Hold the Media responsible for the downfall of young learners

I don't think people quite realize how powerful an impact and INFLUENCE the media (newspapers, radio stations, TV) can have on our lives. All it takes is one "reputable" newspaper or journalist to diss the Diploma, and suddenly waves of irrational fear sweep across the educational world erasing all trace of reason and years of work from well respected employers, universities, teachers and government officials alike. If someone doesn't hold the media accountable, they will get away with murder. The Diploma, as we have already established, was developed BY Employers (not by factories down the road, as one statement in this article seems to suggest) but by big names including Logica, BT and Oracle. It was endorsed by Universities, and it has been approved. Period. Unfortunately articles like this one may appeal to the sort of teachers/parents/people in general who don't have the time to make up their own minds by researching the Diploma, so simply go with what an entirely biased (and unfounded) article seems to imply.

Snippets from the article (below) which can be found at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1629421.ece

"Glen Mynott, a teacher from Coventry, was among several NUT delegates to raise fears that the new qualifications would lead to a poorly paid underclass of young people."

Eh?

Two other paragraphs in the article were of particular concern.

"Critics fear that the diplomas are too narrowly focused and will be seen as second best to A levels and GCSEs. Last month Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, admitted in a speech to head teachers that the diplomas could be seen as the equivalent of secondary moderns to grammar schools, and that the plans for them “could go horribly wrong”.

If they did go "horribly wrong" it'd be because of negative press.

and

"His concerns were echoed by Michael Devern, a primary school teacher from Southwark, in South London. “This is not education, this is training,” he said. “Imagine leaving school at 16 with a diploma that is recognised only by the factory up the road.”

A factory up the road?!?! If that isn't an irrational comment with no solid reasoning behind it whatsoever I don't know what is...

Having said that, I am only referring to the IT Diploma, which I know to be a relevant and undoubtedly better qualification than either the A level or BTEC. If they (whoever 'they' are) were to develop a Diploma in "Hairdressing" or "How to be a low level worker in a factory", I'd be a little concerned....

Where there's a problem, there's a solution

I'm talking about the Diploma in IT of course. Before I go any further you need to understand how things stand at present. There are problems. Problems in the form of gaps in the delivery of IT (focus on using IT, rather than application development) and problems in the form of a lack of realism, employer engagement, higher level skills, and attempting to emulate industry level standards. It's 2008 and a whole range of GCSE's and A level's (these are the more traditional qualifications) along with vocational and applied qualifications (like the wonderful OCR nationals and somewhat controverisial BTECS) orbit the ever changing skies of education.

Just to remind you, the questions we are asking here are: Why bring in the Diploma? Why not just adapt existing qualification specifications (A levels and GCSE's) to cater for the higher level skills that employers/universities deem as necessary? Why on earth do we need a new NAME? And do we really need a new specification or learning plan for IT in the first place? (What's wrong with the current specs and qualifications?)

Point 1 -Academic vs Vocational; The Stupid Clever Divide.

To put it simply, this is the way things are now: We have Academic vs Vocational qualifications which has brought about what I call the invisible and politically incorrect Stupid Clever divide. We don't like to call it this, or even talk about it, but there is a certain unsaid understanding between parents, pupils and parents alike about what it means to take a vocational option, as opposed to an academic one. Recently I had one of my pupils unexpectedly and quite suddenly drop the BTEC IT course within the first week of enrolling. When I asked him why, he was quick to respond: "Well I'm already doing a Public Services BTEC. My Mum said I'd have to be really stupid, to be doing two.". He meant two BTEC qualifications. Apparently no one (but the very very stupid) do more than one BTEC. His mothers words, not mine.

Point 2-Academic vs Vocational; Universities and Employers apparently don't recognise the latter.

Four weeks ago our school had its infamous annual "options evening". I spent the better part of my night standing in my IT room answering questions to prospective 6th form pupils and their parents. I was on my eighteenth coffee when the father of one of my current A* predicted Computing pupils came along. (he had a daughter considering joining our sixth form). I blabbed on about the three options we had at KS5, namely:
-BTEC
-A level ICT (applied)
-Computing

I (shoot me!) mentioned them in this order and his response was. "Well, I certainly dont want little miss X (protecting the identity of this pupil whose name I can't remember anyway) to do an BTEC or Applied A level, because LET'S FACE IT, they count for nothing to universities."

"Pardon me?" I said (or maybe I just said "What?")

"I've been to a number of universities with my Son and all of them -in so many words -have said that they would not consider a BTEC or applied A level of any worth!"

Now, whether the alleged universities he visited actually made so politically incorrect and insensitive a comment, I don't know, but what I do know is that there is indeed a stigma with applied and vocational learning at KS5. (this is less of a problem at KS3 and 4 where everyone has taken to the OCR nationals and other vocational GCSE's which are equivalent to up to 4 A*-C GCSE's -great for the league tables, blah blah)

So whether we like it or not, vocational learning, however we dress it up, comes with the stigma of 'less academic' and therefore not acceptable to universities, and even less acceptable to employers that are looking, if anything, for logical, clever, and able-minded individuals. These are labels we can't easily rid ourselves of, and much of the fault lies in the marketing by schools/colleges of these qualifications. Still, marketing or no marketing, the way things are now, are the way they are. I have already mentioned that one of the problems is that IT courses are too hugely focused on doing stupid things (the use of power point and Microsoft word which, for heavens sake, pupils are experts at in KS2!) The use of ICT applications is quite different from the actual development of applications and learning higher level skills such as programming, advanced networking, and project management. Learning how to use PowerPoint or make a leaflet in Serif might be useful if you were a church administrator, but the bigwigs in IT aren't looking for IT-users, but developers...designers...programmers...project managers. That's where the talent shortage lies, and that's why every Ram, Hari and Vikram flees India with his expertise and arrives in the UK to fill the skills shortage and steal the job the citizen should be getting! Furthermore there is the issue that all qualifications, Computing included (Computing is among one of the most "academic" and well received qualifications with an emphasis on project development, advanced theory and programming skills), have very little employer engagement and inbuilt practical real work experience. Yes, of course we try to emulate industry level standards (all IT teachers have been taught to say this sort of thing!) but how much of a standard can be realistically implemented without actually having the support and input of industry itself!?

I suppose, for these reasons (Point 1 and Point 2 and everything I covered in them) it is apparent that we need a new name (something that doesn't suggest stupid) and a new qualification with a different, more engaging and realistic, outline.

So there you have it -The Diploma. The perfect solution? (No, because nothing is ever perfect!. 10 years from now the government will bring in a new qualification at KS5 called the degree, suggesting an even higher level of learning. Of course then they'd have to change the names of actual degree courses to something else. Perhaps they'll invent a new word altogether.)

In all seriousness however, the diploma can't be accused of being nonacademic like the BTEC, but still carries that all important vocational emphasis due to its ample focus on applied learning. On the other hand it can certainly be crowned with the 'academic' title, as it will focus on higher level application-development skills, along with theoretical knowledge and practical experience that is valued by universities and employers alike.