Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

It is traditional to talk of the ‘two cultures’ gap as that which separates
the arts from the sciences. But, as any teacher knows, there is another
divide whose implications are equally insidious: that between ‘vocational’
and ‘academic’ education. It would be naive to blame this gap for all Britain’s
current economic troubles. But the fact is that our major economic competitors
– Japan, the United States and Germany – each manage to address the issue
much more successfully. Witness, for example, their greater number of school
students staying on in full-time education after 16 to obtain vocational
qualifications. Or even the relatively higher social status enjoyed by engineers.

The government has been giving some welcome signs over the past few
weeks that it is, at long last, prepared to match its words with action
(‘Sixth-formers find their true vocation,’ this issue) One idea being studied
is a new National Vocational Qualification, intended to be equivalent to
A level. Without revealing the details of government thinking, the minister
of state for education, Tim Eggar, last week described its goal as being
to convince pupils that vocational courses ‘offer viable and attractive
routes to employment and further study’. In other words, it appears finally
to be willing to challenge the supremacy of A levels as the ‘gold standard’
by which all other forms of post-16 education are judged.

It is important, however, that the government goes further than merely
bolstering the status of vocational courses. The vocational/academic conflict
is not merely a question of the relative market value of different types
of qualifications; it is also deeply entrenched in our social structure,
if only by the simple fact that it is success in the academic, rather than
the vocational, stream which currently provides the passport for entry to
the more prestigious universities.

To change all this, there may well be a need to rethink A levels themselves.
Of course, any alterations will be resisted by those, such as the independent
schools, whose very claim to ‘value for money’ still rests largely on their
success rate in helping students climb the A-level ladder to a ‘good’ university.
But it is surely crazy that restrictions imposed by university entrance
requirements to an ‘acceptable’ combination of three A levels makes it almost
as difficult for those who wish to successfully combine a serious interest
in both arts and science subjects as it was 40 years ago. And that those
who fall at the A-level hurdle are left with little they can transmute into
a marketable qualification.

Fortunately, there is some hope on the horizon. The Royal Society is
expected to come out with a report shortly suggesting a broad-based diploma,
assessed partly on examinations and partly on coursework, to replace the
current A level. And the government itself is reported to be considering
proposals for a unified diploma, embracing both vocational and academic
qualifications in a White Paper due out next month. Change is in the air.
But it must be pushed through with determination. Those wanting to maintain
the present system should accept that defending their own interests, whatever
Adam Smith may have said, does not necessarily coincide with meeting the
best interests of all students – or indeed of society as a whole.