Jump to content

Labour's Education Joke!


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

When they say 'Vocational Qualifications' does that also include NVQ's ie the 'National Vocational Qualifications' which have been around for many many years.....or are the two the same ? :oops:

 

Just thought I'd ask before I go off on one of my usual moans or tangents which turns out to be totally irrelevant.

 

There should be a qualification in that as I'd get top marks every day and people would know NOT to employ me :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diz - NVQs are vocational, but not all vocational courses are being stripped from the qualifcation framework. NVQs are usually taken after GCSEs, often as part of an apprenticeship, I don't think these are affected.

 

Those 96% of vocational qualifications that are being stripped from the framework may not carry any academic value, but they are/were useful in engaging kids who are considered "at risk".

 

But never mind them, eh?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/31/vocational-qualifications-stripped-league-tables

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diz - NVQs are vocational, but not all vocational courses are being stripped from the qualifcation framework. NVQs are usually taken after GCSEs, often as part of an apprenticeship, I don't think these are affected.

 

Those 96% of vocational qualifications that are being stripped from the framework may not carry any academic value, but they are/were useful in engaging kids who are considered "at risk".

 

But never mind them, eh?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/31/vocational-qualifications-stripped-league-tables

 

 

As I have said umpteen times before, NVQ's only mean that you can do the paperwork, NOT that you can do the job. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fugs, I'm not knocking vocational training, far from it; sure employers would welcome such relevent pathways to their particlar industries. Think the point is that there's simply no need to equate these courses with GCSEs; they are different, like the students. Rather than Nu Labour's attempt to homogenize students AND their qualifications; it may be preferable to aim for excellence in realising one's full potential; a good car mechanic is probably more use than a bad banker! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know very well from my own profession that the ability to pass exams does not equate to the ability to do the job that the exams are supposedly related to. Knowing the theory of, and passing the written or oral exam in ship handling, doesn't mean that a person is a proficient ship-handler. The same is true, I'm sure, of many other professions. Theoretical and practical are not the same thing. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed x3.

 

Peter, As I have said umpteen times before, NVQ's only mean that you can do the paperwork, NOT that you can do the job.

 

I'm sure it's been flipped more than a few times, but NVQs should be about WHAT YOU CAN DO, not WHAT YOU KNOW (it's A Levels that are about being good on paper). Some NVQ training providers are good at what they do, others not so good. It's the trainees who suffer in the latter case, it's not them who are trying to hoodwink anyone.

 

I don't have much of a problem with the qualifications in question being devalued in academic calibre, but for the schools who offer them, and the kids that take them up, it's a way of getting some kids who don't have much else going for them to engage in learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know very well from my own profession that the ability to pass exams does not equate to the ability to do the job that the exams are supposedly related to. Knowing the theory of, and passing the written or oral exam in ship handling, doesn't mean that a person is a proficient ship-handler. The same is true, I'm sure, of many other professions. Theoretical and practical are not the same thing. :wink:

 

the bloke that was steering the Costa Concordia was supposed to be experienced though Asp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Master of the Costa Concordia was suffering from over confidence in his abilities. He certainly wasn't doing his job properly, putting his ship in a dangerous position. <_< <_< <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said umpteen times before, NVQ's only mean that you can do the paperwork, NOT that you can do the job. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

Not exactly true.

Most apprenticeships require key skills, and all the NVQ assessments are carried out at work, mostly as you do your daily job.

Hairdressing is a typical example where the trainee has to prove that he/she is capable of all aspects of hairdressing and pass a theory exam before they can be awarded a NVQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the administration of NVQs and any other vocational courses should be put in the hands of employers and taken out of the school/college environment apart from day-release for the necessary theory side.

 

That way, there would be a clear distinction between the academic courses offered by the schools and colleges and the vocational training offered in the workplace, with them seen as alternative routes to employment with equal validity and importance, just different approaches suitable for different student needs. If workplaces had the same access to funds to operate the courses, they would perhaps be more willing to take on young people in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical colleges worked well when we needed technically skilled people in big numbers, sadly not the case anymore.

 

NVQs were designed to be based in the workplace with external assessment (usually a Training Provider - this isn't always the same thing as a college), and a day a week (or block equivalent) in college.

 

If we're saying we'd like to see employers rather than educators deliver and assess training and education, then we may as well forget the idea of learning for its own sake.

 

Learning's where civilisation begins and ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that was part of the problem, that employers are having to become educators because many young people do not have the literacy and numeracy skills to be able to start training for anything! Surely, fugtifino, learning takes place anywhere someone passes on knowledge, not just in school. Schools should provide the building blocks to enable students to carry on learning throughout their lives. It seems many are not doing that because of politics and ideology.

 

I too remember technical schools and the distinction between academic grammar schools and the more practical secondary moderns. It seems nothing is ever new, it just takes a while for some to realise that the old systems may have something worthwhile to offer, even in today's world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just that I'd worry about trusting employers to deliver and assess qualifications.

 

 

Judging by the mess that has emerged from schools and the examining bodies in recent years I don't think they could do much worse, plus it would be in their own interest to make sure that trainees reached high standards to safeguard their investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...