Are the diplomas already a failure?

Today the Conservatives have seized gleefully on figures demonstrating that the Government's much vaunted diplomas are not doing as well as the government hoped. 12,000 pupils began the new qualification this September - rather less than the 50,000 the government hoped for back in 2006. In some local authorities, the numbers taking these new exams are in single digits. According to the Tories, the cost per pupil studying for the diploma is £10,700, which is assumed to be far higher than the equivalent cost of taking A levels (although nobody seems able to say exactly what that might be).

"We want vocational diplomas to succeed as a high quality alternative to academic education," said the Tory's education spokesman, Michael Gove. "But the Government has botched their introduction by generating confusion about what they are all about.

“Tony Blair said diplomas should be separate from A-levels and he would keep the A-level gold standard, but Ed Balls says diplomas could replace A-levels. No wonder teachers and parents don’t know where they stand. The resulting confusion has led to tens of millions of taxpayers’ money being spent on diplomas with only a few thousand pupils actually doing them."

You can see the list of the diploma take up by authority here, but the figures do not give the whole story. Although I'm sure the government would like the diplomas to be more popular, they can't be dismissed on the basis of the first year of a five year programme. They're not even available everywhere, which would explain some of the figures, and those at the DCSF say that there weren't even any "targets" to begin with, just estimates.

Still, even without the party political point scoring (we say this, you say, no, that's not what we meant), there is a problem with the diplomas, and Gove is definitely right on one thing: post GCSE education is confusing, to teachers, and parents. The government may not be intending to replace A levels with diplomas, but that has been muddied by the decision to add academic subjects to the diploma options. Some people in the department seem to think that all parents want is more choice - but that's not entirely true. They want to know their children are getting a good education, and that they are informed enough to make the right decisions for what should happen when. The way diplomas have been introduced have simply added to parental bewilderment.

Read School Gate on:

Post GCSE qualifications explained

The soft A levels universities don't want you to take

Why Tony Blair would be pleased with Michael Gove's education policy

Why are teachers scared of giving their pupils first aid?

Comments

[K Anfeild]

I can say from experiance that the diploma is failing. I applied to a sixth form college in September 2007 to take A Levels and was told by an adviser that I would be better of taking a Diploma in my subject choice of media. I did not choose to do a diploma due to lack of grades, I passed all my GCSE's, but I decided to follow the advise of the course leaders. Now, two years later I have been appying for universities to study journalism and many of my first choices, for example Reading University, have rejected my application because of my lack of A Levels. I cannot help but feel misled and irritated by what has happened, and even though it is clear that universities prefer an A Level to the Diploma, my college is still insisting that they do not.

[Martin Carter]

Labour has now had a clear ten year run at the education and skills agenda in the UK.

It has spent unprecedented amounts of cash and legislated relentlessly.

And what has it achieved?

According to a Select Committee last week, the skills and training arrangements are 'a dog's breakfast' and now we learn that teachers are rejecting the Diplomas for bright pupils and the LSC has run out of cash for the building programmes.

Failure, failure, failure.

And the poor British taxpayer has funded it all with borrowed money and is now almost bankrupt.

Unbelievable.

[M Lumley]

The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority must be held accountable for the Diploma content. It effectively took the responsibility for Diploma development out of the hands of the 'Development Partnerships' (made up of Sector Skills Councils). From that moment on, the educationalists at the QCA, together with the Awarding Bodies, turned the Diplomas into re-hashed BTECs and GNVQs, as they had little incentive, time or funding (or ability?) to create something that was genuinely new and exciting.

Some fundamental problems stem from the failure at the beginning of Diploma development to resolve several serious conflicts: One was that a Diploma could not both provide a 'vocational' alternative for non-academic youngsters yet still provide a route into university for the academic pupils. Another unresolved difficulty is the shortfall in the number of real work placements that are available for Diploma students, and, given the shortage, who will get the workplace learning - those taking level 1, level 2 or level 3 of the Diploma?

[MarkS]

The driving force for all of this came from bureaucrats, not politicians. After Tony Blair rejected 'Tomlinson' and said he would keep GCSE's and 'A'-Levels, the bureaucrats pressed on regardless and, when challenged, said it was an example of 'practice running ahead of policy'.

Given that most of the skills quangos - particularly the Learning & Skills Council - had already made rather a mess of post-16 education and training (in FE colleges, workplaces and sixth forms) it was surprising, if not foolhardy, that they were allowed to 'empire build' by taking over another two years of our education system, but they pushed on and '16-19' soon became '14-19'.

14-19 is not a natural age grouping and most school pupils will still see age 16 as marking the completion of compulsory school education. How a 14-19 Diploma can become a 'qualification of choice' for a 16 year old is unknown, as it immediately invites the conclusion that less than half the qualification has been achieved.

The Diplomas will be seen, rightly or wrongly by many parents, as a softer option to A-Levels, introduced to encourage the less bright to stay on at school post-16.

The high fliers will continue to opt for the less risky A-Levels, reinforcing this pre-conception, making it a self fulfilling prophecy.

The problem with the Diplomas is that they were meant to be suitable for everyone regardless of ability - this just repeats the GCSE fiasco, which produced courses that are not suitable for either the weakest or the brightest.

Englend needs high quality vocational courses that do not try to compete with academic A-Levels - the current offerings have been damaged by the political desire to make them 'rigorous' academically. It should be horses for courses instead of one size fits all.

Glen Thomas
Educational Blog at http://gcthomas.blogspot.com