A leading think-tank has launched a scathing attack on vocational qualifications for under-16s, calling them the "poor man's GCSE".

Read: Vocational qualifications slammed as 'poor man's GCSEs'.

I can't believe the short sightedness of some people who don't think further than GCSE's and the traditional learning curiculum for ALL! There are pupils who struggle with mainstream learning and become disruptive in classes because they are made to feel inadequate due to their lack of ability to learn in this setting. Having a vocational route gives these children the opportunity to learn a skill that enables them to feel proud of an achievement rather than having their already low self esteem and confidence further reduced by being forced into an education environment that they can't cope with, in some cases leading to truancy and eventually crime! Pulling the qualification would be a step back. Rhian Allen Conwy

I think they may have a point and that the previous comment pretty much backs that point up! In my opinion vocational qualifications are extremely valuable - so long as they have some relevance to a persons eventual career I think most people will find what they learn much more useful than if they study 'traditional subjects'.

But the point made at the end of that article is that at secondary school level vocational qualifications may not be appropriate, and I think I'd agree in so far as it would be much better to have a wider range of GCSE options for young people so that they can keep their options for what they go on to do next as open as possible.

I agree that the current options and methods don't appeal to all young people, but it is a problem if vocational qualifications are thought of as something just for young people with low self esteem or who are failing or disruptive. If they are any good the qualifications should appeal to all. If on the otherhand they become the route for 'drop outs' thats not going to help with the credibility and therefore prospects for those that take that option.

I think time would be much better spent looking at how current subjects can be made to appeal to and be more relevant to all young people - at GCSE level.

Why on earth is de Waal saying that vocational courses are 'pointless vocational courses.' Irrespective of whether its for under 16's for many young people these courses are providing them the incentive, opportunity and sense of 'I can do something with my life even though I may not be able to attain the heights of a GCSE.' As a Early Year Pre-school provider, I've worked with numerous students on work experience. May I say that the openings to do vocational subjects have been a 'life saver' giving hope to a number. We're not all cut out to be academics, many 'brilliant student', through no fault of their own, with tremendous potential, miss out of achieving greater heights or their dreams, simply because the 'system' or politics, accredits them as being 'failures' or 'unsuitable' or non-achievers because GCSE's may be a little beyond thier grasp. Pull out vocational courses for under 16's and you'll begin to see a definite fall in self-worth, confidence and well-being amongst our young people and future generation of our society. Stop undervalueing the existence of 'the poorer class' as you so put it. Many remain in these situations simply because many consider these courses 'beyond their ability.' Let start asking what's more important - statistics or sense of well-being, and self-worth. From Early Years right through education we endeavour to build young people's confidence yet we're quick to pass judgement and withdraw courses that enable progress!? Vocational qualifications are held in EQUAL status in the adult world NNEB,NVQ, Diplomas, BTech...yet in Secondary Education we are segregating the status GCSE better than Vocational?! If you're saying, de Waal and Mike, that you do not 'undermine the value of vactional qualifications...it intends to assert that such learning is too advanced..' than why is it being considered that 'poorer' or 'disruptive' or 'poor man's' route!? Come on! say what you really mean... 'NVQ's are lesser qualified people' - how disrespectful of individual potential.

I am and I have worked with numerous young people, and adults who are Vocationally trained and qualified who have been as good as, or even better equipped for the job than the many who have held more 'academic' qualifications - the proof of the pudding is in the eatting. With the right training, environment and leadership many of the more experience and skilful in a job have been those who have combined theory and practise.

I am 'vocationally qualified' - I hated school, scraped 3 GCSE's and got on to a BTEC course in college as a 'special case'. At College I got distinctions and went on to University - to study Recreation Management & Sports Studies, so I fully appreciate the benefits and values of vocational qualifications. While at University some of my friends regretted having not taken a vocational route as they weren't sure what they were going to do with their degree in English etc.

I've also spent the past 10 years running training programmes for 11-16 year olds based on arts, sports, drama, with the firm belief that such activities when properly structured are hugely valuable in raising confidence, ambitions and skills that young people can put to use in other parts of their life including helping encourage them to see there are more opportunities beyond the academic route. I've seen several of our young volunteers take similar routes to my own - some have since graduated from University, some are still there and some took other routes.

There are two things I don't believe in though:

1. That providing a qualification for under 16's that is regarded as 'for poor kids' or 'for dropouts' is actually helpful to their future prospects. Yet in the comments so far that is exactly how these routes have been portrayed.

2. That poorer young people don't have aspirations and somehow need a lesser qualification to inspire them. In fact I'd say thats absolute crap - there may be different pressures such as more difficult learning environments, peer pressure and less family motivation - but I've worked with young people across the UK in areas labelled as 'deprived' and in all of them there are outstanding young people who do excellently in their GCSE's.

The point I tried to make previously was that I think at secondary age whatever route young people take it should leave them with as much flexibility and options as possible for when it comes to them making a decision about what to do at college or what career path to take. This isn't the case if they're tied into one vocational route, or if the qualifications they have taken are not valued.

With regard to your last comment I personally hold little value on what qualifications people have, be they traditional or vocational - they are just stepping stones until you get to the point of being interviewed as a person. The fact remains however that if some qualifications become regarded as lesser then they will make less effective stepping stones. Therefore vocational qualifications at secondary level need to be regarded as equally valuable to high achievers and low achievers - not become the exit route for those that can't make the grade, unfortunately it seems though that this may already be the case.

Knowledge needs to be backed by qualification or training evidence - at a recent interview a friend was told she was highly skilled, motivated, efficient, very creative, confident, bubbly enthusiastic nature and capable (verbal and observational feedback); that she presented herself extremely well but...'You need more training', 'we know what you meant but you didn't use this word, or say that.' 'I realise its nitpicking but...'  The interviewers, apparently were amazed at her creativity - ideas, but.... Lifes skills, previous qualifications, wealth of experience, and the fact that she currently worked in a leadership role covering hands on and administrative (all areas of work for my role that often is allocated to three different person), didn't account for anything. Terminology and jargon appropriate to the post applied for is what is wanted. The need to 'fit in' comes into play too. In some situations, very poor excuses are often the feed back. In some instances, I've known young people or employees to 'flourish in a situation - hands on', when given the opportunity to display their natural attributes in a working environment.

Sadly, whilst you may hold little value on qualifications society is 'demanding' more qualifications. Parent/carers in recent surveys have indicated they want better qualified Early Year workers - professional, understandably so, as its their children they are entrusting to others care and they're paying for it. However, this is the trend across the board in all walks of life. Whatever avenue of training one undergoes.

I firmly believe in ALL  areas of society, irrespective of status or class, like you, there are high achievers. However, the 'labelling' of social classes leave a stigma. Like in the Bible, it was said of Jesus, 'Can any good come out of Nazareth?' Yes, good can come out of anywhere and anybody.  Its been passed from generation to generation and Jesus broke that mode. Many have proven, yes something good can come from...when there is faith in oneself, faith in each other and faith in individuality rather than collectively. Everyone has the potential to achieve their dream - it takes self belief and inspiration and encouragement from others who can influence them in that goal.