The Dearing Review of Qualifications for 16-19 year olds (1996) recommended the creation of a Key Skills Qualification; this idea was supported by the results of the Qualifying for Success consultation (1997/98).

Development of revised specifications for all six key skills, and a new assessment system began in September 1997. There have been changes and improvements to both the units and the assessment system in the light of feedback from more than 250 schools, colleges, training and work based settings involved in the development project.

The revised units were approved in spring 1999 and in November 1999, Ministers made the final decisions about how the key skills within the Key Skills Qualification should be assessed.

The pilot of the Key Skills Qualification

The pilot of the Key Skills Qualification began in centres in September 1997. Centres taking part included schools, colleges, training providers and employers with candidates following A level, GVQ, NVQ and other programmes of education and training. Twelve awarding bodies were involved in the work which was managed by QCA.

Centres used a set of key skills specifications developed specially for the pilot. These were developed from the 1995 specifications and formed the basis for the new specifications.

The pilot tried out a variety of models of key skills assessment through the portfolio and external assessment. Through this the assessment model for key skills from September 2000 was developed.

Important messages from the pilot

The main lessons from the pilot, of direct help to centres, can be grouped under a number of headings. Of course, the issues aren't always as clear-cut as this summary would suggest, and there are major differences in the approaches taken by different centres. However, many of the issues are widely applicable; you could use this information as a basis for key skills co-ordination meetings or as an input to professional development programmes.

Quality: Standards of work in key skills

Over the two years of piloting the expectations rose, so that the standards of work produced by candidates towards the end of the pilot were higher than at the start.

It is essential to recognise that the Key Skills Qualification is important and demanding in its own right. All the requirements of the specifications have to be met.

Planning: Resources are needed for key skills

Most centres found that the need to commit specific resources to support key skills delivery and assessment. First, there needed to be support from senior management. Many centres developed a policy statement about key skills, and tried to ensure that the rationale and purpose were clearly and widely understood. A number of things followed from this, all of which need to be considered by new centres.

• Almost all centres had a small number of staff who were strongly committed to the principles of key skills.
• Mechanisms for managing key skills were seen to be very important, especially when a centre offered a wide range of programmes. Methods for managing key skills across A level programmes are essential especially where experiences of key skills is limited.
• Many centres found that they needed to provide training and support for a much larger number of staff than anticipated to support key skills delivery and assessment. Many centres underestimated the amount of time and other resources needed for this staff development.
• Induction programmes for candidates included some work on key skills and their relationship to candidate's other programmes. Centres recognised the importance of conducting initial/diagnostic assessments of key skills capabilities of all candidates.
• Candidates needed to see the relationship between key skills and personal progression: whether to higher or further education or training, or into employment. Candidates were very receptive to the idea that key skills are essential components of managing one's own learning.
• The attitudes to key skills held by staff, including senior management, strongly determined candidates' attitudes. If the key skills were seen by staff to be an essential element of learning, they were treated very seriously by everyone. The result was that evidence gathering for portfolios and preparation for external assessments then appeared to be much better managed.

Flexibility: Range of delivery strategies

Although most staff subscribed to the concept of integrating key skills into main programmes, there was a large amount of stand-alone key skills teaching. This had both desirable and undesirable consequences.

• Stand alone teaching was a manageable way of providing support for all candidates, by having either timetabled or drop-in sessions.
• It enabled specialist help to be made widely available to a large number of candidates.
• When key skills staff ensured that candidates worked in the contexts of their main programmes or other work the key skills were meaningful. When the key skills relied on a large amount of stand-alone exercises the outcomes tended to make poor contributions to portfolio evidence and the learning experience.
• Separation of the key skills from the main programme sometimes resulted in staff who were teaching those programmes ignoring their responsibilities for developing key skills.

Integration: Context is a central issue

Key skills were clearly more relevant if they were developed and applied within the context of a main programme. This was particularly true for candidates on occupationally-specific programmes. Care needed to be taken to ensure that these contexts were not too narrow, as this limited the candidate's ability to recognise the value of key skills, and to transfer the skills to new contexts.

Progression: Levels need to be tailored to individual needs

There was a clear need to match the level of work on key skills to candidates prior experience and capabilities.

• It was clear that candidates should not automatically be required to work at key skills at the same level as their main programme. Some needed to work at a lower level first.
• Opportunities needed to exist for some candidates to access key skills beyond the level of their main programme, as soon as were ready.

Manageability: External assessment can create major pressures for centres and their candidates

Managing external assessments was a major issue for centres, especially when large numbers of candidates were involved and access to facilities and resources was limited.

• As the pilot progressed and everyone had a greater understanding of the external assessment process, and portfolio evidence generation was more carefully managed.
• Centres exploited the flexibility in the timing of external assessments, to ensure they fitted well with other demands, and the whole programme.
• Candidates were given explicit preparation for external assessments, and they became more capable and confident in the course of the pilot.

Evidence: Portfolios management

Some clear messages emerged about portfolio management.

• Candidates need to understand the role and importance of the portfolio.
• Start portfolio building as soon as possible; it is very difficult to catch up later.
• Portfolio evidence is more valid and valued when it demonstrates key skills competence in the candidates' main programmes.
• Candidates should be encouraged to use a wide range of contexts. Some found it difficult to generate evidence because they were operating very narrowly, often within a single subject or area.
• Support and guidance to candidates must be carefully balanced. Some portfolios were full of set exercises that had been set by tutors. The candidates clearly had very little ownership of this evidence, suggesting that the key skills programmes had been over-managed. Moderators found large amounts of work of this kind unacceptable.
• Make sure the evidence can be found easily. Many portfolios lacked evidence indexing or any method for tracking the evidence in relation to the specifications.
• Volume is not a measure of quality. Many portfolios tended to be bulky. This was often because evidence had been inserted indiscriminately.
• It is helpful to candidates if assessors provide written comments. Some portfolios showed very little annotation or other evidence of assessors' judgements or of feedback from assessors to candidates.

Standardisation: Quality assurance procedures need to be in place

Most centres had some form of assessment co-ordination and many had verification procedures, but few had mechanisms for standardising assessments across subjects and areas.

• Don't assume that a mathematics, ICT or English specialist will automatically be competent to assess the key skills in application of number, ICT or communication.
• Don't underestimate the need for internal resources that enable staff to work together over assessment judgements, and for external resources to support this process.
• Good written or oral feedback from assessors and awarding body moderators about portfolios and external assessment performance helps candidates to meet the requirements next time round. The message is clear: centres should press for the greatest possible amounts of information following moderation and assessments, and incorporate this into their delivery and assessment planning.