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.