Researching the new diplomas

If you are considering carrying out research into the new diplomas which were introduced in September 2008, the following article may provided evidence for an argument against the government's policies. Further up to date information/opinions on the new diplomas can be accessed on the Guardian site, address at the top of the article. Please feel free to comment on this article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/feb/13/diploma-apology-adrian-smith accessed on 26th February 2009
Top education official apologises for attacking diplomas
Science adviser Adrian Smith said courses were badly planned and 'slightly schizophrenic'
Donald MacLeod
guardian.co.uk, Friday 13 February 2009 11.50 GMT
Article history
New diploma qualifications are badly planned and "slightly schizophrenic", the government's senior adviser on science said in a speech this week.
Prof Adrian Smith, director general for science and research, has since apologised for his remarks to ministers, the Department for Innovation Universities and Skills (Dius) said today. But he voiced concerns shared by many teachers about the qualifications that began to be introduced in England since September.
The first five diploma courses, which are designed to combine academic and practical work, have attracted 12,000 students, not the 50,000 hoped by ministers. Eventually 17 courses will be offered, including subject-based diplomas in humanities, science and languages, due to be taught from 2011.
Prof Smith, who was principal at Queen Mary, University of London, for 10 years and carried out a major review of maths teaching for the government, said the science diploma was a "slightly schizophrenic" concept which tried to challenge A-levels while offering work-based learning. He also told his audience at the Commonwealth Club that money being spent on golden hellos for teachersshould rather be used to fund higher salaries for teachers of certain subjects.
Smith said: "In core subjects like maths and physics, we already have a shortage of qualified teacher cover. Are we wise in adding different bits of curricular offerings, each of which will require additional teacher input?
In the speech, reported by the Times Educational Supplement (TES) today, he asked: "Are we thinking in a joined-up way when we plan curriculum developments and new programmes, whether we have the teacher power, planning and recruitment? Might we not be better getting GCSEs and A-levels right first?"
Universities were saying they would not touch the new A* A-level grade because they felt it would favour candidates from independent schools, he added for good measure.
Both Dius and the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) angrily repudiated the remarks Prof Smith, who also accused politicians of kicking a promised review of university funding "into touch", leaving universities "going bankrupt".
"We were surprised to read and totally disagree with his comments about diplomas, golden hellos for science teachers, and our reforms to the new A-level, all of which have been widely welcomed," sais a DCSF spokesman.
The skills secretary, John Denham, "emphatically" rejected his views, said a Dius spokeswoman. "Mr Denham is also disappointed that he has raised a series of issues on which he has never presented formal advice to ministers, and that he has done so in such a manner," she said.
Ed Balls, the schools secretary, said the proposed content of the science diploma was "significant and ambitious", and his department was consulting on whether it could better offer routes to both university and employment if it were split on content, for example life sciences and physical sciences.
The Liberal Democrat education spokesman, David Laws, said Smith's remarks amounted to a damning criticism of the government's education policy. "Ministers cannot simply ignore these comments from someone working at such a senior level in their own department. These comments totally undermine what little faith there was in the new diplomas, and there must now be even greater concern that our education system is failing to stretch the most able children."
Speaking about science in schools, Smith said: "If you ask a lot of scientists, chemists and engineers what turned them on in the first place, I am afraid it was things like making bombs.
"I think in terms of funding, in terms of qualified teachers, and the insidious effects of health and safety legislation, we may have done something rather damaging to that fundamental curiosity. We need more explosions in schools."
Smith has, it seems, has delivered his own explosion.