Delivering world-class skills in a Demand Led System

A final NIACE response to the DfES/LSC consultation document

The National Institute of Adult continuing Education (NIACE) is the national non-governmental organisation for England and Wales representing the interests of adult learners, potential learners, and those who make provision for them. A membership organisation NIACE is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. NIACE represents the interests of all learners, advocating increased opportunities for adult learning and for better quality provision. However as an organisation we are particularly concerned to advance the interests of those who have benefited least from education and training and who are at a disadvantage in British society. We carry out our work through advocacy, research and development and promotion in partnership with all stakeholders in adult learning since we seek to advance the case for adults in the full range of contexts where adult learning takes place. We do not represent the interest of any specific group of providers.

We welcome the opportunity to respond to the development of government thinking set out in the consultation document of January 2007. We have consistently sought to bring a positive perspective to government policy in relation to adult learning believing that there is a genuine intention on the part of the Government and the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to prioritise those with fewest skills and to seek a greater contribution to the costs of learning from employers and those able to pay.

NIACE welcomes the broad direction of Lord Leitch’s recommendations and recognises that there should be major expansion of workforce learning. However, if this is bought at the expense of a wider range of adult opportunities in other settings then the system will not achieve the equally important social goal of securing progression routes for people outside the workplace. Given the context of a million adults lost in just two years the proposals fail, in our view, adequately to secure a balance between work based and community based provision. In our view the best opportunities to secure participation for those who have least will exist in a context where adult learning is widely accessible giving a range of different options for those wanting to learn and a wide range of tempting starting places for those who are not habitual learners. We support the vision of a learning society and cannot see how a reduction in learner numbers is beneficial.

The circular asks a number of questions. We have responded to these although we have indicated where we have difficulty with the question itself. However, before concentrating on those particular areas, we have some general observations which go beyond the narrow confines of the questions. As an organisation focused on the needs of adults, our response focuses on the parts of the paper relating to adult learning. We support the development of an inclusive system for those from 14 – 19 and wish to see young people with excellent skills and an appetite for learning as they emerge from initial education. These are the “future adults” who will need to train and learn throughout their lives in a global society. However, most of the workforce of 2020 is already adult and we believe that demographic trends demand a much stronger focus on adult learning and training than is currently given in overall educational policy and welcome the focus that Lord Leitch’s interim report gave to this.

NIACE supports the aspiration of the Leitch Review to improve the national skills base. Although there are many other determinants of economic success it is clear that a successful society needs well educated citizens with appropriate skills for work in an increasingly knowledge based economy. This applies equally in contexts outside the workplace. We need well-educated and skilled people to create the kind of society that we would all wish to live in and education and training are key to social inclusion. However the vision in the consultation paper is so very heavily concentrated on vocational skills – skills for specific kinds of work and vocational paths from the lowest level that we see a risk that broader forms of learning, which give skills for employability and many of the qualities that employers value most (problem solving, team working and communications skills) will be unavailable for adults at any distance from the labour market.

The only way to protect the entry routes needed is to extend the footprint of safeguard to cover such opportunities. The small amount of safeguarded money for learning for personal and community development will not be adequate in meeting these needs nor is that funding stream designed to do so. Additionally we urge that a safeguard should be a reality: There has been a 30% loss of provision for learning for personal development over the past 2 years in spite of supposed ‘guarantees’ for the future of this work.

In relation to the consultation paper NIACE has ten specific areas where we believe questions should be raised about the viability and adequacy of the vision contained in the paper.

Reaching those outside the current system
In the face of declining numbers of young people we believe there will be a need to recruit more from eight specific groups, which are currently excluded, or at risk of exclusion from the economic life of the country. Many within these groups will not be able to access the system by entering directly at level 2 nor will they be making demands on the system since they clearly indicate that they do not believe that education and training are available or relevant to them. The specific groups NIACE identified are:

The involvement of these groups in education and training requires a coherent and thorough policy since their needs will not be met by Train to Gain or through a system focused on channelling adults into specific vocational paths as soon as they begin to access learning. There is a real need for the government and the LSC to articulate more clearly what needs to be available to bring new adult learners to the system and to focus this on what we know of these client groups rather than thinking wishfully about an idealised and tidy progression path that moves seamlessly from entry level to level 2 within a single vocational area. Many of the constituent parts of such a system can be discerned within these proposals; the Adult Careers Service, the Foundation Learning Tier, the credit system and the LSC’s responsibility for motivation and for planning for gaps in the learning map. No unifying system is visible however, but it is essential if there is to be a way forward for these groups. We suggest that provision of this kind needs to be identified and safeguarded to ensure both funding and attention is specifically applied to the area.

Coherence in the learner offer
NIACE supports of the new arrangements to deliver learning for personal and community development, which involve a partnership approach at community level designed to maximise coherence and the sensible use of resources. The intention of these partnerships is that public funding should be targeted so that there is access to a relevant offer for all communities, not just those able to afford to join in. Thus it is expected that public funds will be concentrated on recruitment from the same groups that need to be encouraged to join in learning for progression and economic gain. For disadvantaged learners the starting points are the same and the kinds of activities are likely to be similar. We would like to see some joining up at ground level between the different kinds of engagement activity to offer better choice for learners and a less fragmented approach. This should be a feature of any sensible outreach system and should provide a place where learning to meet a range of Government agendas, in health, regeneration as well as skills can be arranged coherently to maximise the use of public resource. There is a need for a coherent widening participation agenda for further education in the way that there is in higher education.

Contestability and the market
The consultation puts forward a vision of a highly competitive system where the market drives up quality and also means that institutions are responsive to the needs of both employers and individuals. It is not, of course, the first time that the FE sector has been exhorted to embrace competition although since that period in the early 1990’s there has also been pressure to collaborate and a requirement to operate in a highly planned system. The variety of responses required from the sector over a fifteen-year period has been problematic in securing a system responsive to local and regional needs rather than national political pressures.

During the last period of competition the public purse was a loser as institutions competed on price, leading to an economy of free or reduced price provision that has contributed to the difficulty in encouraging adults to believe that they should pay for their learning and in institutions feeling able to raise fees to the levels now required. We are unconvinced that a return to a completely market driven approach will bring the benefits to learners that are suggested and although the bureaucracy of planning is to be avoided there is a bureaucratic price to contestability too. There is also a risk of instability for institutions which may consequently lose any appetite for risk, innovation and outreach. More would be gained from a relatively stable period for the system where the current plan led funding initiatives which have not been in place for even one three year period could be tested properly.

The meaning of ‘Demand –Led’
NIACE supports the growth of a system that is more responsive to the needs and interests of adult learners. We believe that adults are, in general, only likely to be interested in accessing provision that they perceive as relevant. We are generally supportive of redistributing power in the system in favour of learners and we are aware that employers too want something different from the system, favouring “just in time” episodic learning geared to business needs.

We do not believe however that the proposals in the consultation document will deliver the system that is needed. There are a number of problems with the way ‘demand led’ is defined. In essence there is to be demand led by employers which will inform both the curriculum and the qualifications on offer and demand led by individuals that, if it falls within the government’s priorities will be funded from the public purse and otherwise will require the individual leaner to pay more.

We are concerned at the primacy of employers in the system that is envisaged. Many employers in Britain, most commonly small and medium enterprises, have been characterised (by Lord Leitch as well as others) as poor at providing training and unwilling to invest sufficiently in workforce skills. There is a real worry that too much of the British economy operates in a low added-value/low skills equilibrium and that because of this employers will neither require nor value the kind of skills development needed in a globalized economy. It seems strange in this context to give employers the immense amount of control of the system that the consultation paper suggests especially since the Leitch report expressed concern that employers might require compulsion at some future date to ensure that they invest sufficiently. It is unwise for the government to turn over the Further Education system to the aggregated demands of individual employers with a known preference for short-term gain over long-term growth.

For individuals we support the view that adults will require skills that provide sound currency in the market for jobs, and for those ready and able to find their way round the system, we believe that the proposals in the paper could well be fit for purpose especially when accompanied by the adult careers service envisaged. We look forward to seeing this developed.

There are groups of people however who make few demands of the system and, in fact, largely reject all that it has to offer. Some are mentioned in the first section of this response. They are groups who need active persuasion to even engage with learning and yet they are much needed if the vision set out in the paper is to become a reality. The proposals as published do not take account of the needs and aspirations of these groups in the design of the system.

NIACE believes that there should be some modification to the system envisaged in order to ensure that wider interests are engaged. These include Regional Development Agencies; local authorities involved in regeneration and as major employers in their own right; higher education organisations and local communities. All should have a role in the design and prioritisation of provision alongside the interests of private employers.

Stability for Learners
The system envisaged in the consultation paper is one where there is considerable potential for change. There is to be scope for new providers, contestability for new areas of work and the replacement of providers seen to be inadequate or providing services not required by the market place.

NIACE is concerned about the instability and inefficiency in such a system. It will not, we fear, make it easy for learners to locate provision or to be secure in the knowledge that providers will be available in the longer term to provide for their training. We know that the most vulnerable learners are the most often disorientated by changes in provider and find the current system difficult to navigate. We would not wish to see more turbulence than absolutely necessary as we do not believe that this serves vulnerable learners well.

NIACE does not represent the interests of any specific group of providers but we make the general point that if providers are to make the kinds of long term investments necessary to attract disadvantaged groups in to learning then they need to be confident enough of future funding and support to be able to predict that they will see the rewards of their efforts. They must be seen as partners, not contractors.

We are anxious to see in the development of the system how this stability will be secured particularly through the process of “turning off funding”.

Qualifications and Credit
NIACE has been a long-term supporter of a credit framework, which will give adults the chance to accumulate recognition for their learning and ensure that they do not “lose” what they have achieved when learning is interrupted. We believe that the gaining of credit is an important motivator of the low skilled and that a qualifications framework built on credit can play a crucial role in progression. We support both the new Qualifications Credit Framework and the Foundation Learning Tier. However we view with dismay the immediate intention to begin to restrict learners funding for individual units and to force learners at low levels into specific progression paths.

We support structures that lead to progression, particularly where these have a real prospect of leading to meaningful work and careers, but we believe that a sensible outreach strategy, with safeguarded funding, should enable units to be used to fit learner choice and interest in the first instance or the usefulness in credit in motivation will be much reduced. Providers tell us that the commitment to a full fat level 2 has been a difficult hurdle for adult learners with complex lives to cross. It would be unfortunate if the new system presented a similar barrier to the part time adult learner.

We would also say that these proposals need to be considered against the proposals the government makes elsewhere on personalisation where the QCF is seen as able to afford learners the freedom to personalise their learning programme.

Sector Skills Councils
The proposals set out in the consultation paper make much of the role of Sector Skills Councils which will have key functions in the recognition of qualifications. We believe that SSCs areas yet untested as representatives of the full employer base. Small and medium enterprises in particular seem still dubious about the value of Councils to their operations and this group is crucial in the effort to move from a low skill base to the kind of society envisaged by Leitch. SSCs are still in the process of reforming and we are concerned that they may not yet have the capacity to perform all the functions required of them.

We are also concerned that there is a need in the system for longer term perspectives on skills than those held by most employers and are concerned that this will not be met by the proposals in the paper.

Learning Accounts
We have responded to the questions on Learning Accounts. In essence we feel that Learning Accounts work well for confident and empowered adult learners but are less likely to operate as adequate instruments for those with little knowledge of or interest in the education system. We believe that for these groups we need a range of opportunities to use group accounts, use intermediaries and develop specifically appropriate guidance and support. We would like to see some piloting of approaches to test what works best with those who need to be encouraged to learn and who are some distance from level 2.

We also believe that there is a real place for learning accounts in employer-based provision through Union Learning Representative activity.

Train to Gain
NIACE is a strong supporter of learning in the workplace and the Government’s investment in Train to Gain as most adults with low qualifications are in the workplace. However we have been concerned that there is still much deadweight in the scheme with public funding replacing what should be employer investment and that with an increased tipping of the funding balance away from individuals towards the employer route the capacity for deadweight is increased rather than reduced.

Learning is for more than skills for work
We support the need for the development of skills for work but regret that within the consultation document there is so little mention of other kinds of skills which the education and training system needs to promote and nurture. Apart form a small pot of money for personal development the whole focus of this paper is on learning for the workplace. The learning agendas of other government departments are invisible but learning for regeneration, health and the sustenance of communities and families are vital to the attainment of the society the Government as a whole wishes to see in place. It is disappointing to see so little joining up of learning agendas in the planning of a major part of the education system and one where adults with their many different roles still form a majority of the learners.

Top of page