Might snobbery put off learners?

Might snobbery put off learners?

This week has certainly proved that snobbery is still alive and kicking in English education.

Just when it seemed that progress had been made to encourage young workers to upgrade their skills and to persuade employers to take training seriously, this is undermined by those who seem determined to ridicule all efforts to recognise learning in the workplace.

I refer, of course, to the mini media frenzy over the so-called "McDonald's A-levels".

Unwilling to let the facts get in the way of a good story, some newspaper headlines deliberately gave the impression that workers would be awarded an "A-level in running a burger bar" in return for doing little more than flipping meat patties on a griddle.

The implicit suggestion - put up to be ridiculed - was that somehow these work-based qualifications were being considered exactly the same as an A-level in maths, physics or history.

Not the only one

Now I realise that for many people McDonald's has an image issue and describing something as a "McQualification" raises an easy laugh. This, no doubt, was what made the media coverage irresistible.

But what effect will this have on young workers, at McDonald's or elsewhere, who might have been persuaded to give learning a second go?

It was certainly noticeable that no-one was very interested in the other companies being given the right to award their own qualifications as part of the new Qualifications and Credit Framework, which recognises employers' own training schemes.

There were certainly no headlines about the "Flybe A-level" or the "National Rail GCSE".

So, on one level, you could dismiss this as a bit of fun. But, without wishing to be a killjoy, it is hard to avoid the underlying attitude here: namely that the only learning worth having is academic qualifications taken in schools or colleges.

You would not get this attitude in Germany where hands-on, workplace, vocational learning has long been valued alongside more formal education.

The problem in England is that whenever any new qualification comes along it has to be slotted into an existing hierarchy.

So when the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority says some of these employer learning "credits" will be at the level of a GCSE or an A-level, commentators leap on this as if they are saying it is the same as these qualifications.

Motivator

Equal but different is an alien concept in English education.

For many years employers have complained that college-based qualifications have not been relevant to their needs, so why should there be derision if they decide to ensure that their own in-house training is brought into line with a national qualifications framework?

After all, by doing so, the employer is ensuring external quality controls on their courses and assessment methods.

But, equally important, they are also guaranteeing that their employees' learning will get recognition if they move to another employer or return to education.

This is an important motivation for workers to learn and to improve skills. It is only right that if employees want to advance their careers by applying to work in similar business sectors they should have some portable recognition of the knowledge and skills they have acquired.

This would bring benefits to the individual, the company and the country. After all, as the Leitch Report argued, Britain urgently needs to improve its overall skills levels if it is to compete in a global economy.

If employees learn about personnel and retail management, stock control, cash flow and accounting on a McDonald's course, and if that course is good enough to meet standards set by the national assessment authority, surely that is a good thing.

Credits

Indeed the whole A-level comparison is rather spurious. At present, the planned pilot scheme is for employees to take a series of learning "credits". Each of these requires 10 hours of study.

Employees can take several of these credits. If they achieve between 13 and 36 "credits" they may receive a "certificate".

Even if some of these "credits" are at A-level standard, those who gain a handful of them could not be said to have an A-level as such.

Indeed, although the detail has not yet been worked out, it is likely they would need about 36 "credits" at A-level standard to have something equivalent to (but not the same as) an A-level.

But, rather like the points tariff used for university entrance, any discussion about the equivalence of qualifications is highly theoretical.

If a McDonald's employee applies to a university with only a McDonald's certificate to their name, it is unlikely they would get in.

However, if they have shown their commitment to study while still in work, then it is surely right that this is given some weight alongside any other qualifications they might achieve, as part of the proof that they could benefit from higher education.

It can only be hoped that, despite the tone of the coverage, the sheer amount of publicity for the new employer-based qualifications will at least have raised their profile.

I suspect though that the spin-doctors at the QCA may be wondering if it might have been better to have announced the involvement of McDonald's in the second rather than first wave of companies.