You've got to start somewhere!

My first "Lead Diploma Meeting". It started at 3:00PM and then just went on and on -and on. It should be noted that at this stage we still haven't officially gotten through the gateway -i.e our bid has not been approved as succesfull. Nevertheless, onwards and upwards in positive anticipation, everyone keeps talking about the importance of getting the ball rolling, and it is -rolling (slowly but surely). Teachers -deputy head teachers mainly -trickled in in dribs and drabs. There were two very outspoken (and rather wise) ladies from connexions (careers) present. Then there was a representative from Croydon College -on behalf of the Engineering Diploma, and a few other people (unrelated to teaching) but very important sounding (and looking) on the far end of the room. My co-lead partner from the college was also present and had a large notebook on which he appeared to be taking very detailed notes. I had my own "reporters lined excersize book" that I bought from the corner shop just down from Leon house and a new pen. Now, it was called the Lead Diploma Meeting, but what it really was was a meeting for people who had already been coming to this forum to raise questions, book 'sessions' and conferences with LSIS and provide feedback on their experiences so far. From that perspective it was useful to be present. Especially as it highlighted how much I obviously didn't know.

For instance, the first hand out we had was entitled "LSN Training options". The first two sub-headings in the report were

1. IAG -Training session for Connexions P.A's and school careers staff. Possible leading to connexions Diploma champions?

2. PLTS a) Support a session working with LA sta.....

I stopped reading right about there.

LSN?
IAG?
P.A's?
PLTS?
LA?

During the course of the conversation and the free and frequent use of these acronyms their meanings became (somewhat) clear, but it should be said that there is no sector like Education for the efficient use of abbreviations. If only everyone knew what they meant! For the most part, I was just listening very intently. A deputy head from somwhere or the other said her main concern was that the Diploma was only being recognised by universities that were desperate. At one point the connexions lady referred to the Diploma as being 'vocational' and was promptly corrected. The Diploma, she was told by the lady sitting next to her, was meant to be 'academic' not vocational. In my reasoning, the whole point of the diploma is bringing the strengths of both types of qualification together to form one all-round fantastic qualifications for young learners. The question of Information and Guidance (IAG) is however, an important consideration. There was some allocated to a man from the London Network Group -a group committed to supporting staff in the preparation and delivery of the Diploma. They are funded handsomely of course by the government and we can 'apply' for their services. There was a lot of talk about "health checks". You have to be alive to have a health check, and as we aren't quite at that stage, I switched off during this bit.

Anyway, so two hours later I had a notebook entilted "Steering Group" (a group that will only be formed once we know the bid is through). I noted down a number of things that I know will be useful to discuss, once, and if, things do progress.

Steering Group (Possible Points for discussion) (Who will be in my steering group?)

1. Functional Skills. Who will be responsible for the Consortia? War Forward: Mapping PSHCE to PLTS

2. The problem posed by Level 1 @ KS4. How many anticipated Level 1 learners would the consortium have at Level 1? Would Croydon College be the sole centre to offer this? One day instead of Two days? Could Level 1 be nested within the Level 2 offer (Norbury Manor has adopted this approach). Alternatively could an external workforce provider deliver Level 1. The other thing to consider is: Would level 1 learners be suited to doing other qualifications. Note: Level 1 at KS5 didn't (From their feedback) appear to be a problem

3. Level 3 Strand Coordinator -would this need appointment?

4. Employer Engagement

5. Inside Industry Days -to get people "interested"

6. Curriculum Training

7. Assessment Training

8. What is the incentive for other partners (the lead centre gets funding -what about other representatives, how can they be made effective collaborators?) Is the answer to build in Diploma related roles into existing job descriptions.

9. IAG arrangements. Consultancy Service does this. Funding available for IAG implementation.

One of the 14-19 representatives asked me if I had felt the meeting was useful. "You've got to start somewhere" I said.

The Consortium meets for Part B of the Application

8 representatives from centres in the consortium turned up at 9:30AM and our meeting, facilitated by the two 14-19 Diploma Development Officers, began promptly (with no coffee!) We had photocopies of Part B of the Gateway application to hand, and went through the entire thing. B1.1......B1.2......B2.1......all the way down to B3.something. The meeting was largely a chance for centres to ask questions, but mainly to input information that would be crucial to their being part of the Consortium. It occured to me how important a good 'facilitator' in these sort of potentially disastrous discussions was. The facilitator at this particular meeting was absolutely fantastic. She asked all the right questions, and moved people quickly along (in a no nonsense but perfectly diplomatic) effort to make progress. And fortunately for us all, progress was certainly made. There were lots and lots of ideas when it came to collaboration and even more input when it came to what centres did well. The range of 'skills' across the consortium also became clear. Two centres had state-of-the-art CISCO backed Networking systems in place. Others (ours included) were Computing and Mathematics Specialist Schools, delivering (with good success) advanced and well respected courses including A level IT and Computing. We discussed current good practice across the Consortium and how this could be shared. We also, crucially, had to decide on estimated entries for Year 1 and 2 and provide information on current learner performance in qualifications mapped to the Diploma skills and levels. All in all, people were enthusiastic and keen to get on board. So keen, that I was the only one -at eleven thirty -who dared ask for a toilet/coffee break!

The only concern, brought up by the head of a girls school down the road, was that Diploma would once again be marketed as a 'vocational' and therefore 'dumbed-down' qualification. It was clear from the response (of people who have clearly studied the content of the Diploma) that this is in no way the case. The Diploma in IT, if anything, is something that cannot be pitched to the "less able" students in the way it is done now. It includes an advanced level of theory, programming, project management and a clear expectation of industry level standards. This of course, is coupled with the fact that employer engagement and work experience is built in to the learning plan of the qualification. Of course this poses other problems as to how the Diploma will be pitched and what courses it could replace. The answer is, it can't replace anything because the very nature of it suggests that it is different from any ONE existing qualification in place. If anything, students who were perhaps not geared to succeed at programming and high level skills, could opt for a lower level. It would no longer be a case of Diploma vs A level, if you know what I mean...

Having said that, much of the crucial marketing of this thing will be down to us. That's another thing the consortium put down as part of our plan to deliver the Diploma successfully: The organisation of local events to promote the Diploma and raise awareness!

One of the 14-19 development officers made a good point about the misconceptions that had accompnied the construction diploma. It -possibly like the diploma in IT -had been misconstrued to be an option for the 'less able'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The emphasis in the construction diploma, I'm told, is exactly the sort of thing employers (in the engineering field) ar e after, and there is a particularly difficult exam pupils have to prepare for as well. A good friend of mine who has recently been elected as Vice Chairman of the ICE (Institute of Civil Engineering) is also actively involved in raising awareness of Civil engineering in schools and colleges. Apparently, as part of a government led initiative, on the part of companies as well, this is part of her role! I am a little shady on the details, but I believe there is funding at stake too! I thought this was commendable. The diploma's are always a two way thing and employers already seem to be in the know -and more importantly, glad to be involved!

The meeting ended at 12:30 and teachers rushed back -many of them with classes to teach at 1:00. If that doesn't say something about the dedication of the representatives in the consortia, I don't know what does!

A final re-draft will be sent out to us shortly, and after any final input by the upcoming Friday, the final final draft should be good to go.

Who got the ball rolling?

Who knows how these things start! One minute, I was seriously considering taking up a job in another school, and the next this opportunity (within my own school) arose, and it seemed like a plausible enough reason to stay. Someone from the 14-19 partnership group was under the impression that our centre (an outstanding school) as well as a Maths & Computing specialist status school, would be a good candidate for the lead institution. I went along to a meeting, knowing next to nothing about Diploma's and came away knowing a little more, but pessimistic about whether we'd get the lead. If we didn't get the lead, I am told, we would have not bothered with being part of the consortium. Interestingly enough we did get the lead, along with another college in the consortium. Apparently that's the ideal model. Joint-lead between two centres, one of them a college, and another a school. The next part of the process is getting through the Gateway. The consortium has to put their heads together under the guidance of 14-19 Diploma Development Officers in Croydon and come up with something sensible to put under PART B of the Gateway application. There's a meeting on Tuesday.

Balls overestimated Diploma takeup

The following surprisingly balanced journalistic masterpiece by someone by the name of Anthea Lipsett, expounds on figures - estimated and actual - for the Diploma in 2008.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/14/1419education-furthereducation1

It begins:

"Only 12,000 pupils started the government's new diploma qualification this September, the schools secretary, Ed Balls, confirmed yesterday. It is a steep drop from the 20,000 students ministers estimated in May would start diplomas, and almost a quarter of the 50,000 originally expected. "

The reason for the "flop" (according to the article)

"Opposition MPs said the diploma had "flopped". Ministers hope the diplomas will become the qualification of choice, above GCSEs and A-levels. But exam boards warned earlier this year of technical problems and a lack of training among teachers."

The conclusion? (according to the article)

"Balls insisted that his department had received "positive feedback" from teachers and students on diplomas. Leading universities had now said they would consider applications from students with diplomas, he said, and the first independent school, Wellington College, was to offer the new engineering diploma in September 2009.
The schools minister, Jim Knight, said the government had focused on "quality, not quantity" with the diplomas. "We are making good progress, as last month's positive Ofsted report confirmed.""