Nuffield Curriculum Centre

D&T issues

Specialist Diploma in Engineering
Author: Nick Givens, N.Givens@exeter.ac.uk; David Barlex, dbarlex@nuffieldfoundation.org

www.engineeringdiploma.com

If the purpose is unclear how can design & technology teachers know what contribution to make?

The Nuffield Review of 14-19 Education and Training Annual Report 2005-06 voiced concern about specialist diplomas.

The specialised Diplomas represent yet another attempt to strengthen vocational learning for young people, to raise its status and to rationalise the plethora of vocational qualifications for this age group ... However, the wider context of the 14-19 reform process (e.g. the fact that specialised Diplomas will co-exist with GCSEs and A levels; that they do not embrace apprenticeships; continued employer voluntarism; lack of vocational capacity in schools and the pace of reform) cast doubts over the ability of these new awards to fulfil the ambitious aims that the DfES has for them. (Page 31)

SEMTA (Science, Engineering, Manufacturing Technologies Alliance) is the Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies and has been the lead body in developing the Specialised Diploma in Engineering.

Nick Givens, of the University of Exeter, asks the following tough questions.

"1. Is there really a shortage of young people able to contribute to the science / technology / engineering sector, or is it a shortage of young people who want to contribute to that sector? If the problem is lack of desire rather than lack of capability, a Diploma route that locks young people into the sector they've chosen at age 14 could be disastrous: a disinterested or trapped generation of trainees or employees could become much more damaging than a shortage.

2. Is it clear what the Diploma as conceived by SEMTA aims to ensure a supply of? Is it new science /technology /engineering employees who can:

• competently diagnose and replace black boxes / circuit boards, or
• operate as high level technicians, or
• be innovators, or
• be designers, or
• respond positively to frequent and sometimes substantial changes in their work?

3. Is the Diploma aimed more at ensuring that young people in general develop a positive view of the science /technology /engineering sector, to take into the full spectrum of possible careers, so that as a nation we become more sympathetic to and supportive of that sector?

I warmly remember meeting (during the SCAA conferences preparing for the NC review that gave us the current curriculum) an industrialist who wanted the new generation of employees to be able to see their professional challenges through new eyes, unfettered by the time-specific filters of his own generation. He emphasised 'There is no point in reproducing the background, experiences and insights that my generation has - I can have my own ideas on that basis. I need the next generation to be able to generate ideas and solutions that I CAN'T see.'

Does SEMTA think that notion is important?

4. The purpose of the Diploma seems to be to increase the proportion of young people who start their vocational edu-training at 14. That would be understandable in relatively stable times, when change could be expected to follow reasonably predictable trends. It would be a grave mistake to lock the next generation of employees into time-limited skills and attitudes when technological change is so fast, often non-linear, and subject to thresholds that are themselves hard to predict.

There is a saying (probably undeserved) that accuses generals of planning to 'fight the previous war'. What 'intellectual precautions' does SEMTA take to avoid this trap?

5. Pupils who start the Diploma in 2008 will be 16 in 2010, 18 in 2012, and 21 in 2015. Those who start in 2013 will be 16 in 2015, 18 in 2017, and 21 in 2020; some may not be established in their careers until 2025. What sort of predictive employment data underlies the rationale for the Diploma proposals: current employment shortfalls or predicted employment needs? Over what period? From where would this data be available for public scrutiny - The Engineering Council, DTI, ONS, OPEC, World Bank, IMF?"

We'd be delighted if SEMTA would give some answers.

What are your views?

Comment

Your Comments

Thu, 15 March 2007 : Simon Thomas

We at the Aspire Campus of Walford and North Shropshire College have been involved in the IFP since 2001, using Performing Engineering Operations NVQ Level 1. We have developed this as a paper free NVQ delivered both at the Aspire Centre and school. We are currently involved in negotiations with local schools to pilot the Edexcel Level 1 BTEC Introductory Diploma in Engineering. Although this qualification has not been officially approved as a Specialised Diploma, Edexcel appear to have defined what it will look like by launching this one. This will involve collaborative delivery between school and college, three one hour periods would be required on the school timetable, with one of these periods being in the DT workshop. Half a day then would be required at the Aspire Centre as is current practice, to complete specialised units. This then will ensure the 360 GLH are fulfilled, but still as much as possible retaining the paper free teaching, learning and assessment material, with the Aspire Centre being responsible for quality assurance. It might be worth your while taking a look at this qualification and going through a similar exercise with whoever you will be working with to see how viable this method of delivery would be and then hopefully ironing out any problems before the official launch of the Specialised Diploma. The main priority is to ensure the delivery is correct, this then can prepare young people for our local industries and the feedback that we have been receiving is that there is a skills shortage, so the specialised diplomas must help address these issues in a rural area.