The Diploma debacle

The September of 2008 was witness to a quiet revolution in British education. That month, the Diploma was launched, with the promise to offer “14 to 19 year olds practical, hands-on experience as well as classroom learning…designed to help young people develop the knowledge and skills employers and universities want”. These new semi-vocational, semi-academic qualifications were intended to challenge the virtual monopoly orthodox academic qualifications held over secondary education, and perhaps even eventually replace them as the qualification of choice among students nationwide. However, the promised revolution has not materialised. So, what went wrong? And how can the Diploma be made to work?

This is a real tragedy as Diplomas have the potential to remedy our outmoded qualifications system. The Tomlinson Report, published in 2004, announced that A levels lacked breadth and challenge, and proposed the introduction of an all-inclusive vocational and academic qualification, such as the Diploma, to combat their narrow focus. The education establishment’s adherence to the “safe” duo of the GCSE and A Level has, however, yet to be seriously challenged by the different conception of the Diploma that the Labour government introduced.

The Diploma has the potential to play a role in tackling the rising number of “NEETs” (young people Not in Education, Employment or Training) which reached one million for the first time last year, while a recent report revealed that Britain “ranked 25th out of 27 OECD countries in the proportion of 15-19 year olds in education”. Such figures are a source of national embarrassment, but also entail material costs. A report by the Prince’s Trust in 2007 signalled that NEETs “costs the economy upwards of £90m per week”- a financial expense incurred in the present to challenge the social expense faced in the future.

The means to transform the Diploma into a more effective qualification rest in the government’s hands.

Firstly, it can ensure that the Diploma is granted equal status with A Levels and GCSEs by universities. Time and again, the most prestigious universities have wilfully ignored the “tariff” that standardises qualifications for university entry, admitting students with academic qualifications in preference to those with vocational equivalents. It is the duty of the government to make such institutions play fair.

Secondly, the government should review the structure of the course to make the Diploma both simpler, and more cost effective. A report published last December by Kathleen Tattersall, head of England’s exams regulator Ofqual, suggested that “simplification” would make the Diploma more attractive to a larger number of schools and students.

Sadly, the government’s position on the Diploma remains ambiguous at best. In June, it pulled the plug on the Diplomas in humanities, language and science due to be launched next September. In July, the right of students to enrol in all the established Diploma courses was abolished along with the Extended Diploma – a prospective addition to the programme worth 4.5 A Levels. Nick Gibb said that students should “be able to sit the qualification that is right for them” and not “be told by government what they can and cannot take.” Under the guise of student choice, he has actually reduced young people’s options by abolishing their entitlement and reducing the range available.

Finding a difference is taxing

The debate around a graduate tax rumbled on this week – with decreasing certainty as to the coalition’s position. Here, Young Fabian Policy Development Group member, Dan Harkin, struggles to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The YF Aspiration and Equality PDG will be addressing university funding in a future meeting.

Everyone from the BBC to the Telegraph has reported Vince Cable’s recent speech as in favour of a graduate tax. Most of the Labour leader candidates and the NUS have come out in favour it. But this isn’t really much of a debate. The difference between the two systems is skin deep.

Before tuition fees were brought in, higher education was free. Sort of. With the expansion of student numbers the grants were successively diminished and mortgage-style loans were brought in to cover the gap. Labour brought in a new student loans system, which was income contingent and means-tested. The rate of interest was (and continues to be) subsidised. When so-called top-up fees were brought in, the fees were added to the loan. Universities were required to use part of the income generated to support poor students.

I remember being sat in campaign groups at university, having paid a token fee for the year, surrounded by many over-privileged individuals campaigning against the fact that they had to pay full fees (this was the earlier tuition fees system). Never mind that the individuals on whose behalf they were supposedly campaigning didn’t pay any such fees. Under the current system the provisions for poor students is even more generous.

Student leaders talked about the burden of debt. But let’s get one thing straight, a student loan is not a mortgage. Loan providers don’t take it into account because it is paid back through your tax bill. To be frank it is either this form of debt or the real debt burden of a credit card or overdraft. And there is nothing wrong with the principle of distributing your income in your highest-earning years to your leanest years: that’s what we do with pensions. We take out loans to help us start out and we save to help us later on. Therefore loans are an entirely rational way to finance one’s education.

So what about a graduate tax? Imagine if we got individual A, with a student loan, and individual B, who pays a graduate tax, to exchange places. Both graduates would start repaying after a certain income level (£15,000 under the current system). The amount they pay back would be a portion of income, not fixed payments (10 per cent above the earning threshold). They would both cease paying after retirement. It’s a bit like asking two people at different weddings, one dancing the Macarena and the other the Time Warp, if they’d prefer to swap. Doing the Macarena with your aunty is painful but doing it wouldn’t be any more enjoyable if the friend of the family in the DJ booth put on his only other CD. (Incidentally, I’m fairly certain Mr Cable is technically proficient whatever the track.)

The only difference I can make out is that the loan repayments are, by their nature, finite. The Scottish system had a cap on the total amount an individual would pay back under its graduate contribution scheme. So either the graduate tax would replicate that, in which case it would be utterly indistinguishable from the current system, or it wouldn’t – in which case it appears to be somewhat sinister. But a graduate tax is problematic for a whole host of reasons: it’s not a direct payment to an institution; it’s hard to define a graduate; it’s hard to chase non-UK nationals with a “tax”; and, as there’s no borrowing element, it delays the funds available to universities.

Last there is something rather unholy about charging a class of citizens a different rate of tax. Taxes normally fall on a particular economic activity. Picking out a group of individuals and taxing them separately is an ill-paved road to start travelling down.

There isn’t space to go into all the arguments surrounding whether students should contribute towards the costs of their study. My argument assumes that will be the case, especially if student numbers need to rise as our economy changes. Given the large private benefit derived from having a degree it seems dodgy to suggest that the taxpayer should pay for the whole cost of a degree – especially when further education and part-time students get such a rum deal.

There are loads of ways to reform the current system to extract more money from those who should stump up the cash and still make it accessible to those from disadvantaged backgrounds. (Means-testing the share between the state and individual could be a goer.) But just rebadging it won’t help anyone. Hey, Macarena.

Young Fabians nationwide participating in new policy development

Building upon the success of 2009’s YF Policy Forums, Young Fabian Vice Chair, Adrian Prandle, established four new Policy Development Groups to answer some of the key questions the centre-left needs to address in order to retool following Labour’s general election defeat. 

If the Fabian Society is about ideas, and the Young Fabians is about the next generation, then the YF Policy Development Groups (PDGs) are about realising that there is no time to waste. The context of a Conservative-led government and the first competitive Labour leadership election since today’s oldest Young Fabian members were at school offers a huge opportunity for centre-left ideas on domestic policy, Britain’s policy abroad, and even the way the Labour Party organises and presents itself.

The four groups – Livelihoods & Resource Security (looking at development and foreign policy); Work & Families; Aspiration & Equality (focusing on education policy); and a special project group, Transforming Our Party – have Young Fabian members, with a range of interests, expertises and experiences,  signed up in their hundreds.

The PDGs are seeking new policy ideas with the aim of developing these collectively to inform decision-makers and senior party figures as well as other Young Fabian and/or Labour Party members. Published outcomes from the PDGs predecessor in 2009 have been cited from the top table at leadership hustings and 2010’s work promises to be just as important and influential.

But they’re not just about influence. The strength of the PDGs lies within our membership. Recognising the need to harness the talents of all of our members, we have redoubled efforts to involve and empower and have utilised web-based resources to make this easier for Young Fabians across the country. Members have been encouraged to participate by email, blogging, joining a Facebook group, and accessing the many resources in the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website, as well as attending meetings in person.

And the PDGs have hosted a first for the Young Fabians – online meetings. We’re not using webcams just yet, but members are finding the chatroom software both productive and easy to use. Plus the work of the groups benefits: the breaking of geographic boundaries brings in wider perspectives from the length and breadth of Britain than meetings in London often allow.

We are looking into using wikis for policy development and remain open to other ideas members want to suggest. Young Fabians are getting involved in whichever ways suit them best – members in Manchester have organised their own meeting to feed into the discussions of the Transforming Our Party PDG.

The PDGs will report later in the year so it’s not too late to join in. If you’d like to participate in any one of the PDGs, or would like to find out more about their latest work then please email Adrian, aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk, or visit the PDGs hub on the Young Fabian website: http://tiny.cc/yfpdgs.

Burnham backs Young Fabian pamphlet at last night’s hustings

Lots of interest in Young Fabian activity plus the signing up of new members at our exhibition stand; a sell-out crowd; and the adoption by one of the Labour leadership candidates of policy from the international chapter of the YF publication, Fast Forward (more of that later), all made for a successful evening.

It was a good hustings – audience members like myself who had been at Saturday’s event in the same venue were treated to some different content as well as some of the same words, ideas and pitches – and in my opinion each of the candidates improved upon Saturday. What was particularly positive was the honest, comradely, and occasionally humourous spirit in which the candidates approached the discussion. Long may that continue.

Amongst the same content as Saturday was a discussion of electoral reform. It’s amusing to see how far this issue appears to have turned around over the course of 2010. From the advocacy of PR (in whatever form) seeming to be a near-consensus of the left just a few months ago, we now find ourselves with all five of our leadership candidates fairly (small c) conservative on the issue and against such a move. I lean towards the argument of one of the contenders that this is not something that most of the country cares deeply and worries about, but from all I have read online this year it seems a clear difference between party membership and leadership. Maybe that’s just because those who favour FPTP or, to a lesser extent, AV, have just been more quiet. I know I have.

There’s a very fine balance to be had with regards to taking on board party members’ views and providing leadership which may differ. It’s a challenge they all face during this campaign and one to watch closely. But it’s also a reason why those candidates advocating and elaborating on the ideal of party reform, in particular around policy formation, will likely win votes.

In terms of new content it was pleasing to see the impact of the conversation that I, and a couple of executive committee colleagues, had with Andy Burnham on Saturday at the Compass conference, when Andy came to say hello at our exhibition stand. Andy left with a copy of Fast Forward, the pamphlet which was a product of 2009′s YF policy forums and tonight backed the call within the edited volume’s foreign policy chapter for an agreed framework for interventionism.

The successor programme of work – the 2010 YF Policy Development Groups – which I am managing, is underway and Young Fabian members are now taking part in meetings to develop new ideas under four themes. Check our website for more, it’s being constantly updated, and I promise to post here again on the groups  soon. It’s not too late to join any of them if you want to play a part and take your ideas to the highest reaches of the party.

Adrian Prandle

Vice Chair, Young Fabians

A few hours left to complete YF Members Survey – prize draw closes at midnight

Our annual members survey gives you the chance to have your say on the issues and activities most important to you, and to guide the executive committee’s planning over the course of the next year. It’s also the first chance to sign up to this year’s policy development groups.

www.surveymonkey.com/s/youngfabiansurvey2010

All survey responses received by midnight tonight will be entered into a prize draw to win a £25 book token.

Please email me on aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk if you are having any difficulty completing the survey.

Adrian Prandle, Vice Chair

Have your say in the Young Fabian Survey 2010

Bright ideas? Burning issues? Got a suggestion? Or just want to take the first opportunity to sign up for this year’s policy development groups?
 
The executive committee wants to hear about the direction Young Fabians want the organisation to take during the next year. Young Fabian members are invited to have their say today in the YF Annual Survey 2010:
 
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/youngfabiansurvey2010
 
All responses received by the closing date of Monday 15 February will be entered into a prize draw to win a £25 book token.
 
The survey is quick and easy to complete, and is your chance to tell the YF executive committee what issues and activities are most important to you. This year, as Vice Chair, I am responsible for our policy development groups. These will be launching soon and you can sign up to join them by completing the survey.
 
The survey will be used by the executive committee to guide our planning over the course of the next year. Individually and collectively, our members are the heart of our organisation and it would be fantastic if you could feed in your views. If you have any problems, comments or questions about the survey then please email me: aprandle@youngfabians.org.uk.
 
Here’s the link again – http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/youngfabiansurvey2010.
 
I look forward to seeing your responses.
 
 
Adrian Prandle
Vice Chair, Young Fabians