20 May 2003

I have been asked to speak on future developments in the national qualifications framework, with particular reference to directions for vocational qualifications and the assessment of those qualifications.

And, in accordance with the theme of your Conference, this is in the context of vocationally related qualifications at Level 3, with respect to which you are considering choices and strategies for the next two years.

As someone who is new to this country and who has still not mastered the finer nuances of the national qualifications framework, and who will certainly never understand the Byzantine history which lies behind its evolution, I realise that I am entering an area which is very controversial.

My understanding is that the AOC, and the FE colleges, were vociferous in their complaints about the changes to Advanced GNVQ, as it evolved under ministerial remit into VCE (Vocational A-level).

There have been many expressions of concern about the suitability of the new qualifications for those learners previously well served by Advanced GNVQ.

Those concerns relate mainly to changes in the forms of assessment - more external assessment and the use of the A-level (GCE) A to E grade scale (formerly pass, merit, distinction).

Following the introduction of VCE in September 2000, the AOC made representations to ministers directly about the need to introduce the AS/A2 structure into VCE - resulting in the redevelopment programme now underway.

I am pleased that QCA is working with the AOC on that redevelopment programme.

So this has been a very contested area.

One of the great disadvantages of coming from outside the English education and training system is not fully appreciating when - as they say in my country - you’re about to open up a can of worms.

But one of the strengths of coming from outside is possessing the naivety of the truly innocent. And from that perspective, I would like to make some initial comments which open the lens up, rather than focus sharply down on particular issues.

Across the advanced economies of the western world, governments, employers and unions have embraced education and training as a powerful mechanism for addressing problems as diverse as global competitiveness, high unemployment, skills shortages and poverty.

Amongst other measures, governments of both the left and the right have turned to the greater use of qualifications as instruments of policy. National qualifications frameworks have been erected as templates for the knowledge economy. Qualifications authorities, such as the QCA, have been set up to establish standards and ensure their maintenance.

These national templates for the knowledge economy, or national qualifications frameworks, set out a hierarchy of qualifications which embrace successive levels of knowledge, skill and understanding.

The levels are progressive and sequential - they move upwards from base levels of achievement to successively higher levels for which the lower levels are a prerequisite.

The national frameworks typically, but not necessarily, embrace qualifications associated with education and training from age 14 or age 16. They could be extended to earlier years. At their upper levels, there is no age boundary; they embrace learning on the job, and lifelong learning into retirement.

Typically also, these frameworks are divided into two or more columns, which define a boundary between academic and vocational education, or between variants of both.

These boundaries vary in permeability from country to country - in some they are crossed easily, in others the divide is rigid.

Now none of these national qualifications frameworks has been handed down from on high on tablets of stone. All have evolved, imperfectly, over long periods of time; and all remain in the process of evolution, subject to transformation and change.

In the first half of the twentieth century, the disciplines of architecture and engineering gave us the mantra "form follows function; structure follows strategy".

This reflected a movement to design and construct buildings around the key function they were to perform, or - in other words - the strategy they were to deliver; their shape, their form, their appearance, their structure was a consequence of that strategy. And I guess in my own home town, the Sydney Opera House is the perfect example.

The same applies to any national qualifications framework, and should be applied as a test for its relevance for present and future purposes.

The structure of the framework - its arrangements of levels and columns, must be designed entirely in terms of its capacity to deliver a function, a strategy.

And the function of all national qualifications frameworks across the western world - all templates for developing a knowledge economy - is to produce a highly skilled and knowledgeable community, a wealthy and sustainable nation, and an economy which is vigorous and internationally competitive, while at the same time addressing issues such as poverty and unemployment.

Now, the national qualifications framework for England must be judged not by how it looks against other national qualifications frameworks, but by whether it has the capacity to do for England what needs to be done in the field of education and training, to produce and maintain all those attributes of a vibrant nation and a national economy.

Is the English national qualifications framework the Sydney Opera House that this country needs?

As a naïve innocent from abroad, it does seem to me that we are sometimes focusing too tightly on a range of very detailed issues which might best be addressed by us firstly standing back, with a wide open lens, to look at where we want to go, rather than what we want the structure to look like.

One of the directions which is widely agreed is that we want a 14 - 19 approach to education and training.

What this will mean will be sorted out through the working group chaired by Mike Tomlinson, into which the QCA will be injecting evidence, advice and strongly backed argument.

And that acceptance of a 14 - 19 approach (a new "function", a new "strategy") will almost certainly lead to changes in the national qualifications framework, the "form" or "structure" designed to deliver that strategy.

So the QCA, while maintaining and protecting the standards of all qualifications, has no particular brief to maintain and protect the national qualifications framework as presently structured.

It is axiomatic to the future of education and training in this country that Mike Tomlinson and his working group be given a broad and blank canvas on which to do their work.

Their task is to establish the "function", the "strategy".

The NQF is simply a tool to implement the product of their consultation and the government decision upon it. It should never be a structure which contains or limits the scope of their work.

Now so much for remarks and looking through an open lens. I will now focus on one or two more particular issues in some detail.

The VCE (Vocational A-level) will be introduced for first teaching in September 2005, incorporate an AS and A2 structure, and will be relabelled GCE.

But many users have expressed concern about the impact of the VCE on forms of teaching and learning and on its suitability for those previously well served by Advanced GNVQ.

These concerns lie at the heart of the much wider debate about qualifications and their associated curriculum.

The changes to Advanced GNVQ were brought in, as I understand it, partly to try and bring about greater parity of esteem with GCE A-level.

Parity of esteem is the most useless and unnecessary term used in education today.

Value and esteem lie not in structures or labels associated with qualifications, but in the extent to which the qualifications meet the needs of the users - learners, their teachers, employers and higher education.

All A-level subjects have a curriculum base. Some - which are currently called academic or general - have their curriculum roots in university education, and those which we currently call vocational subjects derive their curriculum from industry.

In those subjects which derive their curriculum from universities performance is best assessed against specialist standards on the basis of written examinations.

In those subjects which derive their curriculum from industry, performance is best assessed against specialised standards by the quality of the product or the performance.

Clearly, an A* in history will look different from an A* in cabinet making, and each will call for quite different knowledge, skill and understanding.

But in each case the standards should be set at the level of what might be expected of an intelligent, creative, technically competent and hard working 17 to 18 year old, and assessed using a method which is fit for purpose.

It is widely reported that there is too much assessment - indeed this is a key element of the 14 - 19 working group’s deliberations.

What is certainly true is that there is too much assessment that is not fit for purpose.

We are using some of our development projects to give greater emphasis to teachers ongoing judgements about their students.

• GCSE pilots in geography (for September 2003), construction and performing arts (for September 2004), and the new A-level in critical thinking (for September 2005), will include such developments

But it is important that we don't shift the assessment burden from external to internal, from one place to another.

These developments are not able replacing external assessment with a piece of coursework. They are about recognising that teachers judgements during the course of their normal teaching and learning programmes are, in many ways, the most valid way of judging progress and attainment.

An extraordinarily complex and bureaucratic infrastructure has been built up around coursework - well intentioned in terms of standards and comparability - but ultimately damaging in terms of the unintended consequences for teaching and learning, and unsustainable in terms of manageability.

We are looking closely at existing coursework assessment as part of this year's regular monitoring and audit programme - this will provide us with information about strengths and weaknesses of the current arrangements.

But we also plan to look more fundamentally at the role of internal and external assessment in qualifications in terms of assuring that assessment is fit for purpose, manageable and credible.

With regard to key skills, our review has provided valuable information about the need to look again at the manageability of portfolio assessment and the importance of moving towards a more responsive assessment system with greater use of on-line assessment.

• The key skills specifications are being updated following the review and will be available from September 2004
• Work is under way to improve the manageability of portfolio assessment
• IT delivery pilots of key and basic skills are scheduled for 2003 and 2004.

At GCSE level we are running several pilots designed to look at the potential of developing more broadly based qualifications that integrate general and vocational or general and applied or general and specialist study, and assessment, within a single coherent qualification.

It is clearly possible to extend this concept and development into Level 3 qualifications.

For example, it is possible to envisage a single Level 3 qualification in business that integrates features of current GCEs in business studies, economics and a BCE in business, with content and assessment designed to support routes with a qualification - some more theoretical and others more applied, with the possibility of specialist units in areas such as accounting, economic theory and financial management.

But we need to progress carefully, and make sure that the needs of different learners at Level 3 are met fully. Getting it right at Level 3 is vital in terms of progression to higher education, work based training and employment.

We need to develop a range of courses, programmes and qualifications that enable learners to progress successfully - proposals signalled in the higher education white paper to encourage a greater number of learners to progress into higher education from work based routes - which we welcome; the National Skills Strategy and Success for All, and the emerging thinking of the 14 - 19 working group will influence longer term developments in this area.

But in the shorter term, it is important to recognise that there is an increasing number of high quality Level 3 qualifications - both general and vocational - available.

• 485 vocationally related qualifications at Level 3 (excluding NVQs) including 131 BTEC nationals and 71 City and Guilds qualifications
• All quality assured by accreditation into the national qualifications framework and funded by the LSC.

I have heard the expression "flight to BTEC" - from VCE - often used in the pejorative sense. Perhaps it is my naivety again, but I see no reason why this should be regarded as inappropriate for those learners who wish to follow a more practical, work-based and occupationally specific qualification. For example:

• the Edexcel Level 3 BTEC national certificate in construction might be more appropriate for some than the VCE in construction
• the LCCIEB Level 3 certificate in retail operations might be more appropriate for some than the VCEs in retail
• the Edexcel Level 3 certificates in hospitality, customer relations and hospitality, small business operations might be more appropriate for some than the VCE in hospitality and catering

Debate about future qualification framework developments and directions for vocational qualifications and assessment will continue in the context of:

• the vocational qualifications remit QCA has with the LSC and SSDA to develop a system of vocational qualifications which has the flexibility to meet individual and employers needs
• the Success for All and National Skills Strategies
• developments within higher education
• and of course, the 14 - 19 working group

Ken Boston