of
power to alter primary legislation. Clause 142 makes the power an
affirmative resolution power, which, given that it amends primary
legislation, is right. However, it is not right for secondary
legislation to amend primary legislation.
The memorandum of delegated
powers, which was published with the Bill, appears to contradict the
explanatory note that I just quoted. It says:
“Clause 3(5) allows the
subsection to be amended by order. This power is needed in order to
allow the level of achievement a young person must obtain to be altered
at a future data in response to any development in the qualifications
system which would mean that the clause no longer had its intended
effect. It is not anticipated that any amendments will be made in the
foreseeable future.”
That
flies in the face of the explanatory notes, which say that the power
will be used for the introduction of the new diplomas, so it would be
helpful if the Minister explained that apparent
contradiction.
The
memorandum of delegated powers goes on to say in an understated
way:
“It is
recognised that an amendment to subsection (2) could result in altering
to some extent the nature and effect of the basic duty to participate.
Therefore it is proposed that this power is subject to the affirmative
resolution procedure.”
It
would be possible therefore for the Secretary of State by regulation to
redefine a level 3 qualification, and for example, change it to a
degree. Since the various levels are fictional notions with no
recognised reality in the real world, it would be very easy for the
Secretary of State simply to require every 16 or 17-year-old without a
degree to remain in education or training, or to lower the threshold.
For those reasons, and in accordance with the general principle that
secondary legislation should not amend primary legislation, subsection
(5) should be removed.
6.30
pm
Mr.
Laws:
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton for prompting an interesting and wide-ranging debate
on qualifications,
and I say that in a positive, rather than negative sense. He is right to
say that we will not create a level playing field in the perception of
qualifications simply through a rebadging process. He is also right to
warn that there is a danger that young people in some of the most
challenging communities and difficult schools could find themselves
diverted into qualifications that ultimately might not be in their best
interests, depending upon how successful the diplomas are. However, he
is probably being a little too pessimistic about the possibility of
having some degree of parity between qualifications that can result in
different outcomes, particularly in terms of income. We can think of
GCSE and A-level qualifications for which there are very different
perceptions of their likely pathways in terms of income and
credibility.
I can
remember long ago asking in a physics class, the day before our O-level
geography exam, for permission not to have physics homework that
evening because we had to revise for the exam, at which point the
physics master described geography, somewhat unfavourably, as a
coloured pencil subject. I apologise to any geographers present, but
even within the GCSE and A-level world there is a difference in
credibility of the pathways, in relation to income and profession, that
different qualifications can lead to. I do not object to the aspiration
of having some kind of ambition of parity and comparability between
different qualifications, but agree with the hon. Gentleman that that
should be on that basis of real quality rather than simple
rebadging.
Mr.
Gibb:
I cite the problem with the targets of five or more
GCSEs at grade A* to C. We have seen the weaker schools in this country
move away from the tougher subjects to the softer options, and that
shift was evident before the introduction of the requirement to publish
English and maths results in the league tables. One school that I have
in mind achieved an 84 per cent. success rate for five or more GCSEs,
but when the English and maths results were included in its results,
that figure plummeted to 16 per cent. That trend concerns me about the
whole notion of pretending that everything is equal when clearly it is
not.
Mr.
Laws:
The hon. Gentleman is right to be nervous and to
want to ensure that any apparent improvement in standards is based upon
engaging young people in subjects that they might find more relevant
and interesting but that are still challenging, rather than simply
attempting to water down standards. His comments highlight the volatile
and potentially dangerous situation that we are in at present, where we
risk ending up with quite a dispersion of different qualifications,
with some “top” schools within the state and independent
sector adopting the type of qualifications he mentioned, many people in
the middle sticking with GCSEs and A-levels, and diplomas coming in
without us being sure how successful they will be. Obviously, they will
have their own GCSE equivalents, which might create incentives for
different institutions to encourage their youngsters into those
courses, regardless of their
merit.
Mr.
Hayes:
Given that we have that litter of qualifications,
if I may term them so, are not two important ways of assuring their
quality the extent to which they enhance
job prospects and employability and their fit with further study, which
my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned
in relation to university entrance requirements? Surely those are
reasonably empirical ways of ensuring that rigour and, to some degree,
equivalence are
maintained?
Mr.
Laws:
I agree that those are two important measures.
However, we all need to be aware that, in seeking to encourage and
allow for qualifications with that type of credibility, we do not move
too far from a system that youngsters from all backgrounds can access.
I have some concerns that the direction in which we are moving could
unintentionally result in an multi-tier, multi-status system, which
could impede social mobility.
Before
speaking to the amendments directly—I hope that I am not trying
your patience, Mr. Bayley—I should say that I am
slightly more positive about the Tomlinson agenda than the hon. Member
for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. In fairness to Mr.
Tomlinson, a number of his criticisms of the existing vocational
curriculum qualifications offer are borne out by most people’s
experiences, particularly those about the lack of stretch for
youngsters at the top end of the ability range, the lack of serious
vocational offer, and youngsters’ ability to go on beyond the
age of 16 without having proper literacy and numeracy skills. I would
like to see the existing GCSE and A-level framework folded into the
diploma structure that Mike Tomlinson
suggested.
On
the amendments, if I am not mistaken, towards the end of his comments
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton expressed support or
encouragement for amendment No. 72, which would delete clause 3(5) and
thus the Secretary of State’s discretion to substitute a
different qualification for those in subsection (2) and to drop the
reference to
“the
General Certificate of Education at the advanced level in two
subjects.”
The amendment
is a probing amendment, designed to discover the Government’s
short-term intentions regarding the possibility of substituting
qualifications now mentioned in subsection (2). We want to prompt a
debate not only about the potential to substitute not only the
reference to
“the
General Certificate of Education at the advanced
level”
for some sort of
direct equivalent, but about the potential for the Government to
introduce an entirely different qualification—perhaps one not
even being discussed in the present public debate.
What is the intention behind
subsection (5)? Does the Minister envisage, for example, that in the
near future the reference to
“the General Certificate of
Education at the advanced
level”
might be removed
completely? Once the diplomas have been introduced and the GCSE
equivalents have been announced, encouraging people to switch to
diplomas, do the Government really intend to get rid of the GCSEs and
A-levels entirely and simply switch to the diplomas, as mentioned in
the explanatory notes?
Finally, on amendment No. 9,
the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton raised a valid
concern about ensuring that other qualifications that are broadly
equivalent to those set out in clause 3 are
also allowed for, so that those who take them do not find themselves
disadvantaged under the compulsion
measures.
Jim
Knight:
For the sake of expediency, I shall not comment on
the broader preamble about parity of esteem, which we will have an
opportunity to debate later, but speak directly to the
amendments.
Level 3
needs to be defined in the Bill because we have said that a young
person who has achieved a level 3 qualification already before the age
of 18 should not be required to participate. It makes sense, and is
good law making, to define level 3 with reference to a familiar
qualification—in this case, to A-levels, which are established
qualifications at that level. However, it also makes sense to be able
to amend that description if it becomes necessary. Hon. Members will
have in mind the fact that we have publicly said that there will be a
review of post-16 qualification in 2013. I do not rule anything in or
out, and I certainly do not want to prejudge that review, but we want
to leave it open so that if it were decided that the A-level should not
be continued—no such decision has been made—we would not
want to have to make primary legislation to do so. The clause is
drafted to allow the description to be amended by order. That will be
subject to the affirmative procedure and so to full parliamentary
scrutiny. That is what subsection (5) means,
stating:
“The
Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2)”.
Using the affirmative procedure
is common practice when allowing for future
changes.
The
description in the clause does not include a range of other level 3
qualifications that would be worthwhile ways of participating. For
example, it does not mention diplomas at the advanced level, which we
believe will be central to ensuring that all young people have valuable
and engaging programmes to follow but which are not yet established and
therefore not good to use in law. Instead, we shall specify such
qualifications in regulations. We should not list all the
qualifications in the Bill, particularly if they do not yet exist,
which is why subsection (1)
states:
“In
this Part, ‘level 3 qualification’ means a prescribed
external qualification, or an external qualification of a prescribed
description, at level
3.”
We will be able to
make regulations by the negative procedure, to which the explanatory
notes refer. I hope that that explains the difference between the
explanatory notes and the delegated powers
document.
Similarly,
we could regulate to apply the provision to the pre-U, which is in the
process of being accredited or otherwise by the QCA. It is worth saying
in passing that, if the 17-year-old in the scenario that the hon.
Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton painted had taken the pre-U,
he would not be subject to the duty; as long as the pre-U was
accredited as level 3, he would be exempt, regardless of whether we
approved it for funding in maintained schools. It is important that the
hon. Gentleman understands that if the pre-U is accredited by the QCA,
my Department will then have to decide whether it should be approved
for funding in maintained schools and colleges under section 96 of the
Learning and Skills Act 2000. I cannot comment further in advance of
being asked to make any such decision if the QCA accredits the
qualification.
Assuming that it will be a level 3 qualification, if it is accredited it
will be able to be prescribed under clause 3 by regulation, so there is
no need to specify it explicitly. I therefore hope that hon. Members
will not press their
amendments.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation,
and I am moderately reassured. I think that he was seeking to undertake
that subsection (5), which relates to subsection (2), could not be used
to alter materially the level of qualification required so that it
would become far higher and more
challenging.
Jim
Knight:
I want to give that assurance. The clause is
headed “Level 3 qualification”, and the situation would
change only if the best descriptor of a level 3 qualification moved on
from being an A-level to being something
else.
Mr.
Laws:
I suspected that that was the case. I have no doubt
that the Minister is not secretly planning to alter the provision to
insist that people get degree-level qualifications before leaving.
Having received that clear indication, I shall not press my
amendment.
6.45
pm
Mr.
Gibb:
I, too, am moderately reassured by the
Minister’s response, particularly in relation to the amendments.
However, I am disappointed that he could not give a little more
information about the future of the pre-U, which is an important exam
that is gaining wider currency in the independent sector. It is
important that the pre-U is allowed to be taught and examined in the
state sector as well. We understand from the press that a decision is
imminent from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. A little
hint about that might have been useful and helpful.
This was intended as a probing
amendment to try to extract some information on that from the Minister
and, given that it has failed, I see no reason to press it any further.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Gibb:
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 3, page 2, line 20, at
end insert
‘, subject
to the approval of the Secretary of
State.’.
The
amendment is intended to determine how much unfettered power clause
3(3) is giving to the QCA by adding those words to subsection (3),
which currently
states:
“A
qualification, or description of qualification, prescribed under
subsection (1) may be prescribed by reference to an assessment made by
the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority of the level of attainment
demonstrated by a qualification; and for that purpose regulations under
subsection (1) may confer a function (which may include the exercise of
a discretion) on the
Authority.”
People are
increasingly unhappy about politicians, but I still believe strongly in
democracy. Ultimately, the Secretary of State needs to be the official
who takes important decisions about education policy, because it
is he who is accountable to Parliament and to the Government in whom he
serves, who will be judged by the
electorate. I should
like the Minister to explain in a little more detail the powers
contained in subsection (3), so that we Opposition Members can be
reassured that we are not handing over too much power to a
non-departmental body accountable to a Select Committee, but not to
Parliament via the Secretary of
State.
Jim
Knight:
The amendment is unnecessary. Regulations under
the clause will be drafted by my Department and approved by the
Secretary of State before being laid before Parliament in any case. The
Committee will know from our consideration of the last group of
amendments that the reference to a level 3 qualification in clause 1 is
crucial to describing the group of young people who are subject to the
duty to
participate.
Accepting
the amendment would mean that regulations could only confer functions
on the QCA if the Secretary of State approved. That is an unnecessary
addition as the Department will be drafting the regulations in any
case. So the intention behind the amendment is already implicit in the
Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is
reassured that the QCA cannot do anything in respect of clause 3(3)
without its being approved by the Secretary of State, who would have to
approve the order to make an amendment. I hope that, on that basis, he
will ask leave to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am reassured and on the basis of the Minister's
assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
3 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
