Scrap diplomas and go back to the drawing board, urges CBI
Monday, 23 June 2008
Britain's employers have withdrawn their support for the Government's new diplomas, urging ministers to go back to the drawing board and concentrate on improving GCSEs and A-levels instead. The CBI's move comes just months before the new qualifications were to be introduced in schools this autumn.
The diplomas were devised by ministers to put vocational and academic qualifications on an equal footing in an attempt to address complaints from employers that youngsters were leaving school ill-equipped for the world of industry.
Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, then introduced a new academic strand to the diplomas – making them available in subject areas such as languages, sciences and the humanities. He said he could see them replacing GCSEs and A-levels as the main qualification for tomorrow's teenagers.
But Richard Lambert, director general of the CBI, said: "Employers understand and value GCSEs and A-levels and firmly believe these should remain as a cornerstone of the education system. Introducing a range of science, humanities and language diplomas runs the risk of undermining the integrity of these traditional academic subjects. And they could also be a distraction from the need to raise the numbers of young people studying science and maths."
Until now, the CBI has backed the diploma programme – but only as a parallel qualification to GCSEs and A-levels, offering more in-depth study in vocational areas such as engineering and hospitality.
Going ahead with the present proposals, it argues, would lead to a "fractured, two-tier, education system with private schools opting for GCSEs and A-levels – or even the International Baccalaureate – while state schools use diplomas".
In a submission to ministers on the future of the examination system, the CBI urges ministers to retain and improve GCSE and A-levels "to ensure they are of a high quality and where appropriate made more rigorous". It wants them to develop the idea of vocational diplomas but scrap the academic ones.
The Government's reform of exams has had a chequered history since it rejected the advice of an inquiry headed by Sir Mike Tomlinson, a former chief schools' inspector, that there should be an overarching diploma to incorporate both the GCSE/A-level strand and vocational qualifications. The Government opted instead for a separate diploma to run beside existing examinations.
Ministers insist they are strengthening A-levels. From September, tougher questions will be designed to bring out pupils' thinking skills in essay-style answers. In addition, an A* grade is to be introduced for students who start their A-level courses this autumn.
John Dunford, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, described the CBI's decision as disappointing. "An important part of the success of the diploma is securing the support of employers and universities for it," he said. "Employers have been involved in the design of the diplomas. They should be enthusiastic champions of them."
Jim Knight, the Schools minister, said he was surprised by the CBI's response. "Most people agree we should seek to end the divide between academic and vocational diplomas," he said. "All 17 diplomas seek to achieve that."
Michael Gove, the Conservatives' schools spokesman, warned: "By pushing ahead with the plans for academic diplomas, the Government risks undermining the existing diplomas and it threatens the future of GCSEs and A-levels."
Post a comment
Limit: 1000 characters
View all comments that have been posted about this article
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP address logged and may be used to prevent further submissions. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by Independent.co.uk's Terms of Use
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

www.rs-game.com
Posted by runescape | 18.10.08, 02:15 GMT
The central problem is that politically correct socialistic teachers and teacher trainers and academics (who just ape the USA) change the education system for political/ideological and not for educational reasons - in this case the nonsense of 'parity of esteem'.
The best way to make sure people reach their potential is to accept they are different and have selective schools - as they have all over europe and in all (former) communist countries too. They also have a traditional, solid, knowledge-based system and recognise that this is the best way.
The british education system is shot to Sh*t - and I, as a former teacher, think most teachers and teacher trainers and academics should be put on trial for their destruction of a once great education system to what we have now. If I had kids I'd get them educated in France.
Posted by SanityMan | 26.06.08, 16:02 GMT
I feel that the introduction of the new diplomas could lead to a mish mash of qualifications, and utter confusion, not only for employers but young people. These diplomas are a poor excuse to fill the skills gap. Much more work needs to be done to improve the poor standard of literacy and numeracy in our secondary schools.
Posted by shirly smityh | 24.06.08, 22:21 GMT
Entrusted in the 1990's with forming a group whose brief was to convert advances in academia into software for industry, I relied on 'the grapevine'. I was not alone, though one does not hang out that this is the way the trade worked.
It worked this way because around that time paper qualifications became utterly worthless. Two candidates with ostensibly similar resumes were often extremely far apart in actual ability. It does not take long for a manager under pressure to find his/her own way of staffing a group.
Of the ten people I hired, only one was without input from a former colleague. He was not stupid, but he contributed by far the least to the work of the group and by far the most to the promotion of his own career.
Frankly, I can't think of a reason why an employer should pay any attention at all to paper qualifications issued by Institutions of Higher Learning, except one. If X can't get some lamebrain Uni to give him/her a PhD, he/she is surely an imbecile.
Posted by OddJob | 24.06.08, 00:46 GMT
The real issue: children are disengaged from learning.
The real solution: make school more interesting, more challenging, and more engaging.
I don't mean dumb it down, i mean the opposite, by the time I finished my GCSES (a few years ago) I was so disengaged by boredom that I had no interest in school, and when I found I had to actually do work to get science A levels (something I had never, ever, had to do before, since my GCSEs constituted work I'd been able to do for years) I didn't know how to begin, and I couldn't be bothered because I was disengaged.
Posted by Chrissy | 23.06.08, 14:17 GMT
So the CBI wants to remove Diplomas that give students the skills employers want and replace them with A-levels, which don't give employers the skills they want. Am I the only who sees the major flaw in this argument.
Posted by Twiggins | 23.06.08, 14:07 GMT
The government, business leaders and reporters of educational matters will never sort out the difference between academic and vocational learning / courses if they don't understand what constitutes vocational. To state that engineering is a vocational course demonstrates a total, and inexcusable, lack of understand of engineering. To gain entrance to university to read for a three year engineering degree, I had to gain A levels in maths, physics and chemistry. That is engineering and that is NOT vocational. Car mechanic, plumber, electrician, sheet metal worker, pipe fitter may all be vocational trades, but none constitute engineering.
Posted by roger spurr | 23.06.08, 13:09 GMT
I fully and enthusiastically endorse the CBI's recommendation. I have been teaching for more than 25 years in the state sector and believe that GCSEs and A Levels have considerable value. Most teachers I talk to have little knowledge of, and no interest in, these new-fangled diplomas. I would love to see a government in power that stops confusing incessant activity with achievement. The constant interference in education by well-intentional, but woefully ignorant, politicians I think is the primary cause of stress and exasperation amongst teachers responsible for managing examination groups. We don't need constant change; we don't need daily "new" ideas from educationally impoverished government ministers who give new meaning to the expression "Balls-up". Please leave us alone to exercise our (considerable) professional judgments.
Posted by Chris Hopton | 23.06.08, 11:56 GMT
The entire disaster of the "diplomas" experiment has arisen from the Socialist doctrine that intelligence is "socially conditioned" rather than genetically transmitted. The contrary evidence of forty years of experience, since the abolition of the grammar schools, has failed to have any effect whatever on Socialist policy. And no, I am not an elitist: I am a retired teacher, whose father was a joiner. Consequently I believe in accurate measurement, whereas Socialist educationists - in the words of the song - "wrap their troubles in dreams, and dream their troubles away".
Posted by Edmund Burke | 23.06.08, 11:53 GMT