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.

The wrong education battle

Why on earth is the schools minister Vernon Coaker arguing about accreditation for the International GCSE (on the World at One today) on a day when we should be celebrating the achievements of young people, and the record of the Labour government in improving secondary education? Is it any wonder that people don't recognise Labour's improvements when ministers spend their time being sidetracked into pointless debates?

It is a silly debate, yet officialdom in both DCSF and the QCDA are fervent in their refusal to recognise the IGCSE, just as they are disdainful of the International Baccalaureate, from which Ed Balls shamefully cut funding. But both qualifications could offer real competition to other exams, helping maintain standards, and the official arguments against their recognition are pretty weak.

It must be said that the Tories are taking a more discreditable stance in their attempt to do down the achievements of those following vocational routes. But ministers are failing to focus on the real dividing lines between the parties by defending the indefensible. If schools want to offer the IB or IGCSE, they should let them do so. And credit their achievements in league tables - as well as those pursuing vocational routes.

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.

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?

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.

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.