GCE National Awards Ceremony 2007


John Hayes's speech

Today we have celebrated outstanding academic performance:

  • recognised the superb achievements of today's award winners
  • they have gained the best results in A-levels – the gold standard
  • meaningful courses, examinations with academic integrity
  • a beacon of excellence around the world.

But the current Government doesn't seem to appreciate the value of this global brand.

For the past two years as a Conservative shadow minister I have argued that to achieve the necessary step-change in the nation's skills we need a vocational route of learning to match the academic gold standard of GCSEs, A-levels and Degrees.

Too often vocational education is seen as the poor relation of academic education. Those who set the tone and shape the policies – perhaps because they are usually the product of an entirely academic education – do not appreciate the worth of practical accomplishments.

The new 14–19 specialised diplomas represent a great opportunity to provide a vocational gold standard. That's why we have supported them. It's why I said so when the Bill of which they were a part was scrutinised in Parliament. And A-levels provide the model from which they should be drawn. Yet the Government seems intent on undermining A-levels rather than raising the standard of vocational education.

The Children and Families Secretary, Ed Balls, presumably coloured by his own exclusively academic experience, has announced that in addition to the 14 vocational diplomas that were originally planned, there will now also be academic diplomas in science, language and humanities. He predicated that Diplomas would become the 'qualification of choice', both implying – at least – that they will be in competition with, and eventually replace A-levels, and implicitly diluting the vocational status of diplomas.

The minister's announcement is a reprise of the fundamental misapprehension that has dogged British educational reform for several generations. I suspect that Mr Balls believes that the long-vaunted 'parity of esteem' between academic and vocational learning can only be achieved by pretending that there is no distinction between these two types of learning: no difference between the aptitudes of those drawn towards them.

In essence this reflects an assumption that sees practical competence is inferior to academic accomplishment – only therefore of value if we make the practical academic and the vocational theoretical.

In truth, academic knowledge and practical knowledge are distinct; one cannot be substituted for the other. They are each of value – particular kinds of accomplishment. It's the difference between knowledge and know-how.

Practical skills are not enhanced by making them quasi-academic.

To pass the integrity test an examination leading to a qualification must be:

  • consistent
  • rigorous
  • fairly set and marked, and
  • crucially, assess meaningful competences.

Genuine esteem can only be achieved if we appreciate the true value of practical learning.

Vocational education should be about providing a well mapped route for students who wish to acquire a skilled craft.

Yet confusion about the purpose of diplomas and a tight time table mean that there is a danger that the introduction of the first five diplomas in 2008 is being rushed, limiting the opportunity for employer engagement in design. And still worse that this will present schools, colleges, and businesses with a challenge they will find it too hard to meet.

The last education secretary even got his apology in early by admitting that the diplomas 'may go horribly wrong.'

Unless we are confident that they will go happily right we owe it to employers, colleges, schools, and most of all children, to delay their full implementation.

Still less should we add academic diplomas to the mix.

To do otherwise would add irresponsibility to doubt; to rush and hurry teachers, learners and employers, would tarnish the diploma brand so badly that it would become unappealing to all of them.

The neglect of practical leaning means that we may have missed the opportunity to provide the kind of accessible pathway to vocational education that is so desperately needed.

This neglect extends from school into the apprenticeship system.

Most people's vision of an apprentice is of an eager young learner acquiring alongside an experienced craftsman, key competences in a valued skilled job. But the reality is quite different. In many sectors apprenticeships have become 'virtual': it is possible to complete your training without ever having set foot in the work place.

Just 28% of school-leavers in England and Wales enrol on apprenticeships compared to a third in Denmark and roughly two-thirds in Germany and Austria.

Only 53% complete the full framework in England and Wales, compared with 79% in Germany.

Moreover, large variations between sectors remain and the completion rate is still below 40% in retail and health care.

In countries like Germany and the Netherlands, offers of apprenticeships enable individual firms to signal skill needs to young people.

In Britain, by contrast, apprenticeships are delivered through a supply-led system via the bureaucracy of the Learning and Skills Council.

Only around 5% of employers, most of which are large national or multi-national companies, actually provide training directly themselves in the form of apprenticeships.

This means that the apprentice's actual work-based training is often very limited.

In fact, as the Adult Learning Inspectorate warned, in its autumn years 'some apprentices can potentially achieve the full requirements of the apprenticeship framework without having to set foot in a workplace.'

[Source: Adult Learning Inspectorate. Talisman: Programme-led Pathways Supplement, Issue 53, July/Aug 2006.]

These problems have been exacerbated by new programme-led apprenticeships, introduced in 2003, which enable apprentices to begin there training at a college or training provider even though they haven't secured a work placement.

The Adult Learning Inspectorate found examples of programme-led apprenticeships which contain no period of time spent in employment.

The authors of the ALI report noted that 'worryingly' such programmes 'were put forward as good and innovative practice.'

The Government has announced that it hopes for 150 000 new apprenticeships by 2010. But the reality is that take-up of apprenticeships is in decline.

The number of advanced apprenticeships has fallen sharply – by one-fifth – since 2000. They are now below the 1997 figure.

To reverse this trend we must re-establish the integrity of the qualification. Just as everyone knows what an A-level means an 'Apprenticeship' should correspond to people's expectations, inspire trainees and meet employer's needs.

It should mean substantial work-based training under the guidance of an experienced mentor:

  • real practical competences – taught and tested
  • jobs secured
  • economic demands met.

In the same vein, I look to a time when a 'Diploma' is universally recognised as a high-quality vocational qualification.

We should not be replacing A-levels, we should be complementing them with vocational qualifications with equivalent integrity.

High-calibre examinations for high-calibre students.

For the sake of Britain we equip a new generation with the skills they need: academic and practical.

For the sake of millions of Britons we must celebrate practical learning in the same way as we are celebrating academic achievement here today.