14-19 Reform: Developing a Successful Model for the Enhancement
of Citizenship Education
Background
The publication of the interim report from the Working Group on 14-19 Reform (Feb.
04) represents an ambitious vision:
The benefits to the individual will be a choice of progression routes which are
both clear and meaningful, and which combine depth with breadth and rigour.
The benefits to employers and HE will be young people equipped with
specific and transferable knowledge and competent in a range of essential
skills, and a qualifications framework which will enable them to differentiate
more readily between the achievements of learners. The benefits to the
economy will be a flexible workforce able to cope with shifting demands and
increased productivity. The benefits to society will be citizens fully prepared
to participate in the economic and social life of the community. (Working
Group on 14-19 Reform 2004: 16-17)
It conceives, in concrete terms, a long discussed English-style baccalaureate structure,
as well as alluding to the fact that the Curriculum 2000 reforms did not have the farreaching impact, which is now considered to be necessary. However, it is clear that
Curriculum 2000 did pave the way, particularly in its underpinning philosophy of: a)
bridging the academic/vocational divide, b) creating opportunities for breadth and
depth, and, c) integrating key skills into all curricular provision. In this respect the
proposed 14-19 diplomas could be argued to be the logical next step in embedding
this underpinning philosophy more fully into the curriculum – accepting, of course,
that we are now talking of 14-19 rather than 16-19.
Hodgson and Spours had previously outlined what a unified English baccalaureate
system might look like:
Ad Diploma
Advanced
(The Bac)
(General)
Stage 2
Ad Diploma
“
Stage 1
Intermediate
Intermediate
Diploma
(General)
Foundation General
Advanced
Specialist
(Domain)
“
Advanced
Specialist
(Vocational)
“
Advanced
Specialist
(Occupational)
“
Intermediate
(Domain)
Intermediate
Intermediate
(Vocational)
(Occupational)
Foundation Vocational
Entry level provision
(From: Hodgson and Spours 2003)
They were also quick to recognise that the `core’ of each diploma must rise to at least
three fundamental challenges:
How can a core be:
1 customised to meet individual learner needs, the needs of different levels
and phases from 14+ so that `unified learning’ does not become `uniform
learning’?
2 delivered effectively and how is it related to chosen subjects/areas of study?
3 assessed so that it motivates learners and recognizes value-added
achievement without contributing to the assessment burden? (Hodsgon and
Spours 2003: 168)
Furthermore in what is perhaps the most imaginative current proposal there will be
opportunities created for students to engage in guided research projects, many of
which might be community based, and thereby, be conceived as a form of Citizenship
education:
If the core, which would be compulsory, is to be accepted and valued by
learners, it would need to contain an element of choice and specialization.
This would mainly be achieved through the choice of specialist research study
and wider activities and experiences, but could also be supported through the
customization of the underpinning taught components by schools, colleges and
employers/training providers. (Hodgson and Spours 2003: 172)
General Questions:
In the light of discussion and debate concerning post 16 education reform over the last
25 years (Lea et al 2003) and the recent publication by Ofsted of their review of
Further Education Initial Teacher Training (Ofsted 2003) we should perhaps be
asking the following general questions before the interim report becomes a full report:
1 Bridging the academic/vocational divide – again?
Given the long-running debate concerning the primacy given to academic subjects
and academic students in the British Education system and the regular attempts to
create more parity of esteem with vocational educational provision, it is perhaps
surprising that we still hear talk of the need to bridge the divide. Perhaps, at this
historical point, we need to look at the question from new angles. If the divide is that
entrenched (amongst teachers as well as in society at large), surely we need to ask not
what is in any new curriculum reform, but what will be done to address the
entrenched attitudes? Furthermore, given the renewed interest in defending academic
education from its, so called, `dumbing down’ perhaps we need to ask what exactly is
in the 14-19 reforms which could defend it from this charge? (see Hayes ed 2004)
2 Shifting the curriculum model – again?
Throughout the new vocational reforms of the 1980s and 1990s it was common to
refer to the curriculum model as `outcome’ based, in contrast to the `content’ model
most commonly found in the more traditional academic qualifications – typically A
levels. However, some commentators and academics were keen to indicate that the
GNVQ owed more to the `process’ model of the curriculum and that this should
feature more in discussions of its rationale and practice (see Bates et al 1998). If the
14-19 reforms are to be viewed as more than simply a baccalaureate structure, we
should surely ask whether these more progressivist elements in the curriculum are to
be a major feature or simply an element in the reform. It would appear that if this is
not made clear, and defended, it is likely that it will be misunderstood, or, perhaps
even, undermined in practice.
3 What can de done to reduce the assessment burden?
One of the most vocal criticisms of the Curriculum 2000 reforms was the extent to
which it had, unnecessarily; increased the assessment burden on students. This was
not only because there were now more exams being taken at more times in the year,
but also because the assessment tail was clearly wagging the curriculum donkey, i.e.
students and teachers were losing sight of any holistic component in an educational
programme in favour of preparation for, increasingly atomised, modules of learning.
(QCA 2001 ) However, if the 14-19 reforms are a serious attempt to move in the
direction of a progressivist curriculum model, is there not the danger that opponents
will say not only is there now not enough assessment, but what there is, is woolly and
unreliable, i.e. it will increasingly focus not on what students know, or can do, but
their personal skills and attributes – things which are notoriously difficult to measure?
4 Are we creating a new age phase or new learning phase?
A more fundamental question to address is perhaps the extent to which 14-19 is
simply going to be a new age phase in learning, or whether it will be able to be
conceived as a distinct learning phase, i.e. will there will be a particular type of
learning which would be able to make it distinctive when compared with other age
phases? Or, to use the language of educational theory, is it going to be possible to
conceive of a distinct pedagogy for 14-19 – or even an andragogic model of the
curriculum as opposed to a strictly pedagogic one? (see Knowles 1984) If not we
may simply be left with a notion that 14-19 is simply something that happens between
pre-14 and post-19.
5 Are we raising the school leaving age?
A more fundamental question is perhaps the extent to which the 14-19 reforms will,
effectively, raise the school leaving age to 19, i.e. it will increasingly become difficult
for students to leave full-time education before their 19th birthday. Although this
could be conceived to be a good thing, for many, if not all, genuine educational
reasons it does raise the question of whether further education colleges, for long the
key institutions in post compulsory education, will increasingly become specialist
providers, offering services and provision which schools are reluctant or unable to
effectively deliver. Indeed, already they are catering for increasing numbers of
permanently school excluded 14-16 year olds, and offering supplementary vocational
courses where forms of commercial or industrial hardware are required to deliver the
curriculum effectively. In the light of this does the Reform Group need to consider
carefully who might be the winners and losers amongst the various post compulsory
educational providers?
6 Are college lecturers being turned into school teachers?
An alternative question to ask, particularly in the light of the recent decision to have
FE ITT courses inspected by Ofsted from September 04 is whether FE college
lecturers are increasingly being asked to see themselves as school teachers. Indeed,
there have been many calls to create the equivalent of QTS for college lecturers.
However, a more fundamental question to ask is perhaps, whether the 14-19 reforms
actually conceive the question differently: shouldn’t school teachers become more
like college lecturers? Is it not implicit in the interim report that a particular type of
teacher is conceived as being appropriate for 14-19, i.e. not a subject specialist, but a
more flexible, generic tutor who is able to facilitate a broad range of learning? And is
this not precisely the type of teacher that post 16 teacher training programmes have
been trying to engender before Ofsted arrived with their more traditional school-based
model? If this is problematic is it not compounded even more so when one considers
that the `standards’ applicable for PGCE secondary teacher training are different from
the standards for post 16 teacher education? Surely the Reform Group will need to
say something about what they see as appropriate standards for preparing
teachers/tutors for working with the new diplomas?
7 Will the reforms heighten or alleviate the effects of cultural capital?
To paraphrase Basil Bernstein and A H Halsey, perhaps we should also ask a very
fundamental question about whether any educational reform can seriously
`compensate for society’, i.e. `if you want to get on in this life you need to choose
your parents wisely’. Thus, is it not inevitable, particularly in a reform which will
encourage more individualised learning, that those with `cultural capital’ and forms of
cultural sponsorship will be able to benefit more than others? Or, perhaps we should
ask, what exactly in the reforms proposed will enable all students to successfully
navigate the baccalaureate style provision? Furthermore, will this not require a much
tighter connection being made between a whole range of educational support, and, as
a form of reconnaissance work, do we not need more empirical evidence on what
services students do and do not avail themselves of?
8 Who’s the piper?
Finally, do we all not need some reassurance that, particularly, the pre-1992
universities will not simply undermine any notion of parity of esteem across the broad
range of diplomas by identifying very quickly not only which diploma is to be more
valued but what component parts are to be more valued? Furthermore, is this not one
of the main reasons why so much of Curriculum 200 was ineffectual, i.e. students
very quickly worked out what prospective universities (or indeed employers) wanted
from them and simply ignored any curricular provision which would not be valued by
those institutions?
Key Questions for Citizenship Education
The core of each diploma would seek to develop a range of learning amongst
students:
The purpose of the core is to provide a range of formal and informal learning
which will help young people to develop and use the range of skills,
knowledge and experience which they will need for the future. This should
include direct teaching, learning and assessment of some skills, such as
numerical and communication skills. It should also include teaching, learning
and experience, (both inside and outside formal school), college or workplace
learning (to provide opportunities for young people to develop and use
common skills), knowledge and experiences – such as the wider Key Skills,
personal attributes and general knowledge of the world. (Working Group on
14-19 Reform Interim Report: 23)
Clearly there is much scope for a distinct form of citizenship education to emerge
from this conception. However, it is clear that if citizenship is to be seen as a new key
skill in its own right we need to be careful that it does not become seen by students as
unnecessary bolt-on to their curriculum, or perhaps worse, does not become fully
integrated into a range of cross-curricular activity. Clearly, teachers will need to be
aware of the opportunities afforded to students for this much broader notion of core
learning, i.e. it is clearly something beyond the scope of a traditional subject
specialist.
The reform group has identified `wider activities’ as a clear marker for citizenship
education
Activities such as community, school or college service, experience of work
and personal interests such as sports or arts can provide both opportunities for
informal learning and personal development, and enrich young people’s lives
and their engagement as active citizens within their local communities. We
believe that they have a significant role to play, particularly in developing the
‘common skills’, and should therefore be recognised within the diploma
framework. (Working Group on 14-19 Reform Interim Report: 25)
However, here again we need to be careful that this does not become identified simply
as a modern form of `work experience’, i.e. that students will spend a couple of weeks
working in the community while on a college/school course, for this would surely
damage the much more radical conception that the reform group have in mind. We
might therefore need to have a much clearer conception of what exactly an `active
citizen’ is and how this might be made more integral to all learning.
This more radical conception of learning is tentatively envisaged by the Reform
Group through the identification of `common skills’:
This aspect of the diplomas will require more discussion and elaboration but at
this point we consider it helpful to think about the development of these
attributes through three dimensions - the reflective and effective individual
learner (e.g. skills such as problem solving, independent learning and the
attribute of personal persistence); the social learner (e.g. interpersonal and
teamwork skills and the ability to empathise) and the learner in society and
the wider world (e.g. the development of active citizenship and international
awareness). (Working Group on 14-19 Reform Interim Report: 25)
It is interesting to note that this paragraph substitutes `attributes’ for `skills’. This
may or may not be intentional but what it does highlight is the difficulty of conceiving
of the ways in which `attributes’ might be assessed and measured, and this will
inevitably raise the whole question of whether attributes could only effectively be
measured through much more ipsative forms of assessment. There is clearly a
challenge here to teachers to develop and defend their assessment schemes as being
robust and secure, particularly to the existing quality and inspection regimes.
References:
Working Group on 14-19 Reform (2004) 14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications
Reform; Interim Report London: DfES
Hodgson A and Spours K (2003) After A Levels London: Kogan Page
Lea J et al (2003) Working in Post Compulsory Education Maidenhead: OpenUP
Ofsted (2003) The Initial Training of Further Education Lecturers: A Survey London:
Ofsted
Hayes D (2004) The Routledge Falmer Guide to Key debates in Education London:
Routledge Falmer
Bates I et al (1998) Progressivism and the GNVQ Journal of Education and Work
11(2)
QCA (2001) Review of Curriculum 2000 London: QCAKnowles M (1984) The Adult
Learner Houston TX: Gulf
John Lea June 04 14-19 Spours