Why can't we have two track qualification reporting?

The local East Midlands slot in The Politics Show yesterday (12/2/12) revisited the story about vocational vs academic accreditation. It reported that the JCB sponsored Engineering Specialist diploma has been down graded from a 5 GCSE equivalent to 1 GCSE - what does that say to engineering businesses and the students who want to work in our manufacturing sector?

I am already appalled at this elitism and flawed thinking by the Education Department and it got me thinking. JCB had major input into the development of this course. The CBI regularly complain about the lack of work skills of young people leaving school and we want to encourage our struggling manufacturing sector. Surely if the qualification is designed for business it is training our young people in the EXACT skills their industry wants and so it is of immense value to those businesses and the students involved.

Why can't the government understand that not all young people want to go to university or peruse a service career?

If the reason is, as stated, that schools are using the vocational qualification equivalents to boost league tables why can't we report on the Specialist diplomas separately and scrap the equivalents? This would enable us to see how successful the diplomas are and which schools succeed in getting students through vocational qualifications. It would also allow students to have certificates that have value in the vocational sphere that they can show employers. Alternatively, if that is a bit obvious for the government, why not give the diplomas NVQ (National Vocational Qualification) equivalents instead of GCSE? They are already up and running and have a brand and value to employers and surely have a more natural fit with the diplomas than GCSEs.

Come on Mr Gove, let's do something positive and re-enforcing here rather than negative and demotivational!

Social Impact Bonds

I have just been watching the East Midlands slot on the Sunday Politics Show (5/2/12) and they have been reporting on The Social Impact Fund. When did this appear? I have never heard of this..

It sounds interesting, the example shown is a prison in Peterborough - where private investors, including the Big Lottery fund fund, have invested £5,000,000 into a programme of intense work to prevent reoffending amongst 3,000 prisoners. If they succeed and it can be proven to have lowered re-offending by over 7.5% then they get £8,000,000 back.

The programme debates the issues and quickly arrives at the hub of the question - what are the criteria upon which the measurement is made? How long do they have to prove it's worked? How robust are the monitoring routines? What happens if they fail?

The following link for the Third Sector online magazine gives you more details:
http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Finance/article/1113538/two-new-social-impact-bond-style-investments-launched/

The idea is that this limited number of pilots is used to prove the concept. Will private investors want to engage in what is a very risky enterprise and is it right to ask private companies to bail us out in this way or should we prioritise public funds better to do these jobs?

Remind me a bit of PFI and look what happened there...

OU forced to increase fees

I am not sure how many of you are aware of it but did you know that, from September 2012, new OU students will have significantly higher fees to pay?

This stalwart of our educational system that has encouraged and brought access to knowledge to life long learners for over forty years (believe it or not the OU opened its door to first students in January 1971) it is being forced to commercialise it's courses by stringent cuts to its funding by government.

For those young people that thought studying with the OU could be a way to gain a degree without racking up an eye watering £20,000 - £27,000 debt for tuition fees alone this is a blow. For older learners who like to study discreet modules to pursue their own interests or gain their qualifications whilst working it is going to cost a great deal more.

The fees will be going up to £5,000 per year for two full modules (120 credits the equivalent of 1 full time standard university year). If you want to study one 60 credit module it will cost you £2,500 or £1,250 for a 30 credit module. To compare that with 2011 prices fees were per course and a 60 credit module (without a summer school) costs approximately £700. Young students will get a degree for £15,000, a lot lower than traditional universities, but this was never what the OU was about. It was about distance learning, empowering everybody to study at their own rate and choosing from a whole range of subjects and studying to the level they wish.

The OU didn't want to do it, they protested, there were petitions but, as usual, nobody listened and the fees start for new students this September.

What a shame - am I being stupid in thinking student numbers will decline and more learning opportunities for mature students will become out of people's reach.

I am an OU student and, luckily, there are transition arrangement that guarantee I can complete my degree at the old rates as long as I do at least one course a year.

Still, studying with the OU is a great experience and I feel that this is a very sad state of affairs ...

See here for more information on the fees: http://www8.open.ac.uk/study/explained/fees-2012?samsredir=1328386586

Resurrecting the old argument - academic vs vocational

I was so disappointed this week to see the downgrading of vocational subjects vs academic. I thought this debate was over with the introduction of the specialist diplomas some years ago. They have finally started to produce results and businesses have committed to them in sponsorship and, this week, they received a blow to the heart by the education minister for the silliest of reasons.

It has always been ridiculous to suppose all students will want or need a full range of academic results. For years this outmoded focus left a whole section of our young disenchanted and forgotten. It also left our manufacturing and service industries with a severe shortfall in employees.

After years of lobbying, the Labour government were very brave in introducing the specialist diplomas that recognised this fact. They were difficult to organise but have been introduced and have given more heart to our youngsters who do not and never have wanted to peruse a wholly academic route.

The courses are rigorous and have been recognised by a number of industry groups. Due to the straight jacket nature of qualifications in this country they were allocated GCSE equivalents to give them added recognition. So this week what does the minister decide to do... downgrade most of them to a lower qualification. The reason - that it is suspected that some schools are using them to bolster GCSE results and therefore their position in the league tables - What!

It is obvious that the current minister is old school - focusing on academic achievement rather than the needs of our society (yes we do need plumbers, electricians and, dare I say, hairdressers!) and the wants of our youngsters. Who do not want to go to university - see little point in GCSE History and Geography and want to learn a trade.

The mix of students wanting to study academic vs vocational will be different between different schools and surely a school that meets both requirements should be recognised through the league tables.

In fact if they want to differentiate why not have two ratings one for vocational achievement and one for academic rather than down grade the vocational for such a spurious reason. Parents might want to know which schools do well in vocational studies as part of their decision-making.

What is this action saying to our young people - especially those in the middle of studying under the new diplomas - it must be highly demotivating.