With her first serious act as education secretary, Ruth Kelly was accused of wasting the chance to secure "parity of esteem" between vocational and academic courses by rejecting the Tomlinson review of the 14-19 curriculum. The absence of such parity is usually held to account for the fact that only four countries in the OECD have a worse record than Britain in keeping children in school beyond 16. But there is not a country in the world in which it applies. It is time we called a moratorium on "parity of esteem."
The popularity of full-time vocational courses is falling in most developed countries. There is not a policymaker in the department for education and skills who would prefer his or her child to follow the vocational rather than the academic path. Instead of gathering qualifications together, in the vain hope that equal labelling will change intractable beliefs, we would be better off attending to the content of the curriculum.
The problem is simple: too much vocational education is no good. Drop-out rates are higher on vocational courses than on academic ones. Only 23 per cent complete the modern apprenticeship programme. At the advanced level, only 33 per cent stay the course. In its 2003-04 annual report, Ofsted criticised the sector for its patchy quality and slow pace of improvement.
The Tomlinson review proposed to replace GCSEs, A-levels and the current disparate set of vocational qualifications with a single diploma. All students would have the same core curriculum, designed to ensure literacy, numeracy and IT competence. Beyond the core, students would have been able to assemble their own "open" qualification or opt for one of the 20 ready-made "specialised" combinations. The diploma was conceived at four levels: entry (equivalent to pre-GCSE), foundation (GCSEs at grade D-G), intermediate (GCSE A*-C) and advanced (A-level).
Tomlinson asked that the government implement all his recommendations or abandon it. His second wish was granted. The white paper does nothing very much. It includes a proposal for specialised diplomas in 14 subject areas, to be taken at the age of 14. All students will need to achieve at least a grade C in maths and English to gain their diploma. A new diploma to recognise those who achieve five GCSEs at grades A* to C or equivalent, including maths and English, will be introduced. More challenging questions and a 4,000-word dissertation will be introduced for the brightest students. Sixth formers will also be able to study university modules. It is, the odd wheeze apart, the status quo.
This does not mean that Ruth Kelly deserves the opprobrium she has attracted. To abandon the bureaucrat's tidy scheme of a single diploma is not a betrayal of students. The inevitable result of a single diploma would have been that so-called "vocational" subjects would have been taught in the classroom and would have re-emerged as second-class subjects for those considered not capable enough for the proper academic curriculum.
We can be sure of this because it has always happened in the past. The 1963 Newsom report recommended that vocational courses at school become "vehicles of general education." The Certificate of Pre-Vocational Education, the BTEC diploma, the General National Vocational Qualification and the vocational A-level have all been based in school. All of them became a refuge for less bright pupils and a warning signal for employers. There is no reason to believe that pushing everyone into a single, faux academic diploma would have abolished this historical distinction.
We need to forget about the system design. This is beside the point. Over half of 16-year-olds do not go on to study for A-levels. Let us start instead from a diagnosis of what they need. We need to remember that there is no single answer to this, because there is no single thing called "vocational education." Some occupations have very little need for highly specific vocational training. Some have intensive and demanding requirements that are best taught through apprenticeship. This is especially true of craft industries, many of which have severe skill shortages.
The answer might turn out to be rather traditional: a broad education, with a strong emphasis on basic skills until 16 and then highly specific occupational training for those who are not pursuing A-levels. The esteem of this "vocational" route will rise as the standard of the training increases. Here Kelly and Tomlinson can raise one cheer each. The core curriculum of English, maths and ICT is critical for all students. Competence in these areas is vital for most professions and indispensable for employees who may change their occupation more than once during their lifetimes. Above all, let us not be tempted to merge the two sectors. Vocational qualifications lose their point as they metamorphose into academic subjects. They do not thereby gain a parity of esteem.
