Agenda item

Members were reminded that the aim of the review was to look at aspects of the 14-19 curriculum, in particular Diplomas, and look at the impactthe introduction of Diplomas had had on 14-19 Education.

The Deputy Director of Learning, Effectiveness & Major Transformation informed Members the aim of the changes to 14-19 education was to address criticism of existing qualifications around the lack of rigour felt to be inherent in GCSEs and A Levels and the need for a more vocational qualification to improve pupil’s skills and training.

The following witnesses attended the meeting and provided the review with the following information:

Laraine Smith – Principal Uxbridge College 

Uxbridge College offered an Engineering Diploma which was taught at Level 3. The first Cohort had finished and all 10 students had been successful. There were so many different elements to the qualification and students had to pass all elements to gain the Diploma.

The retention rate on this qualification was 90%, but it was difficult to evaluate as Diplomas were new qualifications. Support was expected from awarding bodies and some elements of the material for this qualification was not always of the highest standard.

A first Cohort of Students for the Business School had started last year. The College had attempted to recruit students for the Hair and Beauty Diploma but had been unsuccessful.

The development of Diplomas was the last Government’s attempt to bridge the divide between vocation and academic education and was an attempt with time to replace other tried and tested qualifications. The development of Diplomas had now been stopped by the new Coalition Government.   

Members were informed that the present numbers taking Diplomas was sustainable but if the numbers dropped it would not be sustainable for the College.

Diplomas were an alternative to GCSE’s and were beneficial for those students who were more practical than academic   

The original intention for Functional skills was for them to be compulsory for all students at Key Stage 4, and their purpose was to address concerns from employers that young people were not numerate, literate or proficient in IT, in spite of achieving GCSEs in English, Maths and IT. This had now been reversed leaving the Diploma as the only qualification which required the extra hurdle of all three Functional Skill qualifications to be passed in order to achieve a Diploma.  This had caused concern to the College.

Reference was made to Apprenticeships which were on the increase. Apprenticeships were work based qualifications and they were offered at two levels:

·        Level 2 qualification, comprising National Vocational Qualification, technical certificate and key skills

·        Advanced Apprenticeships were Level 3 qualifications.

Members were informed of the major Government drive to expand the Apprenticeship route, with employers encouraged to seek funding from the Government. Uxbridge College sometimes waived the employer’s contribution to the Apprenticeships but the new Coalition Government may possibly take Apprenticeships away if employers did not contribute funding.

Reference was made to Foundation Learning and Members were informed that this could be taught at both Key Stages 4 and 5 and provided a mix of qualifications for learners of lower abilities. Skills taught included social personal development and team working, which were pre-requisites to prepare students to progress towards Level 1 and subsequently Level 2.

Discussion took place on elements of learning and teaching of Diplomas and Members were informed that courses on average consisted of 15/17 hours of teaching time. A large element of learning was for students to undertake independent learning with guided learning from teachers. E-Learning programmes were used by students.

Jo Harper – Principal of Rosedale College

Rosedale College had started planning for Diplomas in 2006. Construction and Engineering Diplomas were the first undertaken and involved a number of schools. Diplomas had brought practitioners closer together to ensure consistency of approach.

On the Level 2 Engineering Diploma there was confidence that there would be 80% success rate, but it was frustrating that a student would fail if one element of the Diploma was not passed.

With regard to Functional Skills, the College was looking closely at making teaching at secondary schools more personalised.

The point was made that the early success of Diplomas was needed to be built on. However, the qualification was too complicated and it appeared that the Coalition Government was not in favour of these qualifications.

Discussion took place around learning skills for Diplomas and how improvements could be made to the qualification. Members were informed that there was quality assurance in the College, with students being regularly communicated with external moderators and assessors working with the College to ensure the right units for the qualification were being adequately delivered. The quality of the qualification was not the issue, it was about making the Diploma more attractive to students. Greater publicity was needed on courses that were successful and this would increase the number of students.

Reference was made to the BTEC National qualification and the Principal of the College reported that this was a good qualification which the staff of the College were used to teaching and was a good alternative to a Diploma. Another option could be a combination of a BTEC and a Diploma qualification.

Reference was made to the Diploma Steering Group on Diploma development and the reporting structure for Diplomas. Members were informed that the Coalition Government had changed the rules with regard to 14-19 partnerships. In future the LEA would have freedom to decide on the direction of travel and would retain the 14-19 Strategic Group on Diploma development and have the authority to change the structure.

Discussion took place on Engineering Diploma students who travelled to learn at Rosedale College and the implications this had on the support they required within their own school for Functional Skills. Members were informed that the College working closely with the Diploma Steering Group and provided extra support for these students.

Peter Sale – Hillingdon Training Ltd

Hillingdon Training Ltd delivered high quality work-related training for the benefit of residents and employers in the Borough.

The organisation provided alternative curriculum training such as Apprenticeships and practically anything which involved 14-19 year olds. The Key Stage 4 Engagement Programme was provided by Hillingdon Training and was a short course designed to provide a programme of education for young people who had been identified as being at risk of dropping out of education. This programme involved a vocational element, basic skills, personal social and development units as well as enhancement activities. There were 10 schools involved in this programme and funding had been taken over by the LEA and the individual schools after the Government withdrew funding.

This year there were 125 students on this programme which included courses on Construction, Motor Vehicle, Children’s Care, Sports and Retail and Business. Last year 60% of students achieved at least one qualification, with some students achieving four qualifications.

Hillingdon Training also provided the Young Apprenticeship programme which had 280 students on the programme. 80% of students achieved Young Apprenticeships and 90% achieved full qualification.

Foundation Learning had been a big change and Hillingdon Training provided this. From September 2010 work based learning providers and FE Colleges had to deliver Foundation Learning programmes in place of the existing Level 1 provision. A number of schools would also need to introduce Foundation Learning in partnership with Hillingdon Training and Uxbridge College through the Key Stage 4 Engagement Programme.

Members were informed that there was a drive from Government on promoting Apprenticeships and Hillingdon Training were hoping to have 135 Apprenticeships and were hoping to find employers who would employ Apprentices. Government funding had been diverted from Train to Gain into Apprenticeships. Reference was made to around 15 Apprentices who were employed by the Council and 13 of them had been trained by Hillingdon Training.

The Council and its partners had a key role in promoting key based learning and Apprenticeships as well as also promoting non-Apprenticeships such as work experiences.

The biggest obstacle to the success to Apprentices was the Partnerships and Consortia and the way to achieve the schemes aims. The Local Authority had an important role to play in terms of influencing its partners.

Discussion took place on the initiative which the Council had introduced in relation to the use of Section 106 Agreements money. Some Planning permissions given by the Council’s Planning Committees contained conditions relating to developers making a commitment to training as part of the Section 106 Agreements. Reference was made to the training of construction workers through Hillingdon Training. At Abbotsfield School 100 16 year olds were undertaking construction training.

An initial recommendation of this review could be to investigate further use of Section 106 monies in relation to Apprenticeships and other training / qualifications for young people. 

The Chairman thanked the witnesses for the information they had provided the review.

Resolved –

1.      That the information provided from the witnesses form part of the evidence for the review.

2.      That officers give consideration in consultation with the Chairman of the Committee to witnesses for the next meeting.