The development of 14-19 education

From a policy perspective, it is possible to see that apart from the unique focus on 14-18 education encapsulated in TVEI, it was not until relatively recently that the term 14-19 was used in policy documents. It is interesting to trace the development of the

terminology around this phase through a study of government policies. Below is an outline of how the use of the term 14-19 developed in the titles and main points within a sample of government policy documents, as well as a brief description of the main points contained in the documents, although this description is not intended to be exhaustive.

1978- White Paper (DES) Secondary School Examinations: a single system at 16 plus.

GCSE proposed at 16+ as a single examination to replace ‘O’ level and CSE. Intended to cater for top 60% of pupils; earliest date for introduction 1985.

1979- Education and Training for 16-18 Year Olds. A Consultative Paper

Discussion points included: varied needs of young people, requirements of employers and arrangements for curriculum development and coherence.

1983- Education and Training, 14 to 19 year olds

Derived from TVEI initiative, the Science and Art committee considered the education and training of 14-19 year olds with the aim of extension of technical and vocational education “across the ability range”

1985- DES White Paper-Better Schools

Suggested a broad programme of education for pupils up to the age of 16, and an explicitly vocational programme for post 16 education

1988- Education Reform Act.

End of Key Stage test at 14, GCSE at age 16, A levels at 18. Introduction of the National Curriculum and Local management of schools.

1988-DE White Paper-Employment in the 1990’s

Described government policy around who was to bear the responsibility of the

education of 16- 18+. The state is responsible for an individual’s education until the age of 16, the education of 16-18 year olds was the joint responsibility of industry and government, and the education of 18+ students was the responsibility of the individual and employers.

1994-DTI publication Competitiveness. Helping business to win

Listed the need for pre-vocational options for 14-16 year olds, apprenticeships for 16-18 year olds and accelerated apprenticeships for 18-19 year olds. One initiative suggested here which unified two of the age groups (16-18 and 18-19) was the Learning Credit scheme.

1996- Dearing Review, Review of Qualifications for 16-19 Year Olds

Recommended introduction of national framework for qualifications at four levels, with six core skills incorporated into the post-16 curriculum. Applied vocational courses for 14+ pupils who did not find school relevant.

1996- DFEE White Paper Learning to Compete; Education and Training for 14-19 Year Olds.

Proposes introduction of national traineeships which are to be ‘employer designed and led’ and re-launch a plan for disaffected 14-19 year olds to provide them with key skills for employment.

1999- DfEE White Paper Learning to Succeed: a new framework for post-16 learning

2002- Green Paper (DfES): 14-19: Extending Opportunities, Raising

Standards. This document produced the first major proposal for an overarching 14-19

award in the form of a matriculation diploma, as well as closer collaboration between schools, colleges and training providers through Pathfinder projects

2003- White Paper (DfES): 14-19: Opportunity and Excellence

Reduce compulsory national curriculum subjects for 14-16 year olds, consideration of vocational and hybrid GCSE’s and the appointment of a 14-19 Working Group under Mike Tomlinson.

2003- Working Group on 14-19 Reform: Principles for Reform of 14-19

Learning Programmes and Qualifications.

Recommended a coherent 14-19 programme with a common template for all 14-19 programmes; a general core, specialist training, supplementary learning, and a ‘baccalaureate’ style system.

2004- 14-19 Curriculum and Qualifications Reform. Final Report of the Working Group on 14-19 Reform

Recommended replacing existing framework of qualifications taken by 14-19 year olds with framework of Diplomas at entry, foundation, intermediate and advanced levels

2005- White Paper (DfES) 14-19 Education and Skills-

Proposed ‘specialised’ Diplomas to be introduced in 14 subject areas at 3 levels (Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3)

Compiled from Wright and Onecea, 2005

These proposals, initiatives and Acts make it clear that 14-19 as a rational and workable phase did not come into being (at least in policy terms for the Labour government) until at least 2002, with the two exceptions of TVEI in 1983, which was a clear attempt at creating a programme which took pupils from 14 through to 18, and the 1996 White Paper Learning to Compete which made an attempt to view the phase as a whole. Indeed, even now, it can still be argued that the ‘dream’ of a coherent 14-19 phase still does not exist. In addition, this list of political events shows that there has been, and still remains, a strong break in the curriculum at 16, and policies tend to focus on either the compulsory phase or the post-compulsory phase of education for young people, but rarely consider the phase as a whole.

This break in both qualifications and programmes at 16 can be seen to entrench the academic/vocational divide, with an overwhelmingly academic set of options available for students between the ages of 14 and 16 and with many more (indeed most)

This academic/vocational divide, fostered at 16, can be seen explicitly in the White Paper Better Schools where an academic curriculum was muted for 14-16 year olds, and a vocational curriculum was suggested for those over 16, and again implicitly in the 1988 DE White Paper-Employment in the 1990’s which makes clear that the responsibility for the education of 16+ year olds falls to differing combinations of industry and the individual depending on the age of the student.

Taking these points into account, it is difficult to argue that a discrete 14-19 phase exists. In reality, 14-19 education as a unified phase is at best a vision for the future, and at worst a hopeless dream, especially when the institutional structure and qualification framework which currently exists is considered.

As Higham declares in his consultation document for the Nuffield Review

In qualification terms, there is currently no such thing as a ‘14-19 curriculum’ and only ever so rarely has a single set of curricular aims or experiences, much less a course of study, spanned the divide between compulsory education and post-compulsory education, even in schools with sixth-forms where arguably the institutional infrastructure would support such provision. On the contrary, in many areas the curricular division at 16 is reinforced by an institutional break at 16, either necessarily so because of institutional organisation or de facto because of student movement (Higham, 2003, p. 1)

Accepting this and other arguments against the existence of a system which provides a unified educational programme for students from between the ages of 14 and 19, this study will, however, consider initiatives affecting this age group as belonging to one phase; the 14-19 phase, if for no other reason than to encourage clarity as well as to recognise a gradual move on the part of policy makers to consolidate the educational experiences of pupils in this age group and consider this phase as a continuum, based on greater uniformity and progression for students.

The next section will consider the nature of the reform process as it relates to 14-19 education, and question the reasons behind the ad-hoc and disjointed nature of the reform initiatives affecting this phase.