14 - 19 Developments | News & information | Lifelong Learning Networks

14 - 19 Developments

The 14-19 Diploma - how should LLNs be involved?

Jackie Powell, IAG and Transition Co-ordinator & Rob Harrison, Director

Higher Futures

14 - 19 Diplomas have increasingly featured at LLN meetings over the past year or so. More recently, the low uptake of the diploma, particularly at level 3, has raised further issues for LLNs. Media reports suggest the diplomas are unpopular and unlikely to succeed, but feedback to DCSF suggests that learners are attracted to the diploma but that parents and teachers are concerned about acceptability for university progression, unaware of the UCAS tariff, and unaware of the number of universities making positive statements about diplomas. There are also some concerns about the operation of consortia and the willingness of some 14-19 providers to encourage their learners to attend other schools and colleges. Obviously these are not issues to which LLNs can contribute. However, in general there is support for LLN involvement in some way, but there are many things to consider before undertaking such a commitment.

It is obvious from some of the discussions that have taken place that LLNs vary in their opinions and approach to diplomas. Equally obvious is that LLNs are not all starting from the same place - some already have extensive involvement with their local authority and diploma consortia, and some very little or none. Some are very aware of the issues but others have had little time to consider them. HEFCE policy around the diploma is still in development, so there is no clear steer. However, we would all wish to support our partners as much as possible with this important curriculum development.

This article doesn't provide answers but focuses on the questions that we all need to think about. Is it appropriate for LLNs to play a part in the development and promotion of Diplomas? Do we have the right background and experience to do so? Do we have contacts with the appropriate local stakeholders? If we do get involved, what could we contribute? Do we have time? Should we be involved at all? What might be the consequences, both positive and negative?

Can we accommodate work on the 14 - 19 Diploma?

The decision to participate in diploma work locally will require knowledge and understanding and potentially a great deal of time. LLN members who are involved will need to have information about:

the background, strategy and development of the diplomas
the key stakeholders and their role in each diploma
local consortia and how they operate
mechanisms and limitations of delivery
what types of learners are being offered and taking up the diploma (and this will be different for different Diploma Lines, for different schools and colleges, and in different local authorities)
the diploma content, including the catalogue of ASL available locally

The time required for engagement may be a problem for some LLNs depending on their starting point and staffing levels. There will be seventeen Lines of Learning, with five already running and nine actively being planned by local consortia, and it seems unrealistic to get involved with all of these. One solution could be for each LLN to engage only with the diplomas which fall into its sectors; however, untangling them will be a challenge, because for many diplomas the content doesn't fit sectors neatly. In any case, some local consortia planning processes address all lines of learning simultaneously. Even when undertaking practical tasks such as providing publicity and information for universities and organising training events there is potential for duplication; many areas which may seem obvious openings for LLN activity are already being covered by DCSF and other agencies. There is a danger that involvement might distract from other more pressing tasks and targets, especially since many LLNs are in their final year of activity.

Progression Agreements - the big debate

The development of Progression Agreements which include diplomas is another area for debate. There are good arguments to suggest that these should not be developed at all - ironic though this may seem from an LLN perspective. It is worth revisiting the reasons why LLNs are developing Progression Agreements for vocational qualifications and considering whether they are also applicable to diplomas. The starting point was evidence of low participation in higher education by vocational learners and of differential treatment of them by universities. Progression Agreements therefore aim to clarify curriculum alignment and progression routes (including addressing any gaps at level 2), to encourage universities to recognise the appropriateness of vocational qualifications and manifest this in a positive response to applicants, and to encourage vocational learners to consider and apply for higher education courses.

Curriculum content on the Higher Diploma has been developed with universities specifically to support progression, particularly the PLTS. Vocational qualifications were not initially intended for this purpose and some are not such a good fit. There may be doubts (sometimes justified) about the preparedness of vocational learners for HE, but the level of preparedness from diplomas is much higher. Similarly there may be questions about the level 2 background qualifications of some voc learners, but 5 x A*-C passes at GCSE are a prerequisite for entry to the Higher Diploma so this is unlikely to be a problem.

Whilst the media has expressed scepticism about the acceptability of diplomas to universities, 79% of universities, including Russell Group universities, have already signalled their support for diplomas as a progression route. Diplomas have already been given a UCAS tariff, and HEIs which operate on a 'points offer' basis and are likely to extend this to Diplomas automatically. These are significant achievements, and DCSF has recognised the need to step up publicity to ensure that learners and their parents are aware of it. Many universities are involved in consortia planning and some are involved in curriculum delivery, so the prospects for acceptance of diplomas generally are good and likely to improve.

Higher education was an intended progression route for diplomas from the outset, and it can be assumed that most learners opting for the Higher Diploma will be at least considering university - if they were not they are more likely to have chosen a vocational qualification. The numbers taking the Diploma, especially at level 3, are small this year, and there is anecdotal evidence that the first cohorts are highly motivated and well qualified at level 2, to ensure success in an untried qualification. As pioneers for university entrance they are likely to do well, which will have a positive effect on university perception and future offers. Once entitlement to all the diploma lines goes national in 2013 and a critical mass of learners is taking them, universities are unlikely to turn down applicants with diplomas, and demographic change means universities will be looking more widely for applicants anyway.

In trying to develop Progression Agreements, LLNs may be anticipating problems which may never arise, and in any case it would be wrong to pre-judge a qualification before it has even been delivered and university reaction tested. For this particular qualification, Progression Agreements shouldn't be necessary, and to discuss them with university colleagues at the same time as vocational qualifications suggests a similarity which isn't there, and anticipates that diplomas will need special help to be accepted, possibly sowing seeds of doubt where there are none. Progression Agreements would make it more likely that diplomas will be aligned with particular subject based courses (and perhaps especially Foundation Degrees) in sector areas the LLNs are actively involved in. This is not the intention; each one is designed to allow broad access to a range of higher education options, including those of the highest status, and their future success may depend on this. However, if LLNs take on board the variety of possible routes, there would be a great deal of work in considering the full diploma content and even more in considering the admissions criteria for a large number of higher education courses.

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences!

Why we should be cautious

In general, it can be argued that the diplomas are simply not in the realm and remit of LLNs. First and foremost - Diplomas are not vocational! They are not skills based (50% theory, 50% applied learning; no work-ready learning). Most learners taking a level 3 Diploma will be offering an A level as their ASL and many will simply take the Progression Diploma alongside 2 A levels. Diplomas are not for adults or those in employment. HEFCE want us to focus on Employer Engagement and higher level skills, and diplomas

The cohorts do not fit neatly with those we currently work with. Most diplomas do not fit employment sectors exactly either - they are meant to be broad based learning; for example the Society, Health and Development diploma includes Law and Crime issues, making it difficult to align with Health and Care sector work already being undertaken.

Diplomas are not solely college based; indeed some are solely school based, which raises the question of whether LLNs should begin to work with schools? If so, the amount of liaison will expand greatly, since many schools also deliver the National Diploma. Many schools also allow flexibility in the age at which qualifications are taken (and diplomas are designed to allow this). Do we start to work with pre-16 learners? There is some logic to this, given that Aimhigher and university based pre - entry activities start with a much younger age group. Diplomas are part of a suite of 14 - 19 curriculum changes, some of which are similar is style and content; do LLNs take these on board as well?

A role for the LLNs

Without a doubt, LLNs can act as useful diploma 'champions', promoting and encouraging uptake and participation by partners locally. We are well placed to act as facilitators between FECs involved in diploma delivery and HEIs who may want to make links with curriculum delivery teams in schools and colleges or be involved in the Extended project.

Local authorities are keen to succeed in implementing diplomas successfully in their area. Although DCSF has a wide range of supportive quotes from universities, a local touch is always helpful.LLNs can help to provide supportive statements from partner universities, which in turn will encourage local schools and colleges to promote diplomas positively to local learners. They can also encourage universities to get involved in diploma consultation groups and gateway consortia; their direct involvement is the best way to ensure that they will understand the diploma and promote it internally. Local partnerships may value help in identifying the appropriate people to contact in universities and local colleges for partnership working groups. LLNs may also have useful employer and training provider links to assist local diploma consortia in the employer engagement aspects of their Gateway bids. On a practical note, sometimes diploma delivery requires specialised equipment or facilities not readily available in schools and colleges, and LLNs could negotiate cross-institutional discussions about this.

From the perspective of LLNs, the more liaison there is between FECs and universities, the more likely that broader LLN agendas will be addressed such as sustained partnership working, and the introduction of the diploma encourages closer working relationships which the LLN can use to advantage.

We understand and accept that there are other views, equally valid, that counterbalance the position outlined here, and a case could be made for the close involvement of LLNs in all aspects of diplomas and indeed other14 - 19 work. It may be that over the coming months there will be a clearer role defined for LLNs in relation to these. However, we would suggest that a considered approach is best for now. We do believe it is worth watching and waiting, before leaping in to act too quickly, particularly when some actions may have unintended consequences.

MOVE Diploma Progression Accords signed

Trish Judson, Director Advice and Guidance

MOVE

An exciting new area of activity for MOVE LLN has involved working with 14-19 Diploma Consortia and our partner Higher Education Institutions (HEI) to develop MOVE Progression Accords between Consortia courses and Higher Education (HE) programmes. With additional funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England, MOVE has initially concentrated on the Construction and Built Environment Diploma (CBE). As part of this mini project, MOVE developed a Diploma Progression Accord Template which enables an HEI to state which components of the Diploma they would like applicants to have completed in order to be guaranteed a place on a specific HE course. It can also be used to recommend areas of study within the Diploma which would be helpful in progressing to an HE programme. The Diploma Accord Template has been welcomed by the national CBE Diploma Recognition Group as an example of good practice.

MOVE engaged first with the North Hertfordshire Strategic Area Partnership Group and OpenOpportunity Norwich by brokering relationships between the consortia and HEIs in the region. The first Diploma Accords signed were between the OpenOpportunity partnership and University of Beds. Subsequently MOVE has also provided funding to other consortia and HEIs to develop progression accords from the Advanced Diploma.

There was some concern expressed by stakeholders that in signing Progression Accords to guarantee places on an HEI course for Diploma students, a special case is being made. At MOVE we believe that Progression Accords provide a formalised means of encouraging collaborative working between an HEI and a partner institution. It also provides the Consortia with a demonstrable progression route – very important in the early stages of marketing the Advanced Diploma to young people and their parents.