Nearly Final Version of the Gateway Application Form

Got an e-mail from the 14-19 consultant to say that Application B is nearly ready and will be checked over by someone else (the hierarchy in these things is never ending) on Wednesday for a final final version to then be sent off to the "Decision Panel" for an overall assessment. This, I am told, comes back in March. (Why on earth does it take a decision panel three months to read through a relatively straightforward application form?) Anyway, after the decision panel comes to a decision, that -I am told -is unlikely to be anything other than affirmative, the consortium can go ahead and start planning for the delivery and roll out of the Diploma in IT. In the meanwhile, there are people like me (in lead centres) that have to wait around twiddling our thumbs, wanting to start developing resources and making plans but unable to. I suppose I am somewhat reserved about investing huge amounts of time in something that is still (technically, technically) unconfirmed and more to the point something that, as of now, a TLR does not exist for. The more I research into the Diploma however, it is almost incredible to see how much money -millions and millions -has been poured into this 'idea' in the hope that it will be successful.

It's all about the money: Capital funding, grants...

Sometimes you have to wonder what the priority for schools is. The money or the pupils. I suppose before you are quick to jump to a judgement it is important to realise that money (funding) is important in order to facilitate learning in the first place. So...is it all about the money after all?

There are a million different words for money -or so I'm told -when it comes to the Diploma. There is the £3o,000 grant, that will only come into play if the Consortium bid is successful. (if it doesn't come through after all this we may as well shoot ourselves for being more incompetent than it is even possible to be!) Then there is capital funding available for innovative projects or needs for institutions in the Consortium. Our school has decided to make a bid for a meeting room, and it most definitely would be needed. The idea is to have an additional mobile unit built. This place would become a dedicated meeting room. Dedicated, that is, when there are scheduled meetings. With being the lead centre and all -assuming it all goes through -this would be a necessary facility.

In the spirit of the Diploma and all the tax payers money that seems to be being poured into it, I thought the following article may be of some interest.

http://www.whitehallpages.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=113280

This is all the wonderful Ed Ball's doing of course. The article talks about £23 million cash injection to help rural areas put in place comprehensive plans to ensure all young people can benefit from the exciting new opportunities offered by the Diploma.

£23 million?!

One part of the article reads: "Today's announcement means £1 million in capital funding will be provided to each of the 20 most rural local authorities so they can provide innovative solutions to overcoming barriers to delivering the Diploma in their areas. The areas which will benefit are: Northumberland; North Yorkshire; Cumbria; Herefordshire; Shropshire: Devon; Lincolnshire; Rutland; Wiltshire; East Riding of Yorkshire; Cornwall; Norfolk; Dorset; Somerset; Cambridgeshire; Suffolk; North Lincolnshire; Gloucestershire; Oxfordshire; and Durham "

No mention of Croydon! Mention or no mention, I hope our school manages to get some of that capital funding for a new meeting room!

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.

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....

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.""

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.