In theory vocational qualifications are 'broadening' the GCSE curriculum and elevating the status of vocational qualifications. In fact vocational qualifications at this level are used to 'occupy' or baby-sit weaker pupils who jeopardise A*-C GCSE targets by teaching them about work, but not the skills. Essentially they are 'filler' courses before pupils can go on to genuine vocational education. This is made clear by both the examining boards and, less euphemistically, schools:

Stoke Newington School 2008-09 GCSE options guidance:'A [Key Stage 2] SAT score of less than 14 means that your chances of getting 5 A to C grades as a minimum at GCSE are greatly reduced following a standard GCSE curriculum and you should strongly consider following a BTEC or Diploma course as well as the GCSE courses.' (Hackney is one of the first local authorities which will be able to offer the Diploma from September 2008). [p13]

Unsurprisingly employers are not impressed. In the words of a Construction Ambassador for the Construction Industry Training Board (CITB):

'The poor image of the construction industry today is a direct result of amputating pupils' academic and intellectual development by feeding them shallow and superficial vocational introductions before they have grasped the fundamental core skills with which to excel in their specialisations. [p18]

'What is particularly striking about the entire approach in the GCSE game is just how anti-education it is,' commented author of the report Anastasia de Waal. 'The value of participating in a course is insignificant compared to the grade the pupil gains at the end of the course. That's why lower-performers are being encouraged to do pointless vocational courses.'

Low-income pupils greatest losers in the system A strong relationship between lower predicted GCSEs and entitlement to free school meals means that lower-income pupils are disproportionately likely to be 'pushed' into these poor quality vocational courses. New data on 'rapidly improving' Academies, which cater for higher numbers of low-income pupils, shows that in these schools in particular vocational qualifications are being used to bolster their headline GSCE figures. [p7]

However pupils cannot use this false 'parity' with GCSEs, and unlike the school and the government all they are left with is a learning experience and qualification of questionable value. As QCA chief Ken Boston, the very man who accredited this equivalence, says: 'It is the school, not the pupil, that accrues the points. A young person with a GNVQ cannot properly claim to have four GCSEs, nor vice-versa.'

The report suggests that what we are seeing today is a fledgling form of what could happen once the Diploma is phased in, this September. There are too many qualifications being manufactured to suit government targets and not enough concentration on actually improving existing education. The Diploma is set to take this weakness to the next level.

The report concludes that ultimately vocational qualifications need to be withdrawn from the 14-16 curriculum.

Notes to editors:

• It is critical to state that this report does not seek to undermine the value of vocational qualifications: on the contrary, it intends to assert that such learning is too advanced to be suitable for pupils below the age of 16.
• The full report can be read here