12 Nov 07

The Nuffield Review looks at key issues in education.

The new 14-19 Diplomas, heralded by the government as a mechanism for widening participation in education and training after the age of 16, are the focus of a new paper by the Nuffield Review.

The Review, led by Professor Richard Pring from the University of Oxford Department of Education and a Directorate including Dr Ann Hodgson and Dr Ken Spours from the Institute of Education, University of London, has produced the first in a series of Issues Papers to be published on key educational topics over the coming months.

One of the main issues identified by the Nuffield Review in today’s publication Issues Paper 1: ‘The New 14-19 Diplomas’ is that the government has to be clearer about whether A Levels and GCSEs are to be included in the Diploma framework or whether they will be run parallel to it. It concludes that if all 14-19 year olds can benefit from broader programmes of study, this decision cannot be delayed until 2013, because all Diplomas will suffer in the shadow of A Levels.  

Dr Ken Spours, from the Institute of Education, said: ‘The Diplomas by themselves, even with the new academic lines announced by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families Ed Balls, will not transform the 14-19 system. As long as A Levels remain unreformed, Diplomas will end up being regarded as a poor relation.’

Dr Ann Hodgson, from the Institute of Education, said: ‘While the first lines of Diplomas may prove valuable for broadening learning opportunities at Key Stage 4, their effects post-16 are less obvious because there are already tried and tested alternatives available.’

The Review says the original 14 Diplomas (which are derived from vocational sectors) can be seen as the latest in a long line of broad vocational qualifications, occupying the ground between academic qualifications and the apprenticeship route. Such middle-track qualifications have in the past been regarded as an alternative for the less academically able and the Review predicts that teachers will view Diplomas in the same way – with A levels and GCSEs remaining as the more prestigious qualifications. It says it is unfortunate that the three new Diploma lines in Science, Languages and the Humanities will be developed later than their vocational counterparts, as this means the Diploma brand will have to forge its identity as a broad vocational qualification.

The Paper questions the purpose and role of the Diplomas and asks whether the new programmes are intended to be vocational, or applied, or to serve a more general education purpose. Another criticism made in the Paper is the lack of genuine involvement of qualifications experts, practitioners and awarding bodies, the very people that have experience in delivering the curriculum and who will be responsible for implementing the new Diploma framework. The Review argues they have the necessary experience to find possible design faults in the Diploma courses before they are introduced into the classroom. According to the Review, the Diploma Development Partnerships, brought in by the Sector Skills Council to design the Diplomas, ‘did not necessarily have the curriculum expertise’ or fully represent the views of employers.

The Review believes that there has been too much of a rush to implement the piloting of the first Diplomas. It points out that among the major concerns of teachers and lecturers is the unrealistic timetable and the insufficient attention to professional development.

The Paper asks the question, ‘Do the first 14 Diplomas differ from what has gone before?’ and gives its response, ‘to a degree’. Diplomas encompass a broader age range, from 14-19 rather than 16-19 awards; and provide broader and more flexibly tailored qualifications – with a mix of academic and vocational study as well as more general learning, such as literacy, numeracy skills and ICT, according to the Review.

A positive finding is that there are benefits if the new framework can provide ‘some evidence of a longer-term vision for a comprehensive 14-19 phrase with a wider range of schools and teachers becoming involved with the Diploma developments’. Also, the Diplomas will have a positive role to play at Levels 1 and 2 in Key Stage 4 in broadening and underpinning the upper secondary school curriculum. However, the position of the Diplomas at Level 3 and in relation to A Level is less clear.

Professor Richard Pring, from the University of Oxford’s Department of Education, said: ‘The Review sees the positive benefits in seeking to engage young people in applied learning which is relevant to particular kinds of employment. However, in the light of the evidence there seem to be certain problems, which need to be faced if they are to succeed.

‘There is no doubt enthusiasm from many schools and colleges for the opportunity that Diplomas may provide for a more flexible approach to the curriculum.’  

The full Issues Paper Number 1 can be downloaded on Sunday 11 November from the website www.nuffield14-19review.org.uk.

For more information on the University of Oxford Department of Education, go to www.education.ox.ac.uk