Quickly access content relevant to you. Log in below or Register now.
Bookmark this page

Follow Teachers TV

Follow us on Twitter Follow us on iTunes
Was Tomlinson Right?

Was Tomlinson Right?

Part of the series: The Big Debate

More to view/download/share: downloads | links

Part of the series The Big Debate

Jonathan Dimbleby hosts a panel-led studio debate on the raising of the school leaving age and asks whether Mike Tomlinson's 2004 suggestions for school reform have turned out to be right after all.

The government has pledged to raise the school leaving age to 18, is introducing a new set of vocation-friendly diplomas at GCSE, and is encouraging schools to rely more heavily on formative assessment.

To many, these plans sound remarkably similar to the vision for 14-19 education proposed by the landmark Tomlinson Report which, at the time provoked a storm of controversy among employers, parents and universities, who feared for standards.Now, however, many seem to approve. So, was Tomlinson right?

Joining Jonathan on the panel are key figures at the heart of this important debate: schools minister Jim Knight MP; Mick Brookes, general secretary of the NAHT; John Hayes MP, shadow minister for vocational education; and professor Alison Wolf, from King's College London.

Buy on DVD
Create a record of the videos you have watched and how they have helped your professional development, to demonstrate CPD.

Featured in

Series

 

Stages:
Subjects:
Roles:

Support Materials

Downloads

application/msword Evidence: The Big Debate - Was Tomlinson Right?Download (51 Kb) >
Supporting evidence provided by the educational consultant for The Big Debate

Comments

Post Comment

From:*
 
Public or private comment
 
  •  
    • Diploma for academic failures?
      10 June 2007 - 15:04
      The Tomlinson report proposed a solution to make education attractive and relevant to learners at the 14-19 stage and would make bold in roads to removing the stigma given to vocational education. Having an overarching diploma would send a clear message that students could make an informed choice about their education based upon their strengths and interests without the worry that one route is perceived better than another. This bold opportunity was missed by the government, possibly in fear of losing support in the elections? The white paper suggests we have an academic route containing GSCEs and A-Levels, a vocational route and then a muddled diploma somewhere in between. It is clear that parity of esteem is not on offer and the academic route will still be perceived as a successful route and vocational to be something which mops up the failures.
    • Academic v non Academic
      8 June 2007 - 12:19
      It was suggested on the programme that doctors and lawyers careers were for academics and professions like architect were not. I think someone needs to look again at what skills and education that is needed to become an architect. When I became a draughtsman many years ago we had to gain a degree and serve a seven year apprenticeship similar to the requirements needed to be a doctor. An architect needs to be both an academic and be able to put the theory into practise.

You might also like

Selection
A focus on selection within the British education system
Diplomas
An in-depth look at the upcoming introduction of the new Diplomas
David Hart
Ted Wragg grills the general secretary of the NAHT
Religion in Schools
A debate on the effect of religion in Britain's schools
Jim Knight
Mike Baker questions Jim Knight on Vocational Education

Editor's pick

Preparing for the Global Era - The Prime Minister's Global Fellowship

An exploration of how globalisation could change education