Mike
Registered: 02/23/08
Posts: 25
|
| | 06/20/08 at 07:00 AM | Reply with quote | #1 |
|
The TES staffroom forum has had a long running thread on the Diploma. I have reposted some choice examples from this thread below.
On 8th June 2008 coronel said:
"There isn't a particular skill set that employers need. Literate and numerate yes, but there are no really specific literacy or numeracy skills. It is really about having well rounded skills, for want of a better phrase.
The same is true of ICT. It isn't possible to teach what employers want because they don't want anything as specific as they think. Most people won't use most of the software tools they are taught in schools when they go to work and where they do it will be after being trained.
I'm not letting anyone near my company database until they have been trained in my company systems. That they have done an ICT course may be useful but it doesn't change that approach.
So an all round competence in ICT is really to be preferred. ICT is also far to valuable to 'education' in a more general sense for it to be subverted as a training tool for businesses.
There may be some merit in some aspects of the diploma, but I see it has having enormous potential to disappoint too. "
On the 12th June 2008 Lilliflower said:
"I've been reading this thread with interest, as someone involved in Diploma implementation, I like to keep up to date with the general feelings of other practitioners, and the TES forum is a great vehicle for that. I must admit that I'm unsurprisingly disappointed at some of the ill informed, obviously ignorant views expressed during the course of this debate. I am equally heartened by those posters who are obviously thinking about the learner.
Let’s face it, if the education system to date was that fantastic we would have an economy which was booming, our young people being able to find and remain in jobs. However, the truth of the matter is that many of our young people have been failed by the current education system which has resulted in ridiculously high rates of adults being innumerate and illiterate. For those staff uneasy about the Functional Skills agenda, in case you were unaware is not just a KS3/4/5 issue, it is also now part of +19 education and so Training Providers and Colleges are also facing the issue of F/S implementation.
As for progression to HEI’s I think that yes, the jury is out with many of them in regard to whether or not Diplomas will be considered sufficient entry requirements for degree courses, but as my biochemistry and pharmacology lecturer husband constantly bemoans, students who are currently taking A Levels do not come to HE equipped with the necessary skills to be self managers, reflective learners and effective participators and in essence, to cope with the rigors of study at degree level. Now, before everyone jumps down my throat, I will add, this is not necessarily the fault of the School / College or VIth form but the blame must lie with the system through which they have travelled. It is all about the results, the points and the league tables and the acquisition of skills and knowledge seems to have got lost along the way.
To address the comments about the Diploma being for the less able students, I put it to you that to offer a Diploma to a learner who will not achieve the L2 F/S required for a L2 Diploma would be morally and ethically wrong. There will be provision in place for those learners, whether it be a Diploma at Level 1 or something within the Foundation Learning Tier. The Diploma programme should not be a dumping ground for learners that the home institution wants shot of! It is precisely these learners that have been failed by inappropriate programmes of study in the past, the system failing them rather than them failing the system!
In terms of why offer Diplomas, in the future qualifications will be funded by the DCSF if they fit four broad learning pathways:, ‘Foundation Learning Tier’(your current entry level provision), ‘Traditional’ (and this is yet to be finalized following the A Level and GCSE review) Diplomas and Apprenticeships. EVERY single qualification will HAVE to fit one of those four pathways. Therefore, although there is no exit strategy for BTEC Diplomas or other quals, they will, at some point in the future, be absorbed into either the Diploma, Apprenticeship or FLT pathway. In sort, if you aren’t offering those pathways, you not going to get funding and because of the entitlement, you will lose your learners."
On 14th July 2008 dokusu wrote
"The jobs for which many of our young people will be applying for in the next 5 years are not yet in existence.
That's a neat getout of jail card. About as convincing as Donald Rumsfeld's famous remark about knowing things we don't know we know! And about as meaningful. You are proving my point. There is no basis for the Diploma argument in ICT and you fail to come up with a convincing reason why we should support it.
Jobs my 16 year olds will be working in are out there now but the ICT Diploma will not qualify them for any of them. What will help them is further specialised training in areas that they want to work in. Having a Diploma will not have the slightest advantage in joining courses offering this, any more than any other ICT qualification. In my experience (which includes recruitment in hi tech) enthusiasm and interest count as much if not more than qualifications and the Diploma doesn't encourage either. OCR Nationals offers a far wider range to whet the appetite.
In fact having such a narrow specialisation at such an early age (especially at 14) strikes many educationalists as a mistake as we should be encouraging students to cover a far WIDER range of subjects (Like the Welsh Bac) rather than fewer. The knowledge economy (which I assume is what you meant) requires it, not the narrow dead end specialism of the ICT Diploma.
Did you know what you wanted at 14? I didn't, nor do most of the students I teach."
On 14th June 2008 coronel wrote:
"This notion that we are 'preparing them for the world of work' seems to be gathering pace. It is frightening, partly because a lot of people making the claim have never been near what they call,'the world of work' in their life.
There seems to be a quaint notion that a 16 year old with a certificate will be walking into some company's office and switching on a computer. The world doesn't work like that.
It would be interesting to know what job anyone could do on the basis of a Diploma, in the opinion of its promoters. It is not going to be using any of the company systems. Perhaps they are going to put the accounts onto a spreadsheet. maybe construct a database of the staff. They might even be able to assist in recruitment, pointing out the IT skills someone needs for the job - "they gotta have a Diploma, Guv, just like the one I got."
The notion of an 'all round education' is not as trite as it sounds. Good literary skills are at the top with numeracy not far behind. IT is in among the others. They are part of the 'all round' competence and confidence the person brings with them and it is that, not a diploma that will get them the job.
No names, but I suspect auti knows this person. He was a not very good graphic artist who produced a few game graphics for s few games. From there he moved to a larger company and within a few years was a senior management member of one of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world. He's currently worth millions and managing even more. Nothing to do with qualifications and everything to do with his motivation. Just think what he would have achieved if he'd had a Diploma.
Employers in the real world might say they want gongs. What they really want are people who can get out of bed in the morning and make a difference. They may want some specific skills and, if necessary, will train for those. Beyond that, being able to read, write, understand figures and be knowledgeable about the world, including IT are the kind of roundedness they want.
To often, they get scruffy herberts who can't read and write properly and who can't answer simple questions. An IT Diploma isn't the answer."
On 15th June 2008 fortuneteller wrote:
"It is good to hear passionate arguments against the introduction of the Diploma. But if I was on the fence I would hear the passion from dokusu but perhaps not be convinced by the logic of his argument.
Let me home in on the third and fourth paragraph, as this is where the crux of the 'anti' argument lies.
1. Between the age of 14 to the time that students become employed they will have a number of choices, including Diplomas, general subjects, a degree or further qualifications, and job specific training. They are not locked into Diplomas but they will have an employment advantage if a Diploma at either L2 or L3 forms part of their education.
2. Enthusiasm, interest count as much" Yes, and while you are at it dont forget personal, learning and thinking skills which are part of the Diploma but don't feature in general, knowledge-dominant subjects.
3. A "WIDER range of subjects"? Choosing general subjects only provides a wider exposure to samey knowledge-based stuff instead of the 'basket' of broader learning experiences which the Diploma provides. If you think 'width' equates to more knowledge, then you are up against the real problem with the traditional curriculum that Diplomas were designed to counter.
It is understandable that subject specialists will want to teach their subject as GCSEs and A levels, and grab as much curriculum time as they can to do it, but all of us know that most students (as we did) will leave school with heads full of 'learnt stuff' that will never be used again and is just repetitious in the attributes that learners gain from it.
4. 'Narrow'? Nonsense. Diplomas offer a broad range of learning and personal development experiences;
'dead end'. Ridiculous. They are designed by employers to lead to jobs. Try making this case to the growing bans of NEETs and 'points scores fodder' who got nothing from their education.
'specialist'. Yes - in the sense of equiping pupils will sector-relevant, transferable skills. But not as specialist as the alternative - knowledge based learning in an arbitrary range of subjects of dubious value (other than English and maths).
Dokusu effectively makes a case for continuing the curriculum we currently have. But it is a weak defense for a curriculum that suits teachers rather than learners. If schools were TESCO, over half the customers would have cause to ask for their money back for shoddy goods."
On 19 June redback wrote:
"This thread is fascinating.
I was around when the DIDA was first pitched. It was initially picked up by everybody as it promised a hatfull of GCSE equivalent passes for 4 lessons per week. Pressure of league tables being the main motivator for school smt. It fell apart because it was not supported by the exam boards.
My experience is that I taught A levels to barely literate students who could not count without a calculator. They all got onto degreee courses. One did medecine. It turned my stomach. The outrageous cheating with coursework is a national disgrace but how else does a head get his/her figures up? I was pretty much forced into teaching an abusive thug in year 11 because he could possibly get some passes in some GCSEs.
My experience teaches me that the reasons for poor literacy and numeracy are little to do with what happens inside the school. Disinterested, unsupportive parents, cultures which see no benefit in education and general disrespect for anything are the major causes. It doesnt matter which syllabus you teach. One of my schools tried to teach bricklaying and hairdressing qualifications. We found we could not trust our students with sharp things.
Diplomas are just the product of the government needing to be seen to be doing something. They can point at diplomas and publicise how much money is being spent and they say its the teachers fault if they dont work. The content of the ICT diploma reads like a manifesto promise. I suspect the content of the diploma was written by a politician to meet political ends, no thought as to how much learning will go on.
I was in industry for 17 years in various I.T. jobs. My recruitment issues centred around the fact that most graduates needed a lot of handholding. They could not think for themselves, a direct consequence of being spoon fed by their courses who needed a high passrate. They also lacked basic learning skills, they found it very difficult to pick up new skills without a tutor. A good graduate was rare and worth paying a premium for."
|
| Loading... | |
