Teachers' Views on the New 14-19 Specialized Diplomas - Essay Example

Topic: Teachers' views on the New 14-19 Specialized Diplomas Instructions: LITERATURE REVIEW ON THE NEW 14-19 SPECILAZED DOPLOMAS: What have others said, written or researched about the topic What theories illuminate the topic How does the literature relate to the topic I need to have: relevant literature-government document info on the New 14-19 Dips Semi relevant- maybe the old 14-16 Diploma information on vocational courses Background lit rev I have attached my dissertation prop, the literature review i used for prop, but i have been toled that 'the literature review i used is not much an outline of the literature i am going to review but a disorganised discription of what it says.' PLS SEE ATTACHED FORMS RELATED TO MY DISSERTATION TO BE ABLE TO RELATE IT TO THE ESSAY Ainley, P. and Allen, M. (2007). Education make you fick, innit London,Tufnell Press Attwood, G., Croll, P. and Hamilton, J. (2003). 'Re-engaging with education.' Bristol: Rutledge Taylor & Francis Group, 75-95. Watson, A., Stuart, N. and Fergusson, J. (2002). Evaluation of New Approaches to Work-related Learning at Key Stage Four (DfES Research Report 325). London: DfES. Hodgson, A., Spoours, K. (2007). Specialised Diplomas: transforming the 14-19 landscape in England DfES(2002) 14-19 education: extending opportunities, rasing standards (London,DfES). DfES (2005a) 14-19 education and skills (London, DfES). DfES (2005b) 14-19 implementation plan (London, DfES). DfES (2006a) The specialised Diploma gateway (London, DfES). Department For Education And Skills (2002). 14-19: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards. Consultation Document (Cm. 5342). London: The Stationery Office. Shephered, J. (8 January, 2008). Diplomas off to a halting start. London: The Guardian The times Higher Education (27/03/08) 'Nobody really seems to know what the new Diplomas are for' Doplomas don't add up (Letter, Education & Careers, 20 March, 2008) TES 28/03/2008 ON THE NEW 14-19 SPECILAZIED DIPLOMAS Instructions files attached: 1. prop_ass_jan[1].doc 2. dissertation_questionnairs[1][1].doc 3. Fatma[1].doc 4. 14-19Qualifications[1].pdf 5. media watch.pdf Created: 2008-04-01 14:17 Deadline: 2008-04-11 12:22 Time Left: 106 hours Style: - Language Style: English UK Grade: 2:1 Pages: 10 Sources: 12 Literature Review: Thesis: the specialised Diplomas being introduced for 14-19 year olds will reduce drop out rates in Key Stage 4 (KS4) but will not assist young people to find rewarding careers suited to their interests and abilities. Allen (2007a) has described the twenty-first century as "an age where what you learn is less important than what it will allow you to earn". It may sound damning, but one of the aims of this paper seeks to point out that it was ever thus for the majority of the UK's citizens. Since 1951 it has consistently been the top 3% of students - as measured by A-level capped performance - who have had the luxury of learning for its own sake (Ainley, 2006). The destinations post-16 of the remaining 97% were not assiduously recorded until recently but it is fair to assume that they were constrained to ensuring that their learning led them into a recognizable vocational area. The fate of this 97% was undermined by the dissolution of the apprenticeship programme in the 1980s, but has now re-emerged in the shape of specialized Diplomas, and we saw an earlier incarnation in the Vocational Educational qualifications and government led initiatives such as the Youth Opportunity Programmes which have preceded them. Specialised Diplomas give the UK a long awaited opportunity to consolidate and improve provision for the majority of its 14-19 year olds, too long side lined in the emphasis on gaining level 5 and above in SATS, Grade A* at GCSE and Grade A at GCE A-level. Background All young people aged 14-19 were granted a national entitlement to study one of fourteen vocational areas by the Education Act 2006. The White Paper (2005) anticipates that by 2013 40% of KS4 pupils (14-16) will be studying at least one of these areas (Allen, 2007b). The qualification will have three levels, with level 1 being suitable for workplace based learning, level 2 equating to a GCSE Grade C and the 2-year level 3 being suitable for Post-16 students (Allen, 2007b). The 14-19 Implementation Plan (DfES, 2005b) states that at the moment 75% of young people participate in education. The aim is to reduce the number of young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) by two percentage points by 2010 and widen participation to 90% by 2015. This begs the question as to where the other 25% currently are and what they are doing, and more importantly, why they are not participating. Whilst some commentators have argued that this is simply a way of disguising youth unemployment, policy documents (e.g. DfES, 2002, 2003, 2005a) suggest that more young people will stay on in education if the curriculum engages them. Given that 40% of young people continue into post-16 education 'voluntarily' (ie the leaving age has not been officially raised to 18) young people themselves have already raised the leaving of the school leaving age (Ainley, 2007). It cannot be denied that the A-level curriculum is irrelevant to most young people and most Small to Medium Sized employers (SMEs). It's a qualification respected by academics and employers of graduates and therefore valued by parents and students who aspire to higher education for its own sake. The vocational A-level standard qualifications simply blurred the reality. The 'grammar school-technical education-secondary modern school' tripartite system still lingers in the hallways of the DfES. What we are seeing with the Diploma is a revision better suited to the anticipated needs of young people in the twenty-first century. Studies by researchers such as Atwood et al (2003) suggest that vocational courses provide the correct mix of theory and practical application which the majority of young people prefer. It is unfair and untrue to state that such courses appeal only to the disaffected and disengaged: all learners benefit from practical application, hence the emphasis on kinaesthetic teaching and learning in the curriculum. Somewhat cynically Ainley and Allen (2007) review the ROSLA in the 1970s as crowd control with a workplace theme; the Youth Training Schemes of the 1980s as 'training without jobs' and vocational qualifications in the 1990s - such as GNVQs - as 'education without jobs'. There is undoubtedly some truth in these assertions but the over-concern with the differences between academic qualifications and vocational qualifications leaves one with a sense of unease. Parity of esteem may concern politicians, academics, employers and parents, but how relevant is that to the original question: how are we to engage the hearts and minds of a majority of young people and prepare them for life in the twenty-first century What Ainley and Allen refer to as 'academic drift' is seen in such countries as Germany as highly desirable: young people should be able to flit between academic and technical strengths in order to find their personal best fit. Is there a sorrier sound than a young person bewailing the choices made in Year 9 Far better to retain that flexibility for as long as possible, whilst young people decide what they really want to do with their lives. Hence one celebrates the fact that the new universities are preparing for a student population with varied backgrounds and learning styles and experiences (Allen, 2007b) . It is the Russell universities who need to take a careful look at their long term game plan: they can no longer rely on the public purse to subsidise their noticeably irrelevant and narrow academic courses, many of which were already redundant in the twentieth century. Therefore it is disingenuous to claim that the 14-19 vocational programme is designed predominately for disaffected learners; learners who have failed to reach 5 A*- C benchmark at 16; for those wishing to pursue a high-quality employer-recognised qualifications; and for those who want to prepare for a higher education (Nuffield, 2007). Even if this were more than assertion, is this a bad thing given that in 1951 we were content to see only 30% of the 3% cohort of our young people pass A-level qualifications (Ainley, 2006) Ainley (2007) - reviewing the current 50% target for participation in higher education by 18-30 year olds by 2010 - prefers to see the glass as being half-empty. The fact is that most young people at 14 assume that the choices they are presented with are all that are available. They do not yet realise they can vote with their feet and attend an institution which offers the range of study programmes which better captures their interests. Hopefully this will change as the purpose of Diplomas becomes better understood by parents and educators. A key purpose of the Diplomas is to remove redundancy and duplication within 14-19 provision (Cm 6476, 2005, 14). Quite simply there is too much choice for educators, and it is not always clear whether it will remain relevant. Others have looked at low attainment in 14-19 education and training, and have stressed the importance of removing qualifications divisions, both academic / vocational and pre-and post-16 (Finegold et al., 1990; National Commission on Education, 1993; Hodgson & Spours, 1997; Working Group on 14-19 Reform, 2004); the central role of the youth labour market in framing young people's behaviour ( Evans et al., 1997; Hayward et al., 2005); and the need for institutional reorganisation to reduce social segregation between schools, colleges and the work-based route (Hayward et al., 2006; Stanton & Fletcher, 2006). Again, one cannot help but comment on the narrowness of the panorama before such researchers. They ignore the buoyant commercial education and training sector, which is able to provide professional and technical routes into relevant vocational areas. For example, look at the increased use of the Microsoft Office User Specialist qualification or the European Computer Driving License - both of which are far more relevant to employers and employees than a GCSE in ICT. The claim that "there is now no surviving alternative to academic higher education" (Ainley, 2008) is with due respect, not true. There remain the technical and professional routes - some of which young people are readily able to access through FE and by distance learning and private study. To a certain extent the DfES may have been overly ambitious. Reviewing the history of vocational qualifications suggest that it is extremely difficult to design a single set awards that can meet the range of needs displayed between the ages of 14 and 19 years. For example in the case of both GNVQs (Future Education Development Agency / Institute of Education/ Nuffield, 1997) and AVCEs (Savory et., 2003). These agencies argue that this has led to awards which were neither sufficiently vocational to be highly valued by employers nor sufficiently general to be fully accepted by universities. Ainley and Allen (2007) concern themselves with how to marry allegations of 'dumbing down' the syllabus and deskilling young people with government claims of rising standards. They argue that education is now a major method of social control, with a role to cease the divisions and self-destructive anti-social behaviours observed in society. As the consensus moves away from Rousseau's concept of education for its own sake the minds of young people are being stultified, their natural curiosity and creativity stifled. It is in this sense that the current trends in mainstream education are a disservice to young people. For these academics, the main role of education is to be able to understand society so that one can actively participate in changing it for the better. They succinctly argue that the emphasis on individualised education plans, privatisation and credential inflation is slowly but surely subverting the comprehensive ideal as articulated in the Education Act (1944). Allen and Ainsley question the raison d'etre of increased examinations and selection, and how any of the alterations made under the current administration lead to better job prospects for young people. Their arguments are persuasive and pervasive in the current debate as it stands. Role of Employers For some time the Government has believed that employers should be in the driving seat when it comes to vocational education. Organisations such as the Confederation of Business Industry (CBI) constantly deplore the UK's poor competitive standing in relation to its global partners and European neighbours. It is believed that a more relevant education will provide young people with the skills, knowledge and aptitudes required to compete in such an environment. To this end, Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) will lead in the design of these Diplomas. This will surely assist in employer recognition - with a more targeted education programme required for Small to Medium Sized enterprises (SMEs) who employ the majority of persons in the UK. As Allen (2008) observed, whilst we should constantly review the requisite skills needed by young people entering the workplace, we should be wary of the criticisms of employers of competency standards. Citing Rikowski (2006), Allen points out that employer-led organisations, such as the CBI, have not said anything new in over 30 years about the level of competency amongst new recruits. Indeed surveys to date suggest that individual employers do not really know what skills are required for existing positions, never mind future positions in their sectors. Allen (2007b) reminds us that employers have had input into such programmes of study as the BTEC and the City & Guilds describing their input as 'ad hoc'. Yet both these programmes of study are well respected by employers, educators, parents and students. Ainley and Allen (2007) argue that there is a hidden agenda in the vocational qualifications; far from being about skills suitable for employment they are "used to manage changes in the composition of the secondary school population, aresponse to behaviour problems and disaffection, in short, as a new form of social control." Ainley goes further, commenting that "Dedicated obsessively to the vocational needs of the economy, education no longer aspires to emancipate the minds of future generations. Instead, it increasingly forecloses possibilities. In this sense, education really does make you fick, innit" (Ainley, 2007) Is there an Audience for Work-related Learning One conclusion we can draw from Atwood et al's (2003) research in a FE college on pre-16 provision for students who were no longer attending school is that the main reason young people drop out of mainstream education is that they wish to escape the poor relationships they have developed with their teachers and other pupils. Once away from this perceived aversive environment students subsequently attended college successfully until the end of Year 11. Students attending Pre-16 vocational courses at college acted had improved self-esteem and were highly motivated: "Almost all of the students had specific immediate career aspirations that were linked to the course that they were doing and saw successful completion of the course as a way into a form of employment they found attractive' (Attwood et al., 2003, p.89). Watson et al. (2002) evaluated 21 work-related learning action research projects (ARPs), which ran during the academic years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. Using a mixed methodology approach they collated and reviewed data at local and national level. These research projects were established to explore the impact of work-related learning on key stage 4 students. The objectives of the ARPs were to improve motivation & attitudes among key stage 4 students, to increase their skills and knowledge, and to improve student's attendance, behaviour and raise attainment. The study also revealed feedback from teachers that practical, work -based learning secured improvements in student behaviour, both for national curriculum subjects and specific projects. This research showed both that young people had the capability to learn through extended work-related learning and that they made clear progress in attainment levels. One can deduce that the improved attendance rates and behaviour was a direct result of the young people feeling that their studies were relevant and engaging. Despite the positive feedback from the Attwood et al and Watson studies it remains unclear whether work-related learning alone meets the needs of this group of young people. Or is it the change of environment Within FE pre-16 vocational students find that they have the opportunity to establish good personal relationships and they engage more readily with the vocational ethos. Atwood et al do point out that the paper made no attempt to examine the social background factors involved with this client group. FE is less concerned with emotional and behaviour difficulties, SEN and G&T. The curriculum is not as rich as that offered in mainstream 14-19 provision. The whole experience is more anonymous. Lecturers are less likely to know about a student's background or to have five years exposure to a student. This in turn begs the question, have we really understood the point the former DfES was making This is not just about the academic provision provided by educators. Work-related learning has been conceived as a partnership between the public sector and the private sector. Employers have a role to play too. Too Little, Too Late Funding of the Diplomas will be crucial to their success. Allen (2007b) anticipates that the stated purpose of the qualification will be compromised, not only because of the increased oversight role of the QCA but also because there will be little additional workplace based experience - not much more than the 2 weeks currently provided to most Year 10 students. Allen (2007b) foresees that young people will be short-changed by the qualifications, with increasing polarisation between those with elite qualifications and those with vocational qualifications. He anticipates that there will be just as many 'McJob' opportunities created as professional/academic routes open to students. Another concern is the amount of time that Diplomas will occupy in the timetable. If as argued by Allen, a level 1 Diploma will require 50% of the timetable at KS4, then it is legitimate to question where the richer elements of the current curriculum (humanities, arts and modern foreign languages) will sit in the timetable. It is unlikely that mainstream schools will have the resources to offer a range of the Diplomas. Instead the Government has identified the need for 200 vocational schools, some of which are indicated on the www.specialistschools.org.uk web site. In place already are local partnerships between LEAs and the Learning and Skills Concils (LSCs). They will have a major role to play in the delivery of the Diplomas since 'In every area, providers will ensure that between them they are making a full offer' (14-19 White Paper 7.25). It is already the case that some 120,000 young people aged14-16 attends FE for at least one day per week. This resulted from the Increasing Flexibility scheme. The DfES anticipate that FE attendance will double with up to 350,000 14-16 year olds attending FE for at least one day per week (DfES, 2006). At logistical level the NUT (2007) question the extent to which young people aged 14-16 would be prepared to travel to learn, and anticipate that attendance monitoring will be required. As recently as 2006 LEACAN's research illustrated that many schools and LEAs remain unprepared for and unconvinced by the potential success of Diplomas. One could point out that such an attitude can but lead to a self-fulfilled prophecy. In a survey carried out by The Guardian in conjunction with EdComs and ICM it was found that "Ninety-three per cent of heads told pollsters that parents and pupils were "not knowledgeable" about the new qualifications. In fact, 19% said they themselves were "not very knowledgeable" about it. Two-thirds said teaching staff at their schools were "not knowledgeable" about them and 79% said the same for local employers." (Shepherd, 2008) It isn't that educators want the Diplomas to fail; they are simply not planning for them to succeed. AimHigher conducted a survey of 14 University course leaders to determine how well they understood FE qualifications. The survey report, Closing the Gap II, says it was not "a complete surprise" that there were misunderstandings given the complexity of provision. However what was interesting were the comments made regarding students with an academic A-level background vis--vis students from vocational courses: "Descriptions of A-level students were overwhelmingly negative: they were seen as "immature", "not ready", "the least prepared" and "spoon-fed". In contrast, foundation diploma students had "discovered what they want to do" and were seen as "better motivated", "more innovative" and "more independent"." (Newman, 2008) However, the DfES have sought to provide some guidance here. Providers must be able to establish that they are read to go through the Gateway, which is a process to assess a provider's readiness. As one would expect there should be evidence of firm collaborative arrangements with educators, employers and HE, especially with regard to delivery at all ability levels (DfES, 2006a). Hence we can see that the DfES emphasis has not altered since the Green Paper (2002): Work-related learning can be delivered in a variety of ways. These include not only direct experience through work and community placements and, indeed, part-time jobs, but also learning about the world of work through vocational courses and enterprise activities in schools (DfES, 14 to 19 Green Paper, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.14). Competition with Traditional Routes There are other concerns about usefulness of the Specialist Diplomas; as retention of GCSEs and A-levels are accepted as the most prestigious route of study for 14-19 year olds for many years it will mean that the most able learners are likely to continue to choose these qualifications rather than choosing one of the new Specialised Diplomas (Nuffield, 2007). Researchers such as Hodgson and Spours believe that 'even tested vocational qualifications such as BTEC Diplomas and City and Guilds London Institute (CGLI) awards, course popularity is not assured even among those learners wishing to take more applied or vocational study' (Hodgson & Spours et al, 2007.) Allen (2007) goes further, pointing out that whilst the Applied A-level in Science attracted 800 entries in 2005/6, the traditional single science A-level options attracted 23,000 entrants for physics, 34,000 for chemistry and 46,000 for biology. From these figures he deduces that vocational qualifications are not as popular, and asserts that "with only one in 120 students signing up for the first round of Diplomas starting in 2008 (TES, 26/10/07) is already becoming an educational white-elephant." Having completed an historical analysis and reviewed current data on Specialised Diplomas, researchers Hodgson & Spours posit that the new qualifications are likely to function more effectively than predecessors, such as GNVQs, as a 'middle track' for full-time younger learners. The most important reason behind reforming the 14-19 policy in England is to raise levels of participation and attainment, especially about participation at 17+ and to raise Level 2 attainment which is the level associated with employability in policy. (Hodgson and Spours, 2007, 661) Although the Specialised Diplomas are expected to have a greater impact than GNVQs there are concerns that it may not be as highly regarded. There are fears that its popularity and uptake will be compromised by the continuation of traditional A-levels and GCSEs and by the low level of employer demand for broad full-time vocational educations. With more young people having the option to continue their studies post-16, the UK is undergoing similar credential inflation as experienced in the USA, where the preferred entry level qualification to top level professional employment opportunities is the Masters, rather than the Batchelor degree. Conclusion There is much that has not been considered in the foregoing or inadequately covered. In particular more research is needed on the broader question: what are the personal and opportunity costs to young people if they invest time and effort in obtaining this qualification On the one hand it is not possible to dispute the claims of a long term decline in unskilled and semi-skilled work which has traditionally provided young people with an alternative method of making their living. Clearly young people must upskill (DfES, 2002, p.5). Whilst the qualitative case studies indicate that work-related learning can aid motivation and attainment, improve attendance and behaviour, improve self confidence and behaviour and positively influence young people's choice of post-16 courses that is not the same thing as access to an interesting and financially rewarding career. However, there is no reason why it should not do so. The problem is that it has not been planned. On mainland Europe and in the USA employers work more closely with young people, offering paid internships, which in themselves add-value to the efforts of educators. Young people have a clearer career path with obvious links between the programme of study and their role in the work place (Cmd 6476, 2005a, 20). Much of the literature reviewed so far is embedded in 1960s rhetoric and Marxist theory. Whilst some of the arguments put forward are thought provoking there is a distinctive flavour of "argument for the sake of argument". There is insufficient evidence for a debate to take place. All the points are moot because the UK has not attempted anything on this scale before. What is curious is the complete lack of data available from countries such as Germany which has been offering work-related learning to its young people for decades. One only has to look at the United States of America to see what is possible if there is joined up thinking. Where are the internships that are the norm in other parts of the developed world A further caveat - and forgive the cynicism - it is possible for a child to be physically present and intellectually absent. As anyone who has worked in the field of Further Education can testify an unidentified percentage of young people attend courses not because they have the slightest interest in their current programme of studies, but in order to qualify for the educational maintenance allowance. No matter how rigorous our attempts to ensure young people remain in education, employment or training, there is little we can do about the fact that youth is invariably wasted on the young. There is clearly a need for further action research in this area with an emphasis on comparative education across the European Union - the main competitors for employment opportunities for young people in the UK. Words: 3992 List of References Ainley, P. (2008). "The Cruellest Con of All". 7 February 2008. Available at: Ainley, P. and Allen, M. (2007). Education Make You Fick, Innit What's Gone Wrong in England's Schools, Colleges and Universities and How to Start Putting It Right. London: Tufnell Press. Ainley, P. (2007). "Raising the bar: Will staying on to 18 open up possibilities, or close them" The Guardian. Tuesday March 13, 2007. Allen, M. (2006) 'A-levels - Not as golden as they used to be' Socialist Education Journal No 2 Oct 2006. Available at: Allen, M. (2007a). "Desperate Diplomacy - Ed Balls announces moreDiplomas." October 28, 2007. Available at: Allen, M. (2007b) "Learning For Labour: Specialist Diplomas and 14-9Education." Vol. 49No3. October 5, 2007. Available At: Allen, M (2008). "The Cambridge Pre-U: Elitism goes marchingon." February 3, 2008. Available at: Attwood, G., Croll, P. and Hamilton, J. (2003). 'Re-engaging with education.' Research Papers in Education, Volume 18,Number 1, April 2003 , pp. 75-95(21) Bristol: Rutledge Taylor & Francis Group. Available at: CBI (2006) "Government must show more urgency in raising literacy and numeracy through GCSEs" - CBI, Confederation of British Industry, News Release, 21st August. Available at: DfES (2002) 14-19 Education: Extending Opportunities, Raising Standards. Consultation Document (Cm. 5342). London: The Stationery Office. DfES (2005a) 14-19 Education and Skills. (Cm. 6476). London: The Stationery Office. DfES (2005b) 14-19 Implementation Plan (London, DfES). DfES (2006a) The Specialised Diploma Gateway (London, DfES). DfES (2006b) Further Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances. Green, A., Wolf, A. and Leney, T. (1999) Convergence and Divergence in European Education and Training Systems, London: Institute of Education. Hodgson, A., and Spours, K. (2007). Specialised Diplomas: Transforming the 14-19 Landscape In England Journal of Education Policy, Volume 22, Issue 6 November 2007, 657 - 673. LEACAN (2006) Challenges Facing Partnerships: Current Developments Towards Implementation of 14-19 Reform In Local Authorities. Available at: . Mansell, W. Rosen, R., and Lepkowska, D. (2008) "Don't twist the diplomas." TES. 28 March 2008 National Union of Teachers (2007) Response to the House of Commons' Education and Skills Committee inquiry into 14-19 specialised Diplomas. Newman, M. (2008). 'Nobody Really Seems To Know What the New Diplomas Are For'. The Times Higher Education. 27 March 2008 Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training, England and Wales. ISSUES PAPER 1. The New 14-19 Diplomas. November 2007. November 2007 Rikowski, G. (2006) 'The long moan of history: Employers on school leavers' Available at: . Shepherd, J. (2008). "Diplomas off to a halting start." The Guardian. 8 January, 2008. Watson, A., Stuart, N. and Fergusson, J. (2002). Evaluation of New Approaches to Work-related Learning at Key Stage Four (DfES Research Report 325). London: DfES. Read More