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the distinct choices available to young people - A level or GCSE, Diplomas, Apprenticeships and the IB - the DCSF has withdrawn the limited support given to schools and colleges wanting to adopt the tried, tested and trusted International Baccalaureate (IB), which requires all its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?

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.

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 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.

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.

Ed and excellence

It is a bit disconcerting to be prayed in aid by the Tories to make their case, as Michael Gove has done in his argument that Ed Balls is against excellence in education, in today's Telegraph. That Gove does so with his inimitable erudition does not make him right. While he has quoted me correctly from my Guardian piece last week, he is wrong to suggest that I believe that Ed Balls has been undermining excellence or caving into the 'education establishment'. Was he doing so, he could have announced the end of A levels. Instead, he is allowing the market to decide, which is as it should be, provided that young people are exposed to all their choices. But to suggest this proves a wider case of antipathy to excellence is stretching a point. Today's targets for schools are ambitious, challenging and just about achievable, but they will hardly enthuse the education establishment. Balls may have tweaked the academy rules, but has speeded their introduction. And it is to academies and trusts that ministers will turn to replace failing schools, not local authority-led alternatives. If Ed Balls has a weakness, it is his desire to cloak radicalism under language that soothes the education world. But Gove is mistaken if he misses the radical reality by focusing on the rhetoric.

Will Diplomas replace A levels?

There has been a flurry of briefing to liberal commentators after Tuesday's announcement of three new Diplomas. Some are being told that, by announcing the new Diplomas in humanities, science, and languages to complement the existing set of more vocational subjects, ministers have shown a remarkable skill and courage that contrasts hugely with their predecessors' supposed timidity. The most excitable of these is Jackie Ashley in today's Guardian, who seems not to know what was planned for Diplomas before July 2007 - or that Alan Johnson had already sensibly decided that Engineering would be their flagship; nor does she understand that Diplomas are not the same as A-levels, in that they require about 40% of their time on practical tasks; therefore, leaving it to the market means Diplomas are unlikely to replace A-levels. Steve Richards in the Independent clearly enjoyed the same briefing.

Mike Tomlinson understandably hopes that Diplomas will recreate his original vision for change, and has more thoughtful reflections in the Sunday Times, whereas Chris Woodhead seems to believe that A levels are on the way out and doesn't like it, describing Diplomas uncharitably as 'ridiculous'. Mike Baker sets things in good context, but probably shares Tomlinson's ambition. But a note of caution - the first of many, I suspect - is struck in today's Times with Richard Levin, President of Yale University urging us to keep A-levels.

If Diplomas do - through the market - come out on top, well and good. But as I argued in the Guardian last week, there is room for both - and for apprenticeships and the IB - and it is likely that the market (through students exercising choice) will be much better able to recognise the differences between these qualifications and their respective merits than some commentators. Which is what Tony Blair always expected, as it happens. Given that as few as 10,000 students have signed up for Diplomas to date, fans of the new qualification need to get on with selling its merits, rather than worrying about what might happen in 2013.

16.30 UPDATE: And to be fair to Ed Balls, that is exactly what he has been doing today.

Qualified to differentiate

I have an op-ed piece in today's Guardian, arguing that Ed Balls needs to spend more time selling Diplomas, and less time worrying about whether they might replace A levels. You can read it here.

Elevating diplomas

Today's announcement by Ed Balls that there will be three additional Diplomas - in humanities, science and the arts - and that there will be no review of the existing qualifications in 2008, is a clever way out of a tricky dilemma for the Government. When Ruth Kelly announced that she would not be accepting the Tomlinson idea of a 'unified 14-19 learning framework' with a single Diploma for all, she promised a review in 2008. Having one would have destroyed any chance the Government had to sell its new Diplomas, and enabled the education world to play merry hell for another year. By bringing Mike Tomlinson, as well as some Russell Group universities, on board for the Diplomas, Balls has snookered those who still hanker after the Tomlinson model (pdf). But he now has a real task selling the Diplomas to parents and students, and it is now time for some plain speaking. Balls is right when he says

“If Diplomas are successfully introduced and are delivering the mix that employers and universities value, they could become the qualification of choice for young people. But, because GCSEs and A-Levels are long-established and valued qualifications, that should not be decided by any pre-emptive Government decision, but by the demands of young people, schools and colleges.”

But the Government needs to be much clearer in selling the different Diplomas about what each is for. That means an end to the paranoia about adjectives like 'vocational' or 'specialised' to describe them. It means openly saying that a level 3 engineering diploma is good enough for university, but that most taking a hair and beauty level 2 will want to go on to work. In other words, it's time to ditch the jargon, and be clear about the product. Otherwise, the danger is that the problems inherent in the 'unified 14-19 learning framework' will become the problem with Diplomas.

Respected not rebranded qualifications

There are rumours around Westminster that ministers are revisiting the Tomlinson proposals for a single overarching diploma (pdf file) to 'bring the academic and vocational' closer together. This would be a big mistake. It would not only devalue A-levels, but would force vocational qualifications to become more like academic ones in order to create a dubious 'parity of esteem'. All this springs from a mistaken notion - one which was tried unsuccessfully with vocational GCSEs and A-levels - that the historic disdain for the vocational in this country can be solved by a rebranding exercise. It can't. Esteem must be earned not enforced, and the new specialised Diplomas and improved apprenticeships are the best way to achieve this. Moreover, any attempt to enforce esteem is in danger of reducing quality for no apparent benefit. After all, Tomlinson's proposed diploma bears little relation to the International Baccalaureate, which is increasingly available to those who want to take a less narrow academic route, and has the virtue of independence and international respect. Instead, ministers should concentrate on selling the four strong choices available to teenagers: A-levels, the IB, Diplomas and Apprenticeships. Each is a strong (or potentially strong) qualification in its own right, and the real effort should be expended on improving advice on choices for young people, so they work towards the qualifications best suited to their needs, rather than those of bureaucrats.