What is the use of grade D or E?

23rd November 2001, 12:00am

Share

What is the use of grade D or E?

https://www.tes.com/magazine/archive/what-use-grade-d-or-e
The format of th new vocational examinations rule out rewards for the achievements of foundation-level learners

Does this government make learner-led decisions? On two counts at least - vocational GCSEs and the curriculum 2000 reforms - the answer must be no.

In spite of repeated admonishments that colleges must be learner-centred, these curriculum policy decisions have neglected learners’ interests in favour of New Labour’s political self-interest.

Concern to win favourable treatment by the general media has been an influential factor in decision-making. When the national press got over-excited about some of the teething problems of Curriculum 2000, for example, the Secretary of State promptly reversed some of the positive and progressive aspects of those reforms.

The new vocational GCSEs will replace the general national vocational intermediate qualification. On the other hand, GNVQ foundation will disappear and no equivalent award will be set in place.

Yes, yes, in theory, gaining grades D, E, etc, in the vocational GCSE will be the equivalent of achievement at foundation level. But all of us - learners, employers, teachers and politicians - know that, in real life, attaining the lower grades will be interpreted, not as gaining a level one qualification, but as failing at level 2.

When will they learn? The 11-plus was not designed as a passfail system. Rather, it was a selection process that was initially presented as placing young people in secondary schools “according to their needs”.

We all know what happened next. Half a century later, the phrase “a GCSE at grades A* to C” has become code for a GCSE pass.

In spite of this experience, the vocational GCSE decision flagrantly ignores the importance of positively recognising and rewarding the achievement of foundation-level learners. It disregards what all education professionals know, that confidence and aspiration, critical factors in learning, are boosted with congratulation and recognition.

The loss of a level 1 qualification of good public profile has been waved away too easily by politicians.

“I do not accept”, wrote Baroness Blackstone in her letter rebutting the college sector’s concerns, “the argument that the grading structure will be demotivating.” Is that one sentence supposed to constitute a well-argued, well-evidenced case?

Knowing of her professional experience, I had hoped that the incoming Education Secretary, Estelle Morris, would seize the opportunity to reverse the earlier decision. She had the opportunity when the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority presented its recommendations this summer. But she didn’t, and her failure to do so appears to have helped trigger the resignation of the highly respected, highly experienced, head of the authority.

Even the intermediate level aspects of the reform are far from satisfactory. Why distinguish between vocational GCSEs on the one hand, and (implicitly) academic GCSEs on the other?

If you check which category subjects such as art and design, law, business studies, catering, design and technology, belong to you, quickly realise that vocationalacademic boundary doesn’t stand up to rational scrutiny.

The division certainly doesn’t reflect a neat distinction between vocational subjects and non-vocational subjects; rather it reflects an outdated hierarchy that seriously undermines the talents of many young people. Let’s have a single title.

One problem is that there has been too much tinkering. The spotlight on 14 to 19 creates an opportunity to consider 14 to 19 learning holistically, and create (rather than pay endless lip service to) a coherent qualification structure.

The new framework should offer all learners opportunities for positive achievement, value vocational and academic success equally, promote a broad, balanced curriculum for all learners and afford the flexibility to develop individual talents and needs.

The Association for College Management is confident that there is strong support for such a framework in the sector and the expertise to help develop it. We call on the government to seize this opportunity.

Nadine Cartner is education officer for the Association for College Management

Want to keep reading for free?

Register with Tes and you can read two free articles every month plus you'll have access to our range of award-winning newsletters.

Keep reading for just £1 per month

You've reached your limit of free articles this month. Subscribe for £1 per month for three months and get:

  • Unlimited access to all Tes magazine content
  • Exclusive subscriber-only stories
  • Award-winning email newsletters
Recent
Most read
Most shared