14-19: EXTENDING OPPORTUNITIES, RAISING STANDARDS

Draft Oxfordshire Response

CHAPTER 1 - The vision for the 14-19 phase

Q1: Do you share our vision of the 14-19 phase?

• The vision contains no guarantees for young people (a clear statement of what every young person can expect from the 14-19 phase). The vision is incomplete unless there is a debate about the essential elements of a 14-19 curriculum. Whilst there is a commitment to try out different models for planning further development, the chapter on Recognising Achievement suggests that the vision will be limited to the repackaging of current qualifications.

• There is a target that 50% of young people will participate in higher education: their role as fully graduate participants in the knowledge economy is articulated. However the prospects and progression routes for the other 50% are neglected.

CHAPTER 2 - 14-19: Marking the start of the phase

• But much depends on whether the Matriculation Diploma can be constructed as a suitable aspiration. Much also depends on the Connexions service and whether it can be sufficiently resourced and work effectively in tandem with schools.

• Oxfordshire is developing a Connexions model, which seems to be effectively integrating the work of schools with other Connexions agencies.

• Four years is a long time for a young person to plan ahead and the opportunities to change direction need to be clear and guaranteed. The value of the plan itself should not be overestimated: it is the accompanying processes that are of value to the young person. A light touch is needed to reduce the burden on schools.

From the school?

• Pupils need to develop their skills of reviewing, planning and managing their learning and setting personal targets from the earliest stages. There is much good practice in PSHE, target setting, and Careers Education and Guidance, which has found a place within Progress File.

• The long period of ministerial ambivalence about Progress File and whether it would be nationally disseminated beyond the Demonstration Projects has diminished the profile of this work in Key Stage 3 in recent years. This consultation document signals a welcome recognition of the importance of personal development planning for individuals throughout KS3.

• KS 3 should be seen as more than a phase of completion, where fundamental skills in English, Maths, Science and ICT are secured for the vast majority. KS3 also needs to expose pupils to different types of learning and assessment so that they can make informed choices for and during the 14-19 phase.

• School teachers pre 14 need better knowledge and understanding of the routes and pathways post 14.

From the Connexions Service?

• The Connexions Service is in its infancy. The training of Personal Advisers will be critical to ensuring they have accurate information about the 14-19 curriculum generally as well as about local provision. Will personal advisers have the status to engage with senior managers on issues of provision? The Oxfordshire model has PAs as full members of school Connexions teams led by a member of the SMT. In most schools that should lead to an intelligent and continuing review of provision.

• The role of the Connexions service as the custodians of impartial advice and guidance for all young people needs to be strengthened. Impartial advice and guidance should be a statutory entitlement, especially as pathways through the phase become more complex.

• Further refinement, development and dissemination of Progress File, to include improved teacher guidance and further materials for young people with learning difficulties. Progress File has yet to impinge on most Oxfordshire schools.

• Fear of debt remains a key issue for many young people, and so the vast majority of young people need to earn while learning: this does not appear to be fully acknowledged in our current HE arrangements where the opportunities to earn while learning are underdeveloped.

• Progression from Modern Apprenticeship into HE is not common.

CHAPTER 3: The content of the 14-19 curriculum

• This is a rationale for the inclusion of subjects. It is fundamentally predicated upon the 1988 national curriculum, which nominated subjects as the starting point and had no rationale. A post hoc rationale has been achieved over the years along with some adaptation of the curriculum to improve its efficacy.

• The consultation is the opportunity to undertake a more fundamental debate about the elements of a 14-19 curriculum, the basis for progression and the essentials for personal, social, spiritual, moral, and economic development.

• Education for economic growth is excessively dominant and education for personal development and a civilised society receives less attention. The correlation between educational improvement and economic growth is much quoted but any causal effect is not demonstrated.

• But see Q8 and reservations about defining a core in terms of existing subjects. Schools/colleges currently deal with English, literacy and communication and Maths, numeracy and application of number. Within the profession the distinctions and functions are unclear and are opaque to users. The proposed approach to science offers a way forward for English and Mathematics: i.e. a core programme of study relevant to all learners built into a wider range of accreditation and optional elements, all of which have performance table currency.

• See Q8 above and the need for a clear statement of principles before specifying courses and programmes.

• If there is a serious intention to enhance vocational options then there should also be a statutory entitlement to a vocational programme

• In practice how will schools plan for and staff this entitlement if only a handful of students select a subject from the statutory entitlement. One of the advantages of a statutory KS4 NC was that it made staffing more predictable. To make a serious guarantee will be costly.

• A major programme of MFL in KS2 and 3 along with opportunities to re-start an MFL from age 14 well into adult life might have the necessary impact on our national linguistic competence.

• The current monitoring arrangements are more honoured in the breach than the observance. However an important principle underlines them: that of making planned provision for individuals on the basis of accurate information, advice and guidance.

• The recognition that the subject range for new GCSEs in vocational areas is too limited is welcomed.

• The successful teaching and learning styles associated with GNVQ need to be developed and not be subsumed under GCSE.

• Unfortunately a very important progression route previously afforded through GNVQ (Foundation à Intermediate à Advanced) has disappeared and nothing replaces it.

• GCSE and its assessment regime is part of the current problem with the 14-16 curriculum, yet its status as the benchmark qualification at 16 is potentially enhanced.

• NVQs are the national benchmark for OEDC comparison, but there is too little incentive for their adoption at KS4 at present. Pupils are motivated and enjoy this practical approach to learning and assessment. Employers, FE colleges and training providers understand their delivery, assessment and value. However they, too, have a limited range in KS4 and some omissions are difficult to understand.

• Prior experience of NVQs in KS4 is necessary if students are to make informed decisions about progression to Modern Apprenticeships.

• Entry to teacher training will need to change to accommodate students with vocational qualifications; otherwise teachers will continue to pass principally through the academic route.

• The OfSTED framework gives insufficient attention to vocational options and there are too few inspectors with the expertise to make judgements on the range of vocational work in school sixth forms.

• It is important that the "applied" prefix does not send the same negative signals that the prefix "vocational" has done in the past.

Q16: Are there any other ways in which you think GCSEs might evolve?

• Fundamental decisions need to be made about GCSE.

• The use of GCSE and particularly the 5 A* to C benchmark as the predominant indicator of the performance of individuals and institutions militates increasingly aggressively against curriculum development needed to improve opportunities for young people.

• The present A2 already requires great depths of understanding.

• Individual unit results are available to candidates. Where it is necessary for candidates to demonstrate attainment at the upper limits of the A grade, the evidence is available for them to do so. This allows discrimination at the upper limits, without devaluing the A grades achieved by other students.

• Are more demanding questions necessary? In History, for example, you might be able to get the greater differentiation by giving a higher weighting to good answers to difficult questions.

• Provided that the distinctive vocational opportunities are not diluted or lost along with the loss of prefix.

• But why no drivers for continued development beyond Level 2?

Q22: Do you support the framework proposed?

• This paragraph presumably indicates the need to ensure that all publicly funded programmes are of sufficient range, volume, and rigour to warrant funding and to enable progression to the Diploma at 19.

• As far as sixth form students on Level 3 programmes are concerned, Year 12 students have very little time in their schedule for pursuing wider activities. Year 13 students may have less directed time in school, but are extended in other ways preparing for the A2 and applications for the next phase.

• The overwhelming majority of young people have part-time jobs, either to contribute to family income, or to support their social lives. Indeed some economists regard the young consumer, with an income to dispose on mobile telecoms, fashion items, sport and entertainment as key to keeping afloat this sector of the economy. Consequently, we cannot expect greater voluntary activity, when in reality the retail sector is heavily dependent on young people's labour and their spending.

CHAPTER 4: Recognising achievement – a new Diploma for Achievement

• Its value lies in marking the end point of the phase and in shifting attention from achievement at age 16 to age 19.

• However, heads of sixth form, who invested heavily in time and effort to implement Key Skills, are deeply sceptical of any device, which could be undermined and ignored by H E, as is largely the case with Key Skills. The system cannot afford another wastage of teacher and student effort on this scale

• A Diploma differentiated by level is preferable, provided that a Foundation Level is included.

Q26: What do you think the award should be called?

• Graduation Diploma, because young people are familiar with the notion of high school graduation in USA.

• For the Advanced and Higher Awards there should be a requirement of at least one key skill to Level 3 to reflect the outcome of the Curriculum 2000 review.

• If the proposal is to motivate and offer an aspirational target, then such a target must be available at Level 1/Foundation level.

• See comments above about a Foundation level.

• But only as an indicator of breadth i.e. in the Higher and Advanced Awards.

• For the Advanced and Higher Awards there should be a requirement of at least one key skill to Level 3 to reflect the outcome of the Curriculum 2000 review.

• Yes - but we are not sure how - possibly through Progress File.

Q34: How do you think the wider activities should be assessed?

• Through Progress File and the wider key skills - somehow we have to reduce the formal assessment burden and rely on the professional judgement of teachers.

CHAPTER 5: Pace and progression

• But the logistical implications are immense. In urban areas, with common scheduling, it is more feasible.

• More could be achieved with better pupil teacher ratios, increasing differentiation, enhanced ICT.

CHAPTER 6: Advice, guidance and support for young people

• We would like to see a statutory entitlement to independent advice and guidance.

• The best CEG programmes have always introduced young people to this kind of reflection and planning from Year 7.

• No, not yet. We need at least 3 years to assess the potential of Connexions.

CHAPTER 7: Drivers and support for change

• They do not go far enough. The time has come to agree a better set of measures for assessing the effectiveness of schools. The allocation of points to vocational and entry level qualifications is important if we are to continue with the narrow numerical approach.

• Take an entirely different approach. Instead of an increasingly complex numerical scoring system, agree with areas their targets for Level 2 and Level 3 achievement by age 19 Individual institutions and consortia agree their targets including the numbers they expect to reach Level 2 by age 16. There arew sufficiently robust data for setting challenging targets and increasingly mature processes arising out of LEA EDPs. LSCs and LEAs working together must agree with institutions their targets at age 19, again based on pupil prior attainment. Reporting can be on the basis of target achievement and the extent to which all learners have made progress towards worthwhile goals.

Comments as Q40

See Q40 comments.

• Funding and other conditions similar to school sixth forms. The current accounting, audit and financial systems cause colleges to concentrate more on cash flow than education and training.

CHAPTER 8: Implementation

Q44: Do you agree with the timetable indicated?

• Unlike the literacy, numeracy and KS3 strategies, 14-19 is a much more complex area, involving many partners. LSC and LSDA are still finding their feet and establishing working relationships with LEAs. The partnerships and coordinated working required, the vertical and horizontal collaboration between institutions and agencies are costly to set up and maintain and easily falter if the collaboration is not matched at every level in each organisation. The timetable needs a longer timescale, except in the case of the performance tables, which will impede curriculum reform, if not subject to immediate adjustment.

• Authorities which have made the greatest success of inter-institutional collaboration are those where there has been significant additional funding, e.g. from European Social Fund.

Q45: Do you support our proposal for pathfinders?

• Foundation Graduation Diploma.

• Innovative ways of increasing NVQ capacity for 14-16 year olds.

• Schools should receive top up funding to cover the cost of management, induction, teaching and assessment, student support, quality assurance, transport, planning and financial transactions.

• Collaboration represents split site working at its most complex. Institutions need to work strategically together, which is a long way from the current collaboration on marginal activity.

• It is costly and may not be the most efficient way of enhancing opportunities for young people. It transfers responsibility for a coherent 14-19 system from the political arena to institutions.

Q49: Are there any additional ways in which collaboration could be encouraged?

• Ensuring LSC funding recognise the additional costs of collaboration - e.g. transport, administration, accountancy, meetings time

• Performance tables could report on partnership performance and not individual institutional performance. This would also have the effect of holding specialist schools to account for their contribution outside the home institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Q50: Having considered the Green Paper as a whole:

1. Do you think we have identified the right issues to address in our proposals?

• Most but not all - in particular encouraging a national debate about the post National Curriculum for the 14-19 age range in the early years of the 21^st century.

1. What if any other issues need to be tackled?

• The legacy of " driving up standards through competition" remains, fuelled by performance tables, which have strengthened the hierarchy of schools in many areas. This is still a key issue to tackle.

• A guarantee for students, clear principles about what we want to secure for all young people, beyond "flexibility".

• A 14-19 curriculum that prepares young people for participation in the European community.

• A 14-19 curriculum that shows that it values technology and creativity.

1. On balance, do you support the proposals we are making to develop a coherent, flexible 14-19 phase?

• Without a more fundamental debate about the purpose of education and training for this age group, we are in danger of being beguiled by the promise of more flexibility in the short term, and ignoring the long-term consequences for inclusion of equal opportunities.
  
  Return to TOP