According to the report, while the current 14–19 education system serves many pupils well, and they are able to move into higher education or employment, it does not meet the needs of all young people. The UK still has one of the lowest staying on rates of pupils aged 16 and 17 – ie 76 per cent – among the 28 OECD countries. And more than 5 per cent of youngsters reach the end of compulsory schooling with no qualifications. Mike Tomlinson, speaking at the CEG meeting said, ‘We need a curriculum framework that will enable us to engage all young people in our system. So we carried out a curriculum-led exercise, not an assessment-led exercise. The new proposed framework would give young people choice when it was appropriate and would strengthen the vocational routes available to them from 14’.

The proposals include a common format for all 14–19 learning programmes – knowledge plus skills – within a unified framework of diplomas. The latter will detail the level (up to level four) and breadth of attainment achieved, whatever the nature of the programme, and the progression into further and higher learning, training and employment. The 14–19 curriculum would be divided into two parts: the core, and main learning. The core would aim to develop a range of skills that young people will need for their everyday lives, as employees, as continuing learners, and would comprise:

• functional mathematics, functional literacy and communication, and functional ICT – these will be developed to meet the ‘needs of the users’ and be available at all levels within the diploma framework;
• an entitlement to activities outside the formal curriculum. ‘We are not talking about assessing these or giving them a grade’, explained Tomlinson, ‘we want them to be recognised for their contribution to the skills development in young people and to their development as individuals’;
• an extended project which would replace most of the externally set and moderated coursework in all subjects. This would have time allocated within the school timetable, so it could be subject based, or a multidisciplinary project, or even a team project. It would be supported by appropriate preparative courses in eg thinking skills, critical thinking, and students would be required to make an oral presentation on the project to their peers and tutors.   

According to the report, between the ages of 14–16, ‘main learning’ would reflect the requirements of the National Curriculum – science would remain compulsory up to the age of 16, and achievement in science would be credited towards the main learning. Tomlinson explained that in the ‘main learning, there will be up to 20 broad lines to choose from. Currently these are based on the QCA frameworks – there is one called Science and Mathematics, for example. One of the main learning ‘specialisms’ would remain ’open’ to allow students to mix and match subjects. There would also be an opportunity for ‘supplementary learning’ – ie elements of study that are necessary to ensure that young people achieve as highly as possible in their chosen specialist line. In science, this might include some mathematics beyond GCSE. ‘We are not arguing for AS maths or AS statistics here’, said Tomlinson, ‘but for a mathematics package specifically designed to support achievement in science; it could be incorporated into the science programme or it could be taught separately’. Overall, across all areas, explained Tomlinson, this approach would lead to the development of a much better vocational programme than we currently have.

As far as assessment is concerned, Tomlinson explained that the Government gave the working group two requirements. First they had to reduce the overall burden of assessment on students, teachers, institutions and indeed on the assessment system that supports it. Secondly, they had to come up with a plan for assessment that was ‘fit for purpose’.

‘We have sought to reduce the burden of assessment’, Tomlinson explained, ‘by readdressing the balance between external assessment and internal assessment done by teachers. The time gained will be given back to teachers to re-introduce the breadth and excitement of their subject’. ‘I believe’, he said, ‘that breadth can be achieved within a subject as well as breadth by studying a range of subjects – and that is one of the challenges that all subjects face’. There would need to be clear quality assurance as far as teacher assessment was concerned, he said, so that people understood the standards against which performance was being judged.

At the intermediate level, Tomlinson proposes more a progress check with much more teacher assessment and less repetitive coursework. At the advanced level the number of modules associated with AS (to become A1) and A2 would be reduced from six to four, without reducing the assessment time, so that the length of the four examinations would be increased. Both A1 and A2 will consist of two units, and A1 would become decoupled from A2, so that students could move straight through to A2 if that’s what they want to do.

According to Tomlinson, the current ‘mechanistic forms of assessment’ limit the capacity of able students to show what they really do know and stifles their passion for their subject. He proposes an ‘Advanced Extension Award’ approach at A-level which allows students to gain a grade or grades beyond grade A. ‘This is not about picking the top 10 per cent of grade As’, he said. ‘How you differentiate between all those with grade As is a different issue. This is about raising the game and showing what young people with a passion for their subject can do’.

The diploma is to be the qualifying feature of the programme and Tomlinson would like to see it graded either as pass, merit or distinction. ‘Merit and distinction could be used to give a real premium for breadth at all levels’, he said. ‘This would be the first time that there was a premium clearly attached to breadth – visible and recognisable within the achievements in young people’. Tomlinson acknowledges this is a moot point, but believes that if the programme is to have coherence – ie includes all the ingredients necessary to enable young people to move smoothly to the next level – then, he says, the whole programme must be quantified, rather than having the option of cherry picking the best bits.

The Tomlinson report is a huge document, comprising some 200 pages, though the emphasis, he says, is on evolution of the education system rather than revolution. Implementation of the diploma framework is expected to take 10 years, but within the next four years we can expect:

• redeveloped GCEs and GCSEs;
• enhanced vocational programmes;
• introduction of the ‘extended project’;
• development of stand alone components in functional maths, functional literacy an ICT; and
• more information about qualifications and grades to be made available to universities and employers.   

Derek Bell, chief executive of the Association for Science Education, reminded his audience at Salters’ that: ‘If we agree these changes are what is required for the curriculum and for our subject, we must get teachers involved in the planning process because they are the intermediaries in producing what we want to achieve. We must remember, too, that it is assessment that drives what we do in the classroom, so we must be clear the assessment role is appropriate’.

John Holman, director of the National Science Learning Centre, speaking at the meeting said, ‘If the Tomlinson report succeeds in loosening up the rigid hold that assessment has on the curriculum and thus frees up time for some of the more productive activities in science – interesting practical work, spectacular demonstrations and discussions of current chemical issues in the press – then we will be winners. And one way to free up time in the curriculum would be to place greater trust in teachers when it comes to assessment. Teachers are often wary of increasing the amount of internal assessment because their experience is of the considerable burden that marking coursework has placed on them. But if we were talking about teachers administering their own end-of-module tests, they could be quite short and the kind of thing they do anyway. We need to reassure them that we are aiming to reduce the burden of coursework – we must take teachers with us if these proposals are to be realised’.

Kathryn Roberts

*The CEG comprises: the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry; the British Association; the Association for Science Education; Chemical Industries Association; Institution of Chemical Engineers ; the Royal Institution of Great Britain; the Royal Society; the Royal Society of Chemistry; the Royal Society of Edinburgh; the Salters’ Institute of Industrial Chemistry; and the Society of Chemical Industry.