ABSTRACT
The current very public concern for ‘lifelong learning’ and entitlement to a broadly-based education has tended to focus on the post-16 curriculum. Increasingly discussed is the possibility of eroding the significance of GCSEs in favour of a seamless continuity in 14-19+ education with qualifications at the age of sixteen seen as no more than a ‘staging post’ in the process, possibly reduced to an assessment of ‘key skills’ in literacy, numeracy and ICT. The development of what amounts to three separate strands in education and training should be seen in this context: the academic strand is still to be based on A Levels, with the important development of AS Levels giving a degree of breadth; the vocational, previously often termed the pre-vocational, strand is given expression through GNVQs in both schools and colleges; finally, the occupational route, confusingly once known as the vocational, attains accreditation through National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) largely outside educational establishments. There is supposed parity between these routes, and the rhetoric of politicians emphasises this. Witness, for example, David Blunkett (in a speech reported in the TES 7.11.97), ‘We need to be imaginative . . . We need to challenge this old world obsession with the professions promoted by people who don’t want to get their hands dirty.’ In reality, however, parity has proved extremely elusive, and some, such as Tomlinson (1997:16), doubt the intentions behind the rhetoric:
The situation, then, is problematic, and talk of ‘tracks’ begs the question of how those born on the wrong side of them are to be educated. It is worth bearing in mind these considerations when planning for the teaching of A Level groups, as it is likely that their composition will reflect a wide range of interest, commitment and aptitude; some indeed may have been advised to select an alternative ‘route’ but preferred the traditional security of A Levels, perhaps sensing the reality of Tomlinson’s words. English is particularly susceptible to these concerns, in that the subject is often taken as a ‘safe’ second or third option on the basis of enjoyment and a measure of success at GCSE, awareness of the employment market, or even parental insistence on increasing general literacy. These may be sound enough reasons, of course, but not necessarily those of the dedicated, talented student intending to read English at university, who is also likely to be represented in the group and would have been the originally intended client of the A Level dominated system. Diversity presents a challenge, and the chance to innovate accordingly to meet the challenge.
