The school standards minister, David Miliband, said recently that the reforms would be assured because everyone has a stake in them. The fact is that everyone has a different "stake". Given the scope of the reforms, it certainly wouldn't be surprising if all parties found something to praise in the course of the consultation. But the potentially treacherous weakness of the proposals lies in the fact that, once launched, their success will depend upon them finding acceptance, in their entirety, with all parties.
What will happen when the reforms have to find their way in the real world, with all the conflicting forces that will be exerted on them? It is easy to see that the carefully devised system of diplomas may quickly start to tear asunder. What interest will the Russell group universities, or the influential public schools, have in the accreditation of work experience, or other less "rigorous" parts of the new qualifications system?
Pretty scant is the probable answer. I phoned up admissions tutors in universities across the country to find out. I learned that, understandably, they have quite enough to do at the moment in coping with the implications of the Schwartz report on university admissions, and with foundation degrees, to give much time to Tomlinson.
One tutor who was up to speed found the thought of teacher assessment dismaying: "Ucas references are already hyped and this will just make matters worse." He added that, while parts of the proposals looked great in terms of personal development, from a university admissions perspective, these elements weren't necessarily of much use.
Implicit in this latter judgment is a key distinction latent within the proposals. Some parts of the Tomlinson diplomas will act as currency, enabling a student to "purchase" a place in higher education or a job in the workplace. Other bits are more like medals than coinage. A student may very well take justifiable pride in them, but there their practical use may end.
It is absolutely critical that we ascertain which bits are which before a single young person's future is made to depend upon it. The "piloting" of the Tomlinson proposals will, of course, have to test the intrinsic elements of the reforms: how the curriculum and assessment actually work in practice. But the memory of Curriculum 2000 is still fresh enough to remind us that the extrinsic issues - the massive influence of the universities and private sector, among others - are equally significant in dictating how the reforms will actually end up working.
To take account of this, a reasonable sample from across the full range of institutions likely to deliver the diplomas must be invited to say how they would actually implement them. Second, these results must be tested with HE institutions and employers. It is important that the agency tasked with this research must not be the original Tomlinson working group. We have to find out how things will actually work in practice, unprejudiced by how anyone especially wants them to work. Only when we're confident about this, can a funding model be devised.
It is to practicalities of this kind that attention must turn as soon as the Tomlinson recommendations are launched. Thus far, there has been little detail about what "piloting" actually means or will involve. And the assurance that implementation of the reforms will take a number of years to accomplish is, in the end, of no more solace than to suggest that the fate of Beagle was secure because Mars is distant.
My bet is that the proposals will look very different as a result of the thorough testing with the market that is now needed. But far better that and a soft landing than a gung-ho contempt for the forces that will actually shape how the Tomlinson reforms work once they're approved. That can only end in disaster for the reforms, for sixth form colleges and, worst of all, for our young people.
