Letters: Diplomas add up

Bethan Marshall suggests that students studying for a diploma will not have the advanced maths needed for many university degrees ("Why schools will be sticking with A-levels", EDUCATION & CAREERS, 13 March). As head of standards and qualifications at ConstructionSkills, the Sector Skills Council for Construction, I can categorically say that this is untrue.

All diplomas, from construction and the built environment to creative and media, will require students to demonstrate competency in maths, English and ICT. In addition, students who want to do a degree in a subject requiring a high level of competence in maths – such as civil engineering or architecture – will be not be prevented from doing so by taking a diploma.

That is because the qualification allows the student to broaden their study by focusing on a particular topic such as maths. In fact, if a maths A-level is required for entry into a particular degree course, the student can choose to take it as part of their diploma.

Nick Gooderson, Head of standards and qualifications for the Diploma in Construction and the Built Environment

Bethan Marshall misrepresented diplomas. These courses are not for the less able. It is not true to say that the diploma "is aimed at young people getting Cs or Ds at GCSE and who would struggle with A-levels". Yes, the Level 1 diploma is aimed at young people likely to get lower grades at GCSE but the Level 3 diplomas will be every bit as stretching as A-levels, and in some respects more so.

Second, the article overstates the role of workplace learning in the new diplomas. As things stand, work experience will amount to 10 days over two years - the same as most young people, of all abilities, already get during Key Stage 4.

Andy Powell, Chief executive, Edge, London W1

Testing times

The testing regime in primary schools is a national scandal. It reveals nothing about the quality of education, performs no diagnostic function and contributes to a stilted and prescriptive curriculum, at the same time encouraging teachers to coach to the test.

I know, because I have done it myself in my final year of teaching in an Ofsted designated "failing school" when trying to encourage Year 6 children to achieve better SATS results. The test scores may have been acceptable but my "cramming" of children to achieve those results was not my finest moment.

This school was paranoid, joyless and defensive, riddled with fear engendered by arrogant and overpaid administrators and inspectors.

I hesitate to talk about a "golden age" in education. But I can't help but contrast today with my primary school experiences in the 1950s when, in classes of over 40, I remember heady days of art, handicraft, music and drama in addition to the more formal fare.

Vincent Piggott, Hebden Bridge, West Yorks

Learn to earn

Professor Roger Brown argues that the Government is encouraging universities to pay too much attention to the interests of business ("You can't apply market tests for university", EDUCATION & CAREERS, 13 March). He suggests this will lead to fewer students studying chemistry and physics at university.

Unfortunately, Professor Brown's references to the past have distorted his view. Universities have always prepared people for work. Whether it was work in the church, medicine, government, research laboratories or schools, one of the main tasks of universities has been to give people the knowledge, skills, and character to do a job well.

Of course preparing people for the job market has never been the sole function of universities. They have also helped their students to learn more about themselves, about people from other cultures and to explore how to live on their own as well as making a contribution to voluntary organisations. In the past, this experience was the preserve of a small elite. At this time, the costs of higher education were met by a much wider pool of tax payers, many of whom could not even dream of a university education for themselves or their children.

Today, more than 40 per cent of school leavers go to university and the Government has plans to increase this to 50 per cent, if not more. This expansion is not without cost and someone has to pay. In the UK, like many other developed economies, these costs have been shared between the student and the state.

At present the Government pays £15,000 to £40,000 for every undergraduate while students themselves typically spend £30,000 on fees and living expenses. Fortunately, the benefits of these investments are shared. Students who get a good degree in a subject where there is a demand from employers can expect a sizeable return on this investment. As they earn more they also pay more taxes, passing benefits on to other people, graduates and non-graduates alike.

Does this increased but shared cost mean the closure of physics and chemistry departments and a bleak future for many universities? Not at all. Subjects change as research shifts the boundaries of human knowledge.

Here at Manchester Metropolitan University the demand for science, engineering and computing courses has remained high as staff have changed what they teach and research to areas where students want to study and employers have jobs to offer, for example, environmental, forensic and bio-science, psychology, computer gaming and new media.

Faced with increased international competition British companies need universities to help them develop their staff. They also need universities to continue to develop future citizens. These two virtues are not in conflict.

Professor Huw Morris, Dean, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School

Funding facts

Your leader ("Question of cash", EDUCATION & CAREERS, 13 March) claimed that we have not divulged publicly yet the amount of money that higher education institutions will lose as a result of the Government's policy on funding for students doing a second undergraduate degree.

On the contrary, we have been entirely open with institutions about this. When we consulted last autumn we published on our website details for each institution of the adjustments to funding that we estimated would produce the savings required from the policy. Last week institutions received details of their recurrent grant allocations for 2008-09, which showed the adjustments we are making in the light of the consultation.

The savings that arise from the policy are not being lost to higher education, but rather are being made available for reinvestment to increase participation. The recurrent grant allocations for 2008-09 that we published last week show an average cash increase for the sector of 3.5 per cent compared with 2007-08.

Professor David Eastwood, Higher Education Funding Council for England

Send letters to: The Editor, Education, 'The Independent', Independent House, 191 Marsh Wall, London E14 9RS (include a daytime phone number). Fax letters to: 020-7005 2143; e-mail: education@independent.co.uk. Letters may be edited for length and clarity