This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
NEWS FOCUS SecEd: On Your Side


Qualifications must be employer-led


MICHAEL GOVE effectively culled more than 3,000 vocational qualifications when he ended their recognition in England’s school league tables. There is an already uncertain


Guest


editorial Lynn


Senior


future for vocational education with funding and support having been removed from qualifications such as the 14 to 19 Diplomas, and now the removal of most vocational qualifications from league tables could make schools less likely to continue with courses such as the Diplomas and even BTECs. As a teacher, I share the desire of the coalition


government and of experts like Professor Alison Wolf to improve the quality of vocational programmes within our educational portfolio and I have carried out extensive research on the effectiveness and perceptions of vocational education among both teachers and students. I have also written guidance on the importance of the role


of the Diploma as a way forward for the vocational agenda. Despite the cull, it is still true that when it was developed and delivered by subject experts, the Diploma was effective in engaging young people into learning and providing a springboard for entry into further study or employment. This is confirmed by the list of subjects that will remain


within the league tables, which includes all of the Level 2 Principal Learning in the 2008 Diploma lines – construction, creative and media, engineering, IT, and society, health and development. Subjects developed for later delivery are all open to review. By maintaining the first phase subjects the government


has confirmed their relevance and importance, but what makes these qualifications different from others that have been removed? A typical comment from staff involved in teaching the


engineering Diploma would be that the qualification is “up-to-date, relevant and provides a range of skills needed by someone who wished to pursue a career in engineering”. The fact that it is employer-endorsed not only serves to confirm it as a qualification, but is an indicator of the role industry played in developing the first phase of subjects. Employer-led steering groups enabled employers to be


involved from the very beginning of the development of each qualification and to identify demanding academic and skill requirements as well as work-related competencies. Employers were able to put sound and often demanding


ideas into the content of the qualification and provide critical comments on teaching materials and delivery as the qualification developed. Surely this is our lesson? If we are to develop and offer young people an alternative, academic- equivalent vocational curriculum then we cannot do so without full support of employers during its development. The cull has revealed that it is time to stop and


think about what makes a good vocational educational qualification. What we should be examining is why there is a perceived lack of value in the other vocational subjects and how they differ from the early qualifications. It appears from both my research and the fact that the early Diploma subjects haven’t been part of the cull, that something was right about the content and the delivery of these qualifications. Other vocational qualifications may engage learners in a


range of vocationally related activities and may transform the attitudes of some young people to education, but this is not enough. There needs to be credibility in the content and the teaching. The experience of seeing the most significant and


innovative experiment in an alternative education and training qualifications in the last two decades abandoned was hugely disappointing. The discussion that those of us who supported the Diplomas should now have with the coalition is how to identify what and how vocational qualifications can be developed to be effective and real equivalents to academic qualifications.


• This guest editorial has been written by Lynn Senior, author of The Essential Guide to Teaching 14-19 Diplomas. The editor of SecEd is Pete Henshaw. Follow him on Twitter (@pwhenshaw) or email editor@sec-ed.co.uk


IT HAS become so much a natural part of learning in the 21st century that it is hard to imagine a classroom without it. Teachers marvel at the learning opportunities afforded by internet connectivity in the classroom, while using handheld and remote devices is second nature to today’s children. But there may be risks


attached. Teachers are becoming increasingly concerned about the weight of scientific evidence stacking up against the use of wi-fi in schools. Is it possible that the technology


being used so effectively in teaching and learning could in fact be causing long-term damage to young people’s health? In recent years there has been


a huge increase in the number of schools installing wireless networks, wireless whiteboards and other similar devices and the use of “smart” and mobile technologies is now widespread. These offer teachers and pupils


the freedom to move around the school and beyond with laptops and similar devices, and are often cheaper to install than wired networks. However, there are increasing


fears that these technologies emit microwave radiation in sufficient quantities to pose a health risk, especially to children. According to a report published in 2000, children absorb more electromagnetic radiation than adults. A five-year-old for example, will absorb around 60 per cent more than an adult because their skulls are thinner and brains more conductive. The effects could be


considerable. Scientists fear that prolonged exposure may lead to problems like epilepsy or issues with fertility among boys and male teachers, as well as cancers and tumours. There may also be


Experts are split on the safety of exposing children to wi-fi in schools, with some concerned about evidence of health risks.


Dorothy Lepkowska looks at the issue


negative effects when combined with the use of some medicines. The report suggested that where


parents were concerned about the effects on their children, schools should provide wired connectivity where possible until such time as more is known about the impact of wireless networks. A study by the Council


of Europe Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, published last year, suggested that mobile phones should be banned from schools and called for a “dramatic reduction” in the use of other wireless devises including baby monitors and cordless phones in the home. The committee reported that


electromagnetic fields were the most common and fastest- growing environmental influence on the population, and that levels of exposure would continue to increase as technology advances. It found that the effects of these were not yet fully understood but that precautions should be put in place until they were. These included reducing


exposure to electromagnetic fields among children and young people; making people more aware of the risks to human health, particularly young people; and to increase research into new types of antennae and all cordless devices and seek the development of other technologies that had less negative risks.


IN RESPONSE…


Changes to careers guidance for secondary school students could lead to a shortage of peo- ple pursuing careers in critical fields like engineering and hamper the UK’s economic recovery, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers has said. A policy statement released


SecEd


by the Institution raises con- cerns about the changes, which have seen Connexions services axed and a new legal duty placed instead on schools to provide “impartial and inde- pendent” advice for pupils in years 9 to 11 (but without any funding). The Institution is calling


for all secondary schools to have access to transparent national and local jobs information to give 14 to 19-year-olds a greater understanding of the sector and has said that schools should also establish an advisory panel of local and regional employers. It says that STEM teachers


should be entitled to develop continuously their understanding of STEM careers, allowing them to advise students better on the potential for employment.


Dr Colin Brown, director of engineering, Institution of Mechanical Engineers: “The UK’s career advice system


is still sorely lacking. We need to be boosting funding to ensure we can steer talented young people into careers which are vital to the country’s future like engineering and science. Instead the country is cutting funding, scrapping face- to-face counselling in schools and there is still insufficient involvement from industry. We need the people in industry


who are creating these jobs to provide careers advice, particularly given that many teachers and career advisors are unaware of the realities of working in different industries. It could prove hugely damaging to the country’s economy if we do not address


the issue of substandard careers advice, with many industries losing out on employing talented individuals. The UK needs 31,100 new graduate engineers every year for the next five years in order to meet industry demand, rebuild the country’s infrastructure, develop the UK manufacturing sector, and more fundamentally to support the country’s economy.”


• Read the full policy statement at www.imeche.org/knowledge/ policy. DownloadSecEd’s guide to meeting the new careers guidance duties at www.sec-ed.co.uk/ downloads/CareersGuidance.pdf


On the issue of protecting


children, the committee wanted to see targeted information campaigns across Europe’s education and health ministries to make teachers, parents and young people more aware of the risks; and prohibiting the use of mobile phones, as well as wi-fi and WLAN (wireless local area network) systems from schools. In the United States, David


Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment, at the University of Albany’s School of Public Health, said: “Many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to wi-fi and other wireless devices. “Thus it is important that all


of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, limit exposure to background levels of wi-fi, and that government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease. “We need to educate decision-


makers that “business as usual” is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue cannot be underestimated.” Some experts have also been


sceptical of the warnings. Professor Les Barclay, vice-chairman of the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme, said:


“There is very little evidence at the moment for harmful effects. The powers that mobile phones emit are getting less and less, and they are well below the limits set by the International Commission on Non- Ionising Radiation Protection. “Banning mobile phones and


wireless networks in schools is a step too far in my eyes.” The Department of Health said:


“We keep all available scientific evidence under review. Children should use mobile phones only for essential purposes and keep all calls short.” Other international agencies


have also been cautious. The World Health Organisation stated that “despite extensive research, to date there is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health” though it agreed there were “gaps in knowledge” that required further investigation. The education union Voice has


been among the most vocal within the UK education system on its concerns about the use of wireless and remote systems in schools. Philip Parkin, the general


secretary, said: “We are installing wi-fi systems in schools and yet we have no evidence that they are safe. “My concern is that until they


are declared to be safe and proven to be, we should not be installing them in schools. “The difficulty is that once


installed, they are switched on constantly whether the children are using them or not. “With such strong opinions on


both sides of the argument, serious and sustained scientific research is needed to establish conclusive facts about the potential long-term effects on children.”


SecEd


• Dorothy Lepkowska is a freelance education journalist.


The wi-fi debate


www.sec-ed.com


6


SecEd • May 3 2012


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16