Education and Skills Bill

moved Amendment No. 22: 22: Clause 3, page 2, line 11, after ““means”” insert— ““( ) the Cambridge Assessment Pre-U qualification in two subjects, or ( ) ”” The noble Baroness said: In speaking also to Amendments Nos. 23 to 25, 33, 212, 213 and 231, I hope I will not confuse the Committee, although I cannot guarantee that I will not. I say that because I am fully aware that Clause 3 defines a level 3 qualification, and much of what I shall say concentrates on the generalities of qualifications. These amendments simply emphasise our belief that the Government should not be limited in their thinking about qualifications, both in terms of which qualifications count at which level and in highlighting the difference between knowledge-based and practically based qualifications. In her book, Diminished Returns, Alison Woolf says: "““No one outside the education sector and the relevant parts of the Treasury talks about a level 2, 3 or 4 qualification””." She goes on to say: "““When journalists have to explain the usage they generally refer to level 2 as the equivalent of 5 good GCSEs … A* to C””." This, she says, is deceptive because other qualifications, such as the NVQ2 in food processing and cooking or the AQA level 2 certificate in enterprise and employability, are also level 2 qualifications but are not treated the same by employers and sixth-form gatekeepers. I am a great believer in parity of esteem for vocational and academic qualifications. However, we will not achieve that by pretending that a qualification is something that it is not. My honourable friend John Hayes MP was absolutely right when he said in another place: "““It is the tragedy of the Government’s unwillingness to accept the integrity of vocational learning, that, in their view, to have legitimacy the subjects must be academicised””.—[Official Report, Commons, Education and Skills Bill Committee, 26/2/08; col. 703.]" To achieve the aim of maximising the level of attainment reached by every young person, we need to be honest about the type of qualification that they are working towards. We should accept that different qualifications are just that: different. As an aside, but an important one, we have heard today, from research undertaken at Durham University, that we cannot always compare like with like between academic qualifications. Furthermore, I simply cannot resist commenting on the story in yesterday’s Times that pupils are rewarded for using expletives in their exams if the spelling was accurate and successfully conveyed a meaning. That hardly instils confidence in the system, and I wonder whether the Minister might comment on it because I cannot tell him how widely people are talking about it. The best way to ensure that vocational and academic qualifications achieve parity of esteem is to make certain that they lead to good jobs for which the young person has been fully trained, knows what they are doing and makes the most of it. That challenge must be met and should not be simply glossed over by saying that equality in qualifications has been reached, full stop. Our amendments on the Cambridge Pre-U and the IGCSE, on which there were long debates during proceedings on the previous Education Bill, simply flag up that there are now a number of qualifications being pursued by schools and universities and ensure that they will be recognised at the appropriate level. It seems bizarre that, among the hundreds of recognised vocational and academic qualifications, the QCA does not recognise the IGCSE—a well-regarded and established qualification. Half of all independent schools in the country are now entering their pupils for the IGCSE: the Cambridge version is offered in 2,000 schools in 125 countries around the world. They are obviously impressed with it, which rather begs the question: ““Why isn’t the QCA””? The lack of recognition not only distorts results in league tables; we are in danger of opening up a two-tier system where 93 per cent of pupils educated in the state sector will not be able to study for that rigorous exam. As Nick Cowen, the author of a Civitas study, said, "““the result could be that pupils will soon find themselves competing for university here against European candidates with better British qualifications””." He went on to say that that was, "““one of the clearest indicators yet of a growing ‘educational apartheid””" in Britain. More absurdly, however, for the purposes of the Bill, pupils from the independent sector who take the IGCSE or the Cambridge Pre-U will not be considered to be in relevant education or training. Amendment No. 25 is intended to determine how much unfettered power Clause 3(3) is giving to the QCA by adding those words to that subsection. We would give the Secretary of State the final say on what functions may be conferred on the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to maintain departmental control over what may be classed as level 3 qualifications. Ultimately, the Secretary of State needs to be the official who takes important decisions about educational policy, because he or she is accountable to the Government they serve and to Parliament. I beg to move.