The Tories and the Diplomas

 

Martin Allen

TES  letter 18/09/09

 

I’m no fan of the diplomas, but I do have some sympathy for those teachers and lecturers working hard to deliver them.

Rather than being genuine alternatives, the diplomas have ended up being the ‘worst of both worlds’ mimicking the academic qualifications they seek equality of status with and consequently alienating the very students the government has designed them for.  A similar fate met the GNVQ when it was re launched first as an ‘applied’ A-level. Student numbers nose dived as schools and particularly colleges, returned to the BTEC style courses that GNVQ was supposed to replace.

As your editorial (11/09/09)  implies, vocational qualifications will never be able to achieve parity while academic education continues to exist in the way that it does and be the only route of entry to established universities. The Tories may well abolish the diplomas but they won’t be anymore successful at improving the status of vocational learning. There again, they probably don’t want to!

 

 

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6022646

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6022647

14-19 Education: Ten years New Labour

 

Martin Allen

NUT   Teacher to Teacher   supplement  Autumn 2009                                                                                                                        

New Labour has devoted considerable time and resources to reforming  the 14-19 curriculum. It’s almost a decade since ‘Curriculum 2000’ when A-levels were reinvented – divided into AS and A2- and  GNVQs   were rebranded  -first   as   ‘vocational’  and then ‘applied’  A-levels  and GCSEs.   Since then,  A levels and GCSEs have been changed  further with new syllabuses starting last September;  although changes in  core GCSE subjects –English, maths and ICT will be delayed until 2010, so as to allow ‘functional skills’, currently being piloted,  to be incorporated.

As if all this hasn’t been enough, in  September 2008, 12000 students enrolled on the first batch of the new   specialist 14-19 diplomas, potentially the most significant change to the secondary curriculum since the 1944 Education Act.  Despite millions of pounds being spent on course design and promotion  materials, based on the 2008 experience, enrolment for the diploma is well down on what the government hoped and  only about  2000 of the enrolments are at  level 3 the level equivalent to A-level. Neither has government been able to get employers properly involved. The new diplomas would, government argued in its 14-19 White Paper, ‘put employers in the driving seat’ yet in the end, syllabuses have been largely drawn up by consultants. The take up for the next  batch of diplomas this September will be crucial in determining their success or failure.

For large numbers of secondary school teachers, sixth form college and further education staff, there has been a conveyor belt of change, increased workloads, but also trepidation about what else might be round the corner.  Practitioners have been   largely excluded from the decision making about changes to the curriculum; yet at the same time have been expected to be at the cutting edge in delivering  them .

Many of the  initiatives have been justified in terms of the need to ‘modernise’ education to keep up with economic changes,  but with the economy experiencing the biggest recession for 80 years and Labour languishing in the opinion polls; how should we assess the success or otherwise of a decade of reforms?   

One thing is clear, despite the repackaging and the renaming of courses, government has not been able to raise the status of vocational education.  Entries for the applied courses continue to be well below those for the   ‘academic’ versions of the same subjects   – candidate numbers for the ‘double’ award  in Business Studies, the most popular of the applied  subjects being barely  a tenth of those for the GCE  course.  They are  also well down on what they used to be for the old GNVQs -total entries for advanced level applied qualifications being about a third of those for GNVQ.

Many  practitioners consider that the applied versions do not have enough practical learning and that the assessment is too similar to that in GCSEs and A-levels, thus alienating the very students ‘vocational’ courses  continue to  attract – those with lower performance levels at GCSE.  As a result, large numbers of schools and colleges have returned to   BTEC style ‘National’ courses which continue to be based on coursework. 

Few of the changes to 14-19 education represent a step towards  a common ‘comprehensive’ curriculum for young people in the upper secondary age group:  a vision outlined in the National Union of Teachers proposals for a general diploma for everybody   and by the Tomlinson working party’s   call for an overarching certificate  gradually subsuming  existing academic and vocational qualifications.

If the reform of 14-19 education has been disappointing, further storm clouds are emerging on the horizon as Independent Schools, claiming that increases in performance levels mean  that A-levels must be getting ‘easier’, begin to provide  alternative qualifications like the Cambridge Exams ‘Pre-U’. Though  some Independents  have continued to offer the International  Baccalaureate as an alternative to A-levels, the Pre-U  is much more of a direct competitor as it is available in individual subjects – a type of ‘super A-level’. 

Even if there is nothing to stop state schools offering the new qualification, few comprehensives will have the resources or the student numbers to make this a viable proposition. With the strong possibility of a fee hike by some of the top universities, quick to endorse the Pre –U, but hesitant about the diploma, a new ‘upper track’ could also emerge, dampening Labour’s legacy still further. This fragmentation of post-16 provision will make it more or less impossible to usher in the sort of reforms envisaged by Tomlinson and the NUT.

The Pre-U Won’t Do

  

                                                              Martin Allen  *

 

                                                                                                                     

 

Proponents of Tomlinson style reform of 14-19 education may have been encouraged by last year’s   announcement of new diploma lines in more traditionally academic subjects – humanities, science and languages- alongside the original 11 diplomas in more directly vocational areas[1], yet there is still no evidence of the government planning to replace A-levels or ‘diplomarise’ them into an overarching certificate in the way that Tomlinson reformers hope. On the contrary, it has put back its proposed qualifications review till 2013, hoping the diplomas become bedded in alongside A-levels.

 

 

A-level; a post-war gold standard

 

Emerging out of the post-war construction of secondary education, the GCE A-level replaced the matriculation certificate. It was always assumed that the new qualification would be aimed at about 5% of the cohort – not the current 30%+ – mostly sons and daughters of the post-war middle class or some of the ‘socially mobile’ working class children who had entered grammar school. Regarded as an educational ‘gold standard’ but considered both elitist and too narrow by reformers it not only survived, but as Caroline Benn and Clyde Chitty observed, rather ironically, also thrived in the new comprehensive schools of the post-war period. [2]

As a result, in recent years government has failed to divert significant numbers of young people who now remain in full-time education beyond 16 into ‘vocational alternatives’ like BTECs. GNVQs and Applied A-levels A-level entries have continued to grow; now toping well over 800,000 annually.  Even though a long list of new subjects has emerged, ‘traditional’  ones  like English, mathematics and  biology continue to head the entries league, with only psychology breaking into the top 5 (TES 15/08/08). Rather than embracing new courses of study, students remain canny about preferences of elite universities for particular A-level subjects rather than others (Guardian 15/08/08).

 

Exclusivity v Accessibility

Despite the continued influence of ‘tradition’ however, there have been considerable changes to the A-level diet. The ‘Curriculum 2000 ‘ reforms though by no means as radical as New Labour’s original proposals for the reform of post-16, have been extremely significant.  Curriculum 2000 established a modularised two part AS-A2. It also encouraged a new emphasis on ‘skills’ rather than simply concentrating on content. The new structure also meant that students could retake modules, particularly at AS level so as to enhance their final grades – which they do in large numbers.

With the annual publication of A-level results invariably showing both a rise in pass rates and a rise in the number of candidates obtaining an ‘A’ grade, A-levels continue to be steeped in controversy  facing allegations of ‘dumbing down’ and grade inflation – Oxford University reportedly turned away 5000 students with three straight A grades in 2007. (Guardian 14/08). In 2004 allegations that examination boards were tampering with grade boundaries as a result of pressure from government led to the resignation of QCA’s Chief Executive and the creation of Tomlinson’s working group on 14-19 reform.

 

The emergence of the Cambridge Pre-U                                    

It is in this context that we should consider the emergence of the Cambridge Pre-U. As the first gateway of diplomas get off to a shaky start across a range of comprehensive schools and further education colleges, September 2008 saw the launch of first Pre-U’s in 50 schools mostly in the Independent sector including Eton and Winchester (Guardian 11/11/08). In contrast to the modular AS-A2 system used at A-level, the Pre-U returns to the more traditional linear approach. With assessment of AS-A2 now increasingly ‘task based’,  Pre-U’s creators want to restore the importance of essay writing and the end of course final examination. To gain the full Pre-U, students take three Principal subjects, but also complete a research project and a ‘Global Perspectives’ portfolio. Cambridge claim it will be ‘exciting to teach’ and develop ‘an independent and self-directed style and ensure academic integrity.

According to its advocates, Pre-U will offer pupils more stimulation and a system of assessment that rewards creativity and lateral thinking. A-levels, they complain, only teach students to ‘think inside a very small box’ and discriminate against ‘highly imaginative students’, whose answers may even be marked down because they are considered too sophisticated. According to Tony Little, Headmaster of Eton, (Times. 20/11/2006) ‘Pre-U will offer pupils more stimulation and a system of testing that rewards creativity and lateral thinking. A-levels, he complains, only teach students to ‘think inside a very small box’ and discriminate against ‘highly imaginative students’, whose answers were often marked down because they are considered too sophisticated. ‘We want the best courses that challenge our students’. In the same article Graham Able, Head of Dulwich College, suggests the Pre-U represents   a return to the original idea of A-level as a qualification for university entry.   

 

 

Pedagogy or position? 

 

Many secondary and sixth-form college teachers may have some sympathy with the accusations that A-levels have been ‘dumbed down’, that there is too much assessment and that it is unnecessary to have AS and A2 divisions, but it isn’t surprising if these arguments may appear attractive at a time when school teachers, are bombarded with targets and lamenting the loss of much of their professional autonomy, over how they teach.

 

There are other reasons however for Pre-U’s emergence. Being primarily designed for high-performing students, many will consider the new qualification unashamedly elitist and – with A-level pass rates reaching 97% and with 1 in 4 candidates now receiving an A grade – that its main purpose is to ensure the leading and the most expensive schools can re-establish their ‘positional’   advantage.

 

Even if elite/private schools are responsible for a large proportion of the increases in grade A, they can no longer guarantee that their students will automatically be at the front of the queue for entry to top universities. As the Guardian (20/1/09) reported, comprehensive are closing the gap at B-D, suggesting that it is only a matter of time before they also increase their share of top grades[3]. Elite schools clearly don’t consider they can rely on the new A*grade due to become available from 2010.

 

Pre-U principal subjects will have 9 different grades. At the top, there will be D1 (distinction 1) D2 and D3. At least one school, Charterhouse (fees £26 000 per annum), has decided to offer the Pre-U in some individual subjects rather than as a diploma, thus creating a brand of ‘super A-levels’ .This will, as the Daily Telegraph (23/01/08) reassured its readers, mean that independent schools are ‘likely to tighten their grip on leading universities’.

 

Of course, as Cambridge make clear, there is nothing to stop state schools introducing the Pre-U particularly in individual subject areas where they may have expertise and particularly now that OCQ have given it official backing. 15 of  the schools teaching the new qualification from last September may be officially part of the state sector, but all but two are grammar schools and  one of the comprehensives in the initial cohort could be described as ‘unusual.’[4] CIE claims that 30 comprehensives will be part of the 2009 cohort (Guardian 11/11/08) however many comprehensive schools, struggle to provide a variety of A-level and vocational options and simply won’t have the resources to offer parallel courses in individual subjects.

 

 

A new upper track?

 

There have always been alternatives to A-level. For example the International Baccalaureate remains an established qualification, popular in International Schools but also attracting a small following in the state sector. Until this year at least,  government, as part of its drive to promote ‘diversity’ was committed to ensuring that the IB would be available in at least one school or college in every LEA area-earmarking £2.5 million. Now, with the emergence of the Pre-U, the further expansion of the IB is less certain. As well as being a more direct ‘national’ alternative to A-level, which according to Charterhouse has now ‘had its day’[5]; the Pre-U is also much easier to deliver than the ‘expensive’ IB (Bunnell, 2008)[6].

 

The Pre-U seeks to occupy the prime position in an increasingly complex landscape of post-16 certification. In an era of mass participation in HE, new types of correspondence may be evolving.  Pre-U aims to establish itself as a flagship qualification for entrance to ‘Ivy League’ Russell universities, leaving A-levels as a ‘middle’ qualification’ (maybe for ’middle’ universities?) and vocational /applied qualifications, including the new specialist diplomas for the ‘clearing’ (million +) universities.

 

 

 

What next?

 

 

A-levels may be very different to what they used to be, they are certainly more accessible, but there    is no definitive research evidence that they are necessarily getting easier. On the other hand one thing is certain; as performance levels rise young people have to work harder simply to stand still and the current generation of sixth formers are les or more able, they are certainly the most prepared and the  most coached in exam techniques.

 

 Rather than becoming embroiled in circular arguments about the merits of certain types of learning we need a comprehensive approach to the post-16 curriculum which includes them all. This will not ‘dumb down’ standards, but if organised properly and accompanied by serious measures to reverse the government’s ‘choice and diversity’ agenda, could at least start to  ‘level up’ different types of learning and make them more challenging and more exciting. In this respect, the multi-level general diploma blueprint, developed by the National Union of Teachers[7], continues to point the way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 *  A shorter version of this appeared in The Teacher Secondary and Sixth Form Supplement Sept 2008

 

Notes

[1] See the DCSF’s   2008 Promoting achievement, raising success: a strategy for 14-19 qualifications   which confirmed press announcements earlier in the year. 

[2] ‘Never had  an  examination so widely criticised been so long retained…Elite criticism of the comprehensive  idea forced comprehensive schools to collude with the system because A-levels were  one way in which they could establish their own credibility.’ Caroline Benn and Clyde Chitty (1996) Thirty Years On; Is Comprehensive Education Alive and Well or Struggling to Survive?   Fulton  ( p349,)

[3] Dumbing down disguise- Tom Clark and Polly Curtis accuse the exam boards of   withholding these figures to refute claims that the exams are getting easier.

 

[4] See Fran Adam’s references to Coloma Girls Convent School ‘Anyone for Stretching?’  Guardian Nov 11, 2008. The other ‘comprehensive’ is Wimbledon College a  Catholic/Jesuit boys school. 

 

[5] Daily Telegraph 24/01/09

 

[6] For a comprehensive review of the growth and contradictions behind the IB  see

Bunnell, T (2008)   The International Baccalaureate in England and Wales: the alternative paths for the future.  Curriculum Journal Vol 19. No 3 Sept 2008.

 

[7] National Union of Teachers (2005) Bringing down the barriers to 14-19 education.

---

Diplomas offer scant hope of ending great divide

 

Martin Allen and Patrick Ainley

The Guardian    18/10/08           http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/28/diplomas

Responses to Cambridge Exams Pre-U

                                                                                             

 

Martin Allen,  letter, The Guardian  23/07/08

 

The real issue for Greg Watson (Cambridge exam chief…Guardian 22/07 http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jul/22/alevels.gcses) is that too many young people are now passing A-levels, a qualification originally designed for the elite few. Faced with the demands of Government’s ’standards agenda’, teachers increasingly ‘teach to test’, but it is also the case that youngsters, with traditional employment opportunities disappearing and recognising that vocational qualifications lack status, consider A-level to be the only route with currency.

Introducing the Pre-U, will only reinforce a new upper stream,  mainly Independent schools, feeding directly to Russell universities.We do need to change the examination system, but not this way

 

 

 

 

Martin Allen  and Patrick Ainley,  letter  The Guardian 18/06/08

 

Mike Baker raises some important points about A-levels

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2285812,12.00.html

While it’s true that only a minority gain three grade As, the general rise in standards at A-level is to be welcomed, though it reflects a situation where more and more young people feel they have to “go to uni or die” to secure employment and avoid McJobs.

 

 

However, the invention of the A* is a desperate attempt by the government to ensure the A-level continues as the main currency for admission to university. It may already be too late as, in addition to preparing their students for the increasing array of individual university entrance exams, many of the leading independent schools are signing up for the Cambridge Pre-U.

 

 

Welcomed by elite universities, this new qualification returns to the original two-year linear A-level designed for 5% of higher education entrants in 1951. The Pre-U will guarantee what private school parents are paying for: entry to elite universities. With variable fees in 2010, income rather than academic performance will then be key to selection.

 

We should campaign for a comprehensive higher education. Rather than rearranging the A-level deck-chairs, we also need a mandatory general diploma for everybody 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why we need a general diploma accessible to all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Martin Allen and Patrick Ainley

 

The Guardian 15/04/08

 

 

The government’s new strategy for 14-19 follows the peak in numbers of 18-year-olds entering higher education (42.5% in 2005-06), along with those achieving two A-levels (34% in 2006).

 

Although more than 80% remain in full-time education for a year after the compulsory school-leaving age, increased participation has been accompanied by increased division. The upper years of secondary education replicate past divisions as tripartism is reinstated at tertiary level. It is in this context that the government has launched its specialist diplomas in five vocational areas from September and in 17 “lines” to which all 14- to 16-year-olds will be entitled by 2013.

 

The academic-vocational divisions in many secondary schools will be intensified by further divisions between schools and also between schools and the FE colleges that are likely to be the main diploma providers in local consortia. About 100,000 14- to 16-year-olds currently attend FE colleges for part of the week but if, as the government wants, up to 40% of the cohort follow them on the diploma, colleges could become the new tertiary moderns.

 

For, despite government claims that nearly 80% of schools have signed up for a local diploma consortium and that 140,000 places will be available from September 2009, closer inspection suggests the actual numbers will be well short. The strategy document therefore announces diplomas in more academic subjects and a new “extended” diploma supposedly worth four A-levels. It hints also that all current standalone vocational qualifications like BTecs will be absorbed into diplomas.

 

Diplomas replace applied A-levels, which thus join a long line of failed vocational qualifications supposedly promoting new workplace skills and designed to motivate the “non-academic”.

 

Having conceded that the diplomas are not really directly vocational but more “applied”the government seeks to revamp the faltering modern apprenticeship as a work-based alternative. But many private-sector employers do not need them, and modern apprentices only receive an “allowance” and no guarantee of a job.

 

 Meanwhile, students continue to flock to A-levels as the only reliable route to HE. But for private schools and the elite universities they supply, A-levels are no longer the gold standard. They prefer the new Cambridge Pre-U qualification. The Pre-U is unashamedly elitist, designed to re-establish the exclusivity of top schools while leaving A-levels – to which there are 800,000-plus entries each year – to the masses. And the 14-19 strategy announces that it will no longer support the international baccalaureate as an alternative to the Pre-U in all local authorities.                                                               

 

If private provision crams pupils for the Pre-U and other elite university entry exams, A-levels should secure entry to the next tier down of campus-based teaching universities, while diplomas may serve for the million-plus group of former polytechnics. Raised fees in 2010 will heighten these divisions by subject and institution. 

 

Rather than trying to resurrect Tomlinson’s “overarching” certificate, which Labour rejected in 2006, by “Tomlinsonising” the diplomas, a new multi-level general diploma accessible to all students is needed. Such a qualification must safeguard the right to a common core curriculum, while at the same time enabling genuine specialisation. It should also be binding on all institutions, including the private ones; otherwise diversity and division can only widen. To ensure this would require renegotiation of the current relationship between central government and schools, limiting school autonomy.

     

                                                                                                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Functional for who? A quick assessment of the new functional skills

         

 

 

Martin Allen

Post-16 Educator  March-April 2008                

 

 

 ‘Functional skills’ are being piloted in 1000 schools and colleges. Part of the Tomlinson working group proposals for 14-19 education, their introduction is a response to demands from employer representative for higher standards in literacy and numeracy amongst young people. Completing functional skills will be a necessary requirement for moving on to a GCSE grade C pass in English, maths and ICT from 2012. They will also be mandatory in the specialist diplomas.

 Even if students have often used them as ’second chance’ qualifications -recruiting universities accept them as alternatives to GCSE passes in English and maths- Key Skills were designed to be ‘generic competences’ reflecting new kinds of working practices. This was particularly the case with the ‘wider skills’ of Working with Others, Improving Own Learning and Problem Solving. Even is elite schools and ‘selecting’ universities largely ignored them, Key Skills were promoted as being important for everybody.

 

In comparison, Functional Skills are seen as ‘compensatory’ skills. This is reinforced by the QCA’s decision to rebrand them as ‘stand alone’ units rather than embed them into GCSE syllabuses and to assess them on a ‘test and task’ basis, details of which will emerge from the pilots. Functional Skills are also distinguished from the more ‘finely tuned’ and higher level ‘personal, learning and thinking skills’ (PLTS)

 

 

Despite being promoted as part of the ‘new’ secondary curriculum, the reality is that functional skills are hardly new. Looking at the specifications, teachers and lecturers who have delivered ‘key skills’ and adult ‘basic skills’ programmes will quickly spot similarities with these existing programmes. For example as in key skills Communication units, Functional English will be divided into speaking and listening, reading and writing. Unlike key skills however, there will be no requirements to submit course-work. 

  

Having to complete additional tests in basics before proceeding to GCSE is unlikely to inconvenience ‘high flyer’ students – schools will be able to enter these students early, maybe even during key stage 3. More of an issue is the sizeable number of students whose access to the rest of the GCSE syllabus may now be restricted because they cannot clear the functional skills hurdle.

 

The replacement of English by what is essentially literacy instruction will not only impoverish students, but will worry English teachers trying to safeguard the more creative aspects of their subject. It is a further example of how divisions are appearing in the upper years of secondary schools.

 

Once again the push towards this style of learning raises questions of alternatives. We should be concerned about the types of skills young people need in the workplace, but we should also recognise that employers’ leaders, regardless of changes in the curriculum, have consistently criticised schools and derided the abilities of their students. Surveys also show that many individual employers are unclear about which skills they really need. Many reformers would support the inclusion of ‘basic’ education for those needing it, but as part of a general core-curriculum that provides a variety of learning experiences in a variety of settings. Unfortunately there is little current discussion about this.

 

 

Desperate Diplomacy – Ed Balls announces more diplomas

                                                                                                                                                                      

Martin Allen 

                                                                       

Post-16 Educator  Nov-Dec 2007 

 

 Ed Balls’ announcement of 3 new ‘subject based’ diplomas does not represent a fundamental change of heart by the Government. Neither, as Head teachers leader John Dunford correctly observes (TES, 26/10/07), does it constitute a return to the spirit of Tomlinson.  

 

As Balls’ announcement makes clear, New Labour are not planning to replace A-levels. In an age where what you learn is less important than what it will allow you to earn, who among the thousands of existing A-level students would risk untried diplomas in subject areas already well provided for and where there are established market leaders? 

 

It is already possible for aspiring science students for example, to take alternative courses in science by following an ‘applied’ A-level (VCE). In 2005/6 the VCE double science option attracted a staggering 800 entries compared with over   23000 for physics A-level, 34000 for chemistry and more than 46000 for biology.

 

Even in business studies, where vocational/applied courses have become more established, entries for VCE both single and double, were less than a third of those for the ’equivalent’  GCE A-level.  At level 2 – where we assume the new courses will also be available – it would be inappropriate to encourage this level of specialisation. Here again it is already possible to sit double, even triple GCSEs in science and there are several different humanities combinations.  Because of government changes at Key Stage 4, many Year 10 students opt-out of modern languages completely – so   proposals for a languages diploma seem particularly bizarre.

 

It is true that at this stage, we know nothing about the course content for the new courses, but rather than being a change of direction, or an attempt to reconstruct Tomlinson, Balls’ announcement smacks of desperation- an attempt to shore up an ailing programme that has attracted few friends and with only one in 120 students signing up for the first round of diplomas starting in 2008(TES, 26/10/07) is already becoming an educational white-elephant. The only serious challenge to A-levels continues to emerge ‘at the other end’ so to speak: with elite schools ditching the ‘gold standard’ and turning to the International Bac and the new Cambridge Pre-U. Any review of 14-19 qualifications, must take place now, by 2013 it could all be far too late.                                     

 

Learning for Labour: specialist diplomas and 14-19 education.

 

Martin Allen

 

 FORUM      Vol 49  No 3   2007

http://www.wwwords.co.uk/forum/content/pdfs/49/issue49_3.asp

 

 

Despite reports of ministers wanting to delay implementation, government have given the go-ahead for 5 new specialist diplomas to begin from September 2008 in a limited number of schools and colleges. The 2006 Education Act gave young people a ‘national entitlement’ to study one of 14 vocational areas outlined in the 2005 14-19 White Paper. According to the White Paper up to 40% of KS4 students will be taking one by 2013.  A level 2 diploma will equate to GCSE grade C, occupying about half total timetable space. Level 1 can be used in conjunction with the White Paper’s proposals for a new workplace based learning route for more ‘disaffected’ students, while post-16 students can follow a two year level 3 qualification which, like current vocational qualifications, would constitute the majority of their study time.  

 

 

Education and the economy. A new correspondence?

 The White Paper emphasises  the importance of responding to globalisation and increased international competition by improved educational provision, particularly vocational education. The Government wants the diplomas to ‘put employers in the driving seat’ consequently; Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) have been assigned a leading role in diploma design.

 

 

We cannot automatically assume that SSC involvement will raise the currency of the diploma with individual employers. Furthermore, the need to meet Government deadlines has resulted in QCA taking an increased role in overseeing diploma development. In fact QCA material now plays down the direct vocational relevance of the diplomas and instead emphasises their status as an alternative ‘applied’ qualification. As with existing vocational qualifications, for the majority of diploma students learning will continue to be classroom, not workplace based and remain teacher directed.  They will be required to complete 10 days work experience, but this is invariably what many Year 10 or 11 students do now.

 

 

 

  At a general level, there is also an issue about whether concentrating on one vocational area will help the ‘employability’ of young people. For example the same White Paper points to the transient nature of employment in the 21^st century.   

 

 

Unfortunately, rather than embracing the world of the highly mobile ‘knowledge worker’, able to work in different economic sectors, the reality facing many young people could be very different. Government continue to predict a general   ‘upskilling’, but for others, the 21st century economy is likely to be increasingly polarised (Henwood, 2003) or ‘hourgalss’ (Cruddas, 2002) with as many new ‘Mcjobs’ as professional and managerial opportunities.

 

 

Functional skills

The introduction of ‘functional skills’ is the result of CBI criticism of school-leavers abilities in maths and English ‘basics’ (CBI, 2006); however employer condemnation of young people is not new.     As Rikowski (2006) wryly observes:

 

After James Callaghan’s Ruskin College Speech of 1976 and the resulting Great Debate on Education, the 1988 Education Reform Act, ushering in the National Curriculum, national testing, SATs, league tables, and then Ofsted, together with New Labour’s focus on standards early on after 1997 and then the introduction of the Literacy and Numeracy Hours – and school-leavers’ reading, writing and maths are still inadequate for employers! The CBI Report could have easily have been written in the 1970s or 1980s.

                                                                                      

Each diploma will require students to pass functional skills, (an amalgam of current  ‘key skills’ and ‘skills for life’ qualifications) in English, maths and ICT, but functional skills will also be a compulsory part of GCSE syllabuses, students will not be able to obtain a maths and English GCSE without them. Many diploma students, particularly those at level 1, could be restricted to functional skills work, alarming English teachers seeking to safeguard the more creative aspects of their subject.  In addition, we should expect humanities, arts and modern foreign languages, (already no longer included in the Key Stage 4 mandatory core) to be absent from diploma students timetables.

 

 

 School and FE. Reconfirming a two tier system

It is in the way in which diplomas are to be delivered that the uncertainties are the most pronounced. As the White Paper recognises, it is unlikely that individual schools will be able to offer more than one, at most two, of the diplomas and few will have the resources to offer more specialist areas like Construction and the Built Environment. The Government plan to establish 200 vocational schools and The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust website lists the ‘trailblazing’ schools already identified (www.specialistschools.org.uk).  New Academies programmes, particularly in city areas where there is both commercial sponsorship and support from local labour councils could also be particularly significant as a Trojan horse for establishing the new diplomas.

 

 

The main vehicle for diploma delivery however, will be a network of local partnerships, involving LEAs and Learning and Skills Councils (LSCs). ‘In every area, providers will ensure that between them they are making a full offer’ (14-19 White Paper 7.25). The number of school students attending college for part of the week is predicted to increase significantly. As a result of the Increasing Flexibility scheme up to 120 000 14-16 year olds currently attend FE colleges for at least a day a week. However according to the DfES as 350 000 14-16 year olds could be enrolled, FE attendance may double (DfES, 2006).

 

 

Despite increased collaboration with schools, colleges continue to be the poor relation. Unable to compete with school sixth forms, which enjoy significant funding advantages, many colleges have abandoned A-level teaching altogether.  Salaries of FE teaching staff still remain up to 30% less than those of school teachers in equivalent positions. The fact that FE colleges will continue to provide a disproportionate number of level 1 and level 2 diploma courses will compound these differences and as a result of cutbacks in provision for adult learning, leave colleges in danger of becoming the new ‘tertiary moderns’.

 

 

Research findings about the experiences of 14-16 year olds in colleges have been positive, but there is concern whether colleges can provide adequate support for these increased numbers.  There is also concern about child protection issues and whether school students would always be taught by a trained teacher. New systems of monitoring attendance and travelling arrangements would also be required (NUT 2007). Many students however, may not want to ‘travel to learn’ for part of the week and opt for the vocational courses their schools currently offer.  This would suit cash strapped schools and avoid them having to hand over resources, (we assume that students migrating to FE will take funds with them) or lose teaching staff.  So rather than actively supporting the local partnerships, schools may be just as likely to look after their immediate interests. Research by LEACAN, a network of LEA inspectors and consultants (LEACAN, 2006) shows many schools and LEAs unprepared for the diplomas, not convinced about their potential success and unclear why they are needed at all.  The speed at which the diplomas are to be introduced – final syllabus details are still not available, the lack of input of teachers and lecturers and absence of professional development has worried both UCU and the NUT.

 

 

 

The real crisis of vocational qualifications

Employer representatives have been present on bodies like BTEC and City & Guilds that have delivered full time vocational education courses, but their input has been ad hoc. Rather than developing real employment skills,  vocational qualifications, despite being  promoted  as  new  style ‘competences’,   have continued to be used to manage changes in the composition of the secondary school population, a  response to behaviour problems and disaffection, in short, as a new form of social control. (Allen and Ainley, 2007).

 

In the 1970s for example, new courses, many with a workplace theme were introduced for those 15 year olds who, as a result of ROSLA, now remained in school for another year, while the 1980s, jobless school leavers were provided with compulsory Youth Training Schemes (YTS) – which Finn (1987) aptly described as ‘training without jobs’.  In the 1990s, a period which Allen and Ainley refer to as ‘education without jobs’, qualifications like the GNVQ were established to serve a new cohort of students who, after the failure of youth training and the continuing uncertainty in the job market,  were remaining in full-time education for much longer.

 

GNVQs should be seen as another attempt at constructing a ‘technical’ stream.  However they continued to suffer from ‘academic drift’ as students used them as educational qualifications to enter HE – invariably post 1992 ‘new’ universities rather than Russell.  As GNVQs became Vocational Certificates in Education (VCEs) and then applied A-levels, students have experienced the worst of both worlds with a qualification that could only imitate the status of its A-level counterpart and no longer provided a different sort of learning experience. As the number of students taking VCEs stagnated, other qualifications like BTEC Nationals – officially given the kiss of death by the introduction of GNVQ – have resurfaced as alternatives.

 

After the rejection of Tomlinson’s comparatively modest  proposals for linking academic and vocational learning through an overarching certificate, the vocational diplomas represent an attempt to consolidate Sir Ron Dearing’s ’pathways’ approach of the 1990s, representing a ‘middle’ track between academic and workplace learning.  Yet ironically, it may be the A-level that will occupy this position (Allen, 2006). As well as excusing themselves from participating in local learning partnerships, private schools and elite state schools may continue to gravitate towards the International Baccalaureate or the new Cambridge Pre-U award. If A-levels become a second division academic qualification, then the status of the level 3 diploma becomes even more uncertain.    

 

 

 

 

 

Rethinking Vocationalism

This year’s NUT conference called for a halt to the diploma programme and for a national review of vocational education. With another ROSLA looming, we should continue to support all attempts to improve the quality and status of vocational learning. Vocational learning post-16 must be accompanied by guarantees of  worthwhile employment, while at  post 14 it should only remain  a subject option,  rather than serving as an alternative track  for ‘non academic’ students.  However our conception of vocationalism has to be broadened. All students should have the right to learn particular occupational skills of their choice, but there must also, as part of any core curriculum, be an entitlement to a more general intellectual and critical understanding of the world of work.  A precedent to this argument can be found in the work of early 20^th century educationalist John Dewey who in opposition to a narrow trade learning argued for:

 

An education which acknowledges the full intellectual and social meaning of a vocation would include instruction in the historic background of present conditions; training in dealing with material and agencies of production; and study of economics, civics, and politics, to bring the future worker into touch with the problems of the day and the various methods proposed for its improvement. Above all, it would train power of re adaptation to changing conditions so that future workers would not become blindly subject to a fate imposed upon them (Dewey, 1916, p318-319).

 

Suffice to say, ‘Deweyfication’ of the curriculum   would also require radical changes to other aspects of education, but it can still provide a starting point to mobilise around.

 

 

 

 

 

                         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A-levels: not as golden as they used to be

 

Martin Allen  

                                                       Socialist Education Journal No2

 

August brings the annual hue and cry about A-levels being too easy, with this year proving to be no exception. The London Evening Standard front paged with ‘A-grades for one in four A-levels’ while The Guardian provided a picture of  a 12 year old computer games fan, celebrating his A grade in AS maths.

 

 Socialists and radicals used to attack A-levels for being too elitist. Created to replace the Higher School Certificate in 1951 only 3% of the cohort sat them and even then, because of the ‘capping’ system  30% would fail.  As well as being elitist, A-levels were also educationally narrow, with  universities having a major influence over their content. Rather than developing particular skills or capacities, A-levels were justified in terms of ‘training for the mind’.

 

 Since their inception, there have been changes. From the 1980s coursework  became an increasingly significant  part of  assessment and  new subject areas like  media studies, sociology and psychology have been added. As a result of  the Curriculum 2000  reforms A levels  have also been broken down into AS and A2 each comprising 3 modules. However, the extent of these changes, though significant, should not be overestimated.  In many respects A-levels have remained the same. They have continued to dominate the post-16 curriculum at the expense of a succession of vocational qualifications which  have experienced ‘academic drift’ as a result of  attempting to emulate them.  Advanced GNVQs have even been relaunched as vocational A-levels (VCEs).

 

 Continuing to denounce A-levels as elitist is less of  a plausible argument these days with 800 000 entries and thousands of straight ‘A’s’ turned away by Oxbridge.  On the contrary, for those for whom A-level used to represent a treasured and trusted ‘gold standard’, the problem now is that it’s not elitist enough.  But are standards falling in the way that the right-wing press, Chris Woodhead and the Institute of Directors think they are? 

 

Wrong on most other things, Government ministers are correct to counter these claims. The increases reflect the fact that more youngsters are studying harder, while according to QCA’s own research there is no real evidence that standards at either GCSE or A-levels have fallen over time. It’s true that there has been an increase in the number of A-level courses, which has resulted in Cambridge University producing a  proscribed list of ‘easy’ subjects and this includes three subjects in the ten most popular, General Studies, Art and Design and Media/Film/TV Studies,  but rather than ‘dumbing down’ it represents an ‘A-levelling up’ process. 

 

 Of course, New Labour will cite this as further proof that their education reforms are paying dividend. Yet, if teachers can take much of the credit for these increases in performance, then for young people, safely negotiating the qualifications merry-go-round has become even more essential. Changes in employment prospects and the disappearance of traditional openings for school leavers has led to a situation where everyone expects to have to climb further up the qualifications stairway.

 

 

 However there’s is no clear evidence that skill requirements in the majority of jobs in the 21^st century have been increasing at anywhere near the same rate as educational performance levels, or that university courses are becoming more demanding. When CBI surveys tell us that 80% of new jobs are going to require the equivalent of 5 GCSE C-grades, they are probably reflecting what employers now expect most of their applicants to have, rather than what they might actually need to do it. In fact some of the more detailed surveys of what employers really want from young people continue to provide conflicting or contradictory responses. But these increases in expectations mean that for youngsters, climbing the stairway is also like climbing a downwards escalator – you move faster and faster but end up standing still. 

 

 Calls for A-levels to be replaced by a baccalaureate now come from all sides of the standards debate, but is this answer?  A baccalaureate, or a Tomlinson style general diploma might give students a broader educational experience, so in one sense, the answer will always be yes. But for elite universities primarily interested in identifying the ‘best of the best’, a greater range of grades for those at the top – something Tomlinson also proposed – would probably not provide a long term solution. Without a fall in the intensity of demand for A’s (or even proposed new A*’s), grade inflation like real inflation can only be mitigated, not abolished. 

 

 As there is no current evidence that government enthusiasm for retaining current A-levels will abate, it has now been suggested that there should be a return to the capping system abolished in 1987, where only a certain number of  candidates can be awarded the very top grades. For those who support the ideals of comprehensive education, not only would this be a retrograde step, but it would also reduce the legitimacy of the examination system in the eyes of those students who both go to comprehensives and gain top grades.

 

But even capping might not be enough for elite schools who, faced with rising levels of exam performance across the educational spectrum, cannot guarantee that their own students would make the quota. For example in the 2002 A-level results debacle, it was private schools, finding that some of their students had not got the grades they had been predicted, that were amongst the first to accuse awarding bodies of manipulating grade boundaries.

 

 Leading universities might follow Cambridge and decree that only the more traditional A-levels are acceptable. But it’s more likely that elite schools will secure their own arrangements for admitting students to Oxbridge or other Russell universities.  They’ll increasingly look to alternative qualifications like International GCSEs or the equally elitist IB (International Baccalaureate) given Tony Blair’s  blessing as an appropriate alternative to A-levels for a minority of schools/sixth-form colleges (bbc.co.uk 30/11/06). Plans are now being made to launch a Cambridge ‘Pre-U diploma’. Backed by private schools and Russell universities the Pre U may be available as soon as September 2007. Ostensibly being introduced for educational reasons and, to quote the Headmaster of Rugby to ‘stretch those at the top end’ (Guardian 12/07/06) because the Pre U, like the International GCSE, is not yet recognised by QCA, it won’t be available to maintained schools.

 

 However, it’s also likely that top universities will eventually be able to break away from the rest of the HE sector and form an American style Ivy League, able to charge their own levels of fees on condition that they continue to offer a proportion of  their places as scholarships for those not able to pay.  If they do, then reforming A-levels could become a side issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Socialist  Education  Journal  No.2  Oct  06