Getting 16-19 education right

Education Secretary Michael Gove has been setting out his plans for A level reform. He wants to reduce modules, scrap AS levels and get universities to play a greater part in syllabus design. There is certainly a strong case for further reducing modularity so that a greater proportion of the marks goes on synoptic assessments, and cutting the endless repeats that have been allowed of modules. Having universities more involved in developing syllabuses could also hekp raise standards. However, there is a danger in trying simply to recreate A levels as they were. Both the Conservatives and Labour accepted the case for AS levels in the 1997 election - the idea had been accepted in 1996 by Conservative ministers after a review led by the late Ron Dearing.

Whether it is wise or necessary to scrap AS levels now is doubtful: they can be useful in offering greater breadth in sixth form studies before the specialisation in Year 13. Removing other modules doesn't require their abandonment. Moreover, A-levels represent only one part of the picture when it comes to 16-19 education. The coalition has been sniffy about Diplomas; it should reinvigorate them so that there are strong work-related course options available to young people, while strongly promoting those that have industry backing. If needs be, a stronger work experience element could be added. Equally, while keen on apprenticeships, they need greater clarity over who will deliver them at a time of substantial youth unemployment - colleges may be strongly placed to take more of the risk, particularly in partnership with small firms.

As well as strengthening A levels, ministers should make it easier for schools to offer the International Baccalaureate, a rigorous qualification that doesn't require the narrow specialisation of A-leveks from academically able students. And while it may be right to increase the synoptic element of A levels, they should retain the idea of a long essay or project as part of an A level student's portfolio: that is where real 'deep thought' is likely to shine through. It is important that there is a rounded approach to 16-19 education that addresses the needs of all young people.

A good budget for colleges

After two almighty cock-ups by the Learning and Skills Council - over the capital funding programme and sixth form places - the Chancellor has done the right thing by colleges and school sixth forms in this budget with announcements of extra revenue and capital. It may not be enough to satisfy the more ambitious college building programmes, but it is a good start, and it is worth remembering that there was no school or college building programme before 1997.

Ministers are out of focus on Diplomas

While the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families has not been sharing his economic history lessons with the general public, in the day job he has been looking for ways to beef up the Diplomas, the hybrid of academic and vocational qualifications that have so far attracted just 12,000 students.

Today, the government has started to give details of its diplomas in humanities, languages and sciences which the DCSF tells us will teach young people how to speak a foreign language and how to take part in business meetings in a foreign language; study how species interact and ecosystems change and set up a conservation programme or recycling scheme and examine its environmental impact; and get involved in a local policy issue, like the development of a new hospital and understand how to make it happen. Despite a few endorsements on the press release, there is little evidence these diplomas are meeting unmet need.

But today's announcement tells us nothing about the numbers of students who will take Diplomas, particularly at A-level (level 3) standard, this coming September. And there has been far too little effort made to explain the benefits in simple terms to students and teachers. One would think that every effort should be made to win new takers, particularly as the new Apprenticeships bill with its rights to apprenticeships and presumptions about careers advice is likely to draw those who want a vocational qualification towards that route.

But rather than focus on explaining the distinct choices available to young people - A level or GCSE, Diplomas, Apprenticeships and the IB - the DCSF has withdrawn the limited support given to schools and colleges wanting to adopt the tried, tested and trusted International Baccalaureate (IB), which requires all its students to learn a language and learn about science, as well as taking part in an active citizenship project. Hence these academic diplomas.

Ministers need to get the original Diplomas right before pushing ahead with academic diplomas. And they need to ensure that parents, pupils and teachers understand them if they are to succeed. Confusing the picture with these extra Diplomas is a funny way of going about it.

Giving Diplomas a boost

I have a piece in the recent edition of The House Magazine about Diplomas and the options for teenagers after GCSEs, where I argue that the government needs to take action to ensure their success. Here's an extract:

There is still time to get things right. This year was always intended to be a pilot year for the new qualifications. I believe three significant changes are needed if Diplomas are to succeed and young people are to have a good set of choices once post-16 compulsion comes into force.

First, plans for the academic Diplomas should be dropped to make clear that Diplomas are a different but strong choice for students, not a replacement for A-levels. Schools and colleges that want to take a more rigorous and diverse academic approach should positively be encouraged to take up the IB – as many are already doing off their own bat.

Second, there should be a marketing campaign that focuses on the individual strengths of individual Diplomas rather than the generic structure of the exam, with big-name employers nationally and smaller firms locally putting their weight behind Diplomas in their sector. Good careers advice for every student will be vital, particularly as the school leaving age is raised.

Third, the government should do more to sell Apprenticeships from age 14 upwards as part of the choices available to teenagers. Some young people will want a more work-based route than Diplomas offer, and this should be a clearer option for those who do.

The direction of Diplomas

News that only 12,000 students are taking the new Diplomas doesn't greatly surprise me. After all, this blog has consistently warned that a confused message on Diplomas was likely to lead to a low take-up. But this is still very much a trial year, so take of a 'big flop' is wildly premature. So there is still time to refocus the marketing of Diplomas as the strong vocational qualifications which they were always intended to be. And to drop the three academic options. Getting this right is more important than fearing accusations of a U-turn.

Diplomas are moving in the right direction

There is a lot of sniffiness in the papers today about the content of the new Diplomas. The Daily Mail groans that those taking land-based studies could become customer advisers in garden centres. The Times sniffs that hospitality students will learn to "meet and greet customers in a responsible way". And never to be outdone, the Daily Telegraph scoffs that teenagers on hair and beauty courses will learn about the world of spas.

But what such sneering shows is how out of touch our newspapers seem to be about business needs today. I am heartened that there appears to be so much practical and relevant content in the Diplomas. There is a strong emphasis on the social skills so vital in the services sector. And Diplomas should be preparing young people for today's jobs, not the jobs that were relevant in the 1940s or 1840s, where some newspapers believe vocational education should exist. There are jobs in garden centres, hotels and spas; or, do news editors never read their own endless lifestyle and travel supplements each weekend? For youngsters who are not academically minded, it makes sense to produce qualifications that are related to today's growing service industries.

If there is a complaint about Diplomas - which have 20,000 rather than the originally forecast 40,000 students taking them - it is that they are not work-related enough. They should have more relevant practical content with real employers, not less. And Ed Balls should scrap his academic diplomas, which are both confusing and pointless; if he wants a genuinely mixed diploma, he should promote rather than sideline the International Baccalaureate alongside A-levels. But the specifications for the second batch of the new Diplomas are a sign that they are heading in the right direction, not a cause for condescension.

The CBI is right to worry about the direction of Diplomas

The CBI has withdrawn its support from the bolt-on academic Diplomas that Ed Balls added to the vocationally oriented planned qualifications for 14-19 year-olds. It is right to call them an "unnecessary distraction". The government is in severe danger of losing the essence of Diplomas in its confusion about their purpose. Diplomas were originally intended to provide robust vocational and applied qualifications in key economic sectors as a choice for students alongside GCSEs, A levels, apprenticeships and the International Baccalaureate. Instead, they have been turned into a difficult hybrid which makes sense in some subjects, like IT and engineering, but not in others, especially those that may prove more attractive to the young people the government wants to see staying in education or training until 18, where a more practical focus is essential.

Last autumn, Balls starting hinting that the Diplomas might replace everything else by 2013, though he wisely insisted that students would decide. Diplomas in science, humanities and languages were added to the mix. Shortly afterwards - completely missing the point - the Government decided to abandon a modest funding for schools and colleges that wanted to prepare for the IB (which requires a mix of disciplines, unlike Diplomas), although all the signs are that more schools are likely to adopt the IB regardless. But the government failed to address the biggest problem with Diplomas: a lack of clarity about their purpose (as opposed to what they are not). The result is that few expect more than 20,000 - half the government's target - to start Diplomas this autumn. Colleges and employers remain anxious that the practical element so crucial to the new qualifications is being eroded by an obsession with promoting a generic brand rather than each Diploma on its specialist merit. So, it is good that the CBI - which is a firm supporter of the principle behind Diplomas as originally envisaged by Tony Blair - has come out with its statement today. Any other supporters of Diplomas who want them to succeed should speak up now before it is too late to get them back on track.

Confusion keeps Diploma take-up down

News that just 20,000 young people have signed up for the new Diplomas this year - 40,000 were expected to do so - can be explained by the confused marketing of the new qualifications. Ministers have spent so much time trying to tell us what they are not (vocational qualifications) and what they might be (replacements for A levels) that they have ignored explaining what they actualy are. No wonder parents, teachers and students are confused. Perhaps this reality check will prompt a long overdue review of how Diplomas are marketed; and a greater focus on the range of choices available to young people than on trying to equate very different qualifications.

The difficulties with Diplomas

Jerry Jarvis, the boss of the Edexcel exam board, will surely be persona non grata at the DCSF for some time to come. His suggestion that Diplomas - which his exam board is charged with introducing - are in disarray will not endear him to ministers or officials who are convinced that Diplomas are on track for their introduction in the autumn. And there are certainly signs that more local authorities - and the schools and colleges within them - have signed up to the idea. Of course, there will be teething problems as Jarvis suggests: there are bound to be with any new qualification. That's why the government set a modest 40,000 target for the first year, and is staging their introduction. It can't help logistically that the QCA is moving north and reforms to A levels and GCSEs are happening at the same time. But as this blog has argued previously, the real problem with Diplomas is more fundamental. It is a lack of clarity about what they are for, at whom they are aimed and the differences between different subjects. Parents are confused about them, and those who have to deliver them fear that even the Government's modest target will be difficult to achieve. Until the Government is clearer with parents and students about these issues, it could have a hard task selling them even when Jarvis's teething problems are sorted out.

A confused decision on the IB

The government's plan to scrap Tony Blair's commitment to enabling at least one school or college in each local authority to provide the International Baccalaurate is a regressive decision that reflects the confusion at the heart of the government's Diploma programme. Diplomas were not initially intended to replace A-levels, but the IB is a well-respected alternative route for students seeking to pursue a broader academic curriculum, one which is different from the planned specialised Diplomas in humanities or science, because the IB requires study of both, as well as the core subjects and languages. Of course, there was considerable resistance from the education establishment to Blair's decision, not least because they knew that as an independent qualification, it set a high competitive bar for A-levels (and perhaps for Diplomas). Unlike Applied GCSEs or Applied A levels, for example, which it makes sense to drop, the IB is different from Diplomas (just as A levels are too), and the more the government confuses the issue as in its consultation today, the harder it will be to establish their credibility. In reality, as Friday's TES reported, a growing number of state schools and colleges will decide to go for the IB, and are doing so. But it is petty-minded to renege on a promise to provide some minimal funding to help them to do so. Why is the government unwilling to maximise choices for young people, and provide those that want it with the breadth of academic study taken for granted in most other developed nations?

Staying the Course

A new volume of essays that I have edited, Staying the Course, is published today by the Social Market Foundation. It includes a fascinating debate between Alan Smithers and Michael Barber on the Government´s plans to make students stay in education or training until 18, and essays by Miles Templeman, Mike Tomlinson and Karen Price on qualifications, with an introduction by Ed Balls and a contextual essay from Mike Baker. In my own essay, I argue for a strong range of choices for 14-19 year olds and good careers advice. There has been some early coverage of the book in the Times. Copies of the book can be obtained or downloaded from the SMF directly.

How to win over parents on Diplomas

The DCSF has today announced that consortia in most parts of the country have signed up to offer the new Diplomas. That's the good news. But parents remain pretty clueless about them, and the Department has only itself to blame. Even Ed Balls found himself in a muddle trying to explain the concept to John Humphrys on Today recently.

There are three main reasons for the confusion. The first is that Diplomas are unnecessarily complex: Mike Tomlinson introduced the notion of 'lines of learning' - in engineering, leisure or science, for example, with lots of options within each 'line' - which make sense when you are close to deciding exactly what you want to study, but causes bemusement to everyone else. Ministers and other Diploma salespeople must simply talk about subjects and leave the detail and talk of 'lines' for teachers with their students.

The second is that the government is so obsessed with the Diplomas not being vocational that it has no clear explanation of what they are. Now I know that the ICT industry was very keen that its diplomas were much broader than functional IT diplomas, one reason why this stricture was applied. But it is treated as heresy to call Diplomas 'vocational' or even 'specialised' even though they were introduced in the first place as a vocational alternative to A-levels (a prohibition I'm pleased to say that Tony Blair dutifully ignored). Moreover, colleges believe the rigid limit of 40% practical content may make some Diplomas less attractive to those who want them to be a stepping stone into practical jobs, particularly at GCSE level 2 standard. This mentality is also preventing a sensible sales campaign, where different Diplomas are marketed differently.

And third, there is the whole business of A-levels. Gordon Brown went as far as possible at PMQs to talk-up A-levels today - far further than Balls has done - but the sooner the government simply says that Diplomas are unlikely to replace A-levels, the better for students and the better for Diplomas. Until ministers concentrate on what Diplomas are, rather than what they are not or what they might be, they will have a tough sell to parents, students and teachers.

Should languages really be compulsory up to GCSE?

Tim Hames repeats the Times line - I assume it is he who has written the impassioned leaders over the years - that the removal of compulsory languages from the curriculum for 14-16 year-olds is a national disaster. But his argument rests on several false assumptions. For a start, there was little use in the majority of young people learning rudimentary French, the language of choice in most schools. Spanish or Mandarin, both of which are growing in popularity, are far more important for business purposes. Second, languages should be taught primarily in primary school: by 14 it is often too late, so the government is right to shift compulsion from 11-16 to 7-14, though it is a fair point that it might have done this before removing compulsion. But third, if we want better linguists, we do need to focus on the best language students, and they will learn better with those who want to learn; they are the ones who should be incentivised to study languages at university, so long as we are confident there is the genuine demand for them. When Estelle Morris dropped compulsion, she did so because 15-20% of pupils were not doing languages anyway, and her hope was that the numbers dropping it legally would be of similar proportions. No school is prevented from making or keeping languages compulsory; I am a fan of the IB, which makes languages a compulsory component. With the proposals of the Dearing Review, it is to be hoped that more schools and universities will encourage more students to learn languages. But let's not get carried away: requiring every 15 year-old to do languages will not make them linguists nor will it address our languages deficit; getting it right at seven might just do so.

We need clear choices on A levels and Diplomas, not confusion

Ed Balls is announcing plans for a higher-value extended Diploma today. In principle, it is a good thing to provide a Diploma route for the most able students. But if students want to take a stretching academic Diploma, the International Baccalaureate is a much better option mixing a broad range of subjects, and it already has strong credibility. Moreover, the government is running before it can walk on Diplomas: it is not yet clear whether there will be the 40,000 takers from September for the first five Diplomas. I hope there are, but today's announcement could confuse potential takers rather than illuminate them. And finally, Ed Balls should be less churlish about A-levels. The idea that Diplomas will replace A-levels is fanciful: they are different qualifications, each with their own strengths; to pretend otherwise simply encourages people to keep demanding the emasculation of GCSEs and A-levels.

The truth about truancy

The truancy statistics issued by the education department have long been a source of frustration for ministers. For a start, the figures have lacked sufficient precision to tackle the problem. Then the definitions were not terribly helpful: for a long time, unauthorised absence was, improbably, higher among primary school pupils, a figure gleefully interpreted as signalling wilful truancy among ten year-olds rather than too many mums not telling the school when they took their nine year-old to the dentist. Added to that, the only progress that seemed to occur was when 'absence' - including weeklong holidays taken with permission - was included in the figures. So, today's statistics from the DCSF represent a real improvement.

For the first time, we know the reasons for absence. Half are off because they are ill. Many others are on family holidays (in most cases, approved by the school). And primary pupils are three times as likely to be on an unapproved family holiday than their secondary counterparts. But behind the 1% of unauthorised absence there is a hard core of persistent absentees, inevitably given a new acronym that will not be welcome to many super-secretaries - a shocking 11% of all pupils in Year 11 are 'PAs'. These are pupils who should be preparing for GCSEs. They are the ones for whom post-16 compulsion will be especially challenging.

And we now know what works thanks to one piece of remarkably good news: there are clear signs that a programme of targeted intervention first ordered by Tony Blair two years ago to tackle persistent truancy in the 400 schools with the worst problem is having a real effect, with cuts of 20% in persistent absenteeism in those schools over the course of last year. (Academies have seen significant cuts too) This is where most efforts should be targeted, both on tackling existing PAs - if we must call them that - and preventing new persistent absenteeism. Unfortunately, the DCSF departmental press release seems to have obscured this genuine piece of good news in a misbegotten bid to ward off hostile media attention by highlighting changes in the extent of absence overall.

Pupils need better advice on their options

Ahead of a new book that I have edited for the Social Market Foundation, which will be published shortly, I argue in today's Independent that young people need better advice on their post-16 options, including on their subject and qualifications choices for university. You can read the article here.

The market should decide on A levels

Let me make a prediction. Diplomas will not have replaced A-levels by 2013. So, why shouldn't Gordon Brown say so, instead of exciting the Telegraph into predictions of doom? The problem for the PM is that it is not for him to guarantee that students will continue to study A-levels if a genuine market exists - and if that market includes the International Baccalaureate as well as the more vocationally-oriented Diplomas. However, he could and should express himself differently by making clear that the choice will be with students, but that given the differences between A levels and the IB or Diplomas, he would expect A-levels to remain a major part of the offer at that stage. I know of no teacher who seriously expects Diplomas to replace A-levels, and it would be far better for Diplomas if they were marketed for what they are, rather than according to a vague and unlikely theory of what may become of them.

Let's have more McQualifications

The patronising sneer that greeted news that qualifications awarded by McDonalds, Flybe and Network Rail are to be treated on a par with those developed by the exam boards illustrates all that is wrong with the British attitude to qualifications. It is far better to have good vocational qualifications developed by successful businesses than exam boards; and it is right that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority should do all it can to ensure that those who achieve them can use them when they move to other companies. The problem with vocational qualifications has been their divorce from the needs of business; and the problem with the regular complants from the CBI and others about the readiness of young people for the world of work has been the unwillingness of business to engage with the education and training curriculum. This approach solves both problems at a stroke. With plans for compulsory training until 18, including for the 15% of young people in work without 'recognised training', there will need to be many more such qualifications accredited. And that is a good thing - for young people and business.

To promote or not to promote

In that excitable way it employs to push non-stories onto the front page, today's Times informs us that teachers are to be 'told not to promote A-levels'. A clause in today's Education and Skills Bill says that teachers should not 'unduly promote any particular options'. According to the Times, this is just a sneaky way of helping Diplomas gain a foothold, and undermining A-levels. But, if that were the case, wouldn't the Government be requiring teachers to promote Diplomas? The government is right to expect impartiality from schools, not least because one big problem with the current system is that teachers are persuading pupils to go on AS level courses in order to win extra resources for the school sixth form, when a college-based vocational course might be a more suitable option. Many such youngsters drop out before taking full A-levels. The Times headline might just as easily have read 'Teachers told not to promote Diplomas'. But then that would hardly have pushed the story onto the front page, would it?

The original purpose of Diplomas

My old friend - and occasional sparring partner - Graham Lane has transformed himself from the voice of local education authorities to a champion of Diplomas. In that capacity, he takes me to task for my supposed ignorance of the new qualification in my recent Guardian article. I fear it is he who is displaying an ignorance of their history when he says "it is not true that diplomas were first announced in 2005 as a vocational alternative to A-levels". In fact, that was always how Tony Blair saw them, and he was right to do so.

Of course, as I said in my article, these would not be traditional vocational qualifications.

"Unlike apprenticeships, they would not be predominantly work-based, and would mix "theoretical and practical learning"; but unlike A-levels, students would also have to do English, mathematics and IT. This reflected the view of employers that such a mix is more suited to modern business."

Graham then ignores my praise for his engineering Diplomas as a likely route to university to make a silly point about hair and beauty Diplomas: I didn't argue that no student would want to progress, but that most would do a level 2 Diploma - "in the hope of starting work or an apprenticeship thereafter". That is precisely what most people involved in developing the qualifications think too. What is most worrying about Graham's response is that he seems more concerned with defining Diplomas generally than selling the potentially excellent engineering Diploma to parents, teachers and pupils. Which was precisely my point.