On Thu, 23 Jan 1997 16:21:46 -0500 Richard Barrett
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>David Lines writes
>
>>This proposal must be resisted as strongly as possible. It is typical
of
>>those who know nothing of A-level business studies that they could
>>possibly consider it vocational. It has vocational aspects, but so do
>>many other subjects. It is a natural to fit in with a widened choice
at
>>post-16 and would be a very popular AS I would think.
>
>Can you have a successful career ie vocation without academic
prowess? Are
>you saying GNVQ Advanced Business has no academic aspects? Surely
both
>qualifications have aspects of both 'vocational' and 'academic'.
>
>>GNVQ business has a place which IS vocational and I support it, but
>>A-level business studies asks different, very important questions
and
>>requires students to acquire different and important skills.
Evidence
>>of both can be produced from past exam questions and papers if
>>necessary.
>
>Do you mean evidence of the different and important skills?
Different
>knowledge and skills is to be found in GNVQ Business.
>
>I agree that A level Business Studies should be retained but not for
the
>reasons outlined by David. The vocational/academic seems like a
poorly
>defined dichotomy and not helpful for students. The real issue here
is
>about maximising choice for students. A key aspect of this is the
move to
>modularisation. Equal sized modules in A level and GNVQ would
enable
>students to select those units, and the associated skills/knowledge,
that
>they deem desirable in light of their aspirations for progression.
Hearing
>talk of 4 module A levels worries me - it would seem that 6 is better
>because of fit to GNVQ, term structures, increased certification
>opportunities and more exit and entry points etc. Does anyone know
what
>the latest state of play in the discussion about modular A level
structures
>is?
>
>
I'm sorry that I did not make my point more clearly. The BOTH I
referred to are (1) different and important questions and (2) different
and important skills. For example there is little (no) attempt in GNVQ
to examine the role of business in society from an ethical standpoint:
it is essentially utilitarian. A-level bus st has gone some way to a
Kantian position although perhaps not as effectively or thoroughly as
one might wish.
I think the issue of vocational versus 'academic' IS important for
students: learning HOW to do something is not the same as asking
whether or not that thing should be done, or the consequences of
doing it or not doing it. In short, vocationalism excludes Shon's
definition of professionalism: reflecting on and in practice.
As to modularity and choice, well the wider the choice, it seems to
me, the shallower the study. I never have believed that bus. st. could
be looked at in 'gobbits' - its strength was its holistic view. What
good is marketing without finance, or economics without h.r.m. or any
other combination?
As I wrote in the TES last November, the current SCAA propsals are ill
thought through and will result in lowering standards. Students will
end up taking examinations all the time, but exams with no depth or
substance to them which might indicate how much or of what quality
their learning has been.
Hey, it's good to have a debate, isn't it?
David Lines
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|