- The second Funding and Allocations paper makes no mention whatsoever of local learning
partnerships. Whilst there may be a case for not giving the partnerships a formal role on
the face of the bill, the fact that they are not mentioned as having even a consultative
role in funding and planning (for example on issues of student support) is a serious
weakness. Without a strong and visible steer from the Department, it is still possible
that the partnerships may rapidly wither away. NIACE urges the Department to ensure that a
role for partnerships is articulated explicitly within the funding framework.
Individual contributions to fees
- The paper (paragraph 2.62) proposes that in most cases, individual learners who are able
should pay up to 25% of the cost of the programme elements of all formula-funded work.
Providers may not continue to receive public money if they charge more than this, whether
the learning leads to a qualification or not.
- NIACE notes, however, that students’ contribution to non-Schedule 2 learning in the
LEA sector is often much higher than 25%. Recent evidence from a NIACE/RSGB survey
suggests also that there is a widespread public belief that those who are able should
pay more for learning for personal development (suggesting that individuals should pay up
to 64% of explicit costs). This evidence supports an argument which NIACE has advanced on
earlier occasions that while the market has not served excluded groups well, a low-fee
economy limits the volume of what is offered to that which can be secured from public
funds. This can result in a narrowing of access and opportunity – thus reinforcing
the very learning divide the policies are designed to overcome.
- The LEA sector will be excluded from this proposal for the first two years as a result
of transitional guarantees made by government – but all other course-based provision
is likely to move to the formula as soon as possible.
- The implications of this are twofold. In the short term, LEA provision may be undercut
by more cheaply-priced formula-funded provision – which could result in the public
purse paying more than is necessary to secure a given volume of provision.
In the longer term, if this level of public support were to continue to be given to
students who would be able and prepared to pay more from their own pockets, there will
have to be a reduction in the overall volume of adult learning provision to compensate
unless more investment is made from the public purse to support those who are currently
paying.
- In this complex area, NIACE’s concern to make access easier for all leads us,
perhaps surprisingly, to believe that those able to pay should be expected to contribute
significantly more than 25% of costs. This would allow public resources to be targeted
more effectively to secure a satisfactory amount of provision throughout the country and
to offer most support those who are less able to contribute funding themselves.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PROVIDERS
Voluntary sector/neighbourhood organisations
- The paper makes little mention of the voluntary sector or of neighbourhood community
organisations. Existing "External Institutions" are covered by the formula but
there is little consideration given as to how new providers will be able to access public
funds through the LSC. Such organisations have often proved to be particularly effective
in providing accessible entry routes to learning for groups under-represented in many
colleges (using, for example, SRB and European funds). Overall, this is a serious
omission. Whilst it is easier to plan for the familiar than the unknown, the document
should not presume that existing patterns of provision will continue since this runs
counter to the spirit of both the Green and White Papers.
Open College Network provision
- Paragraph 4.15 states:
"The Learning and Skills Bill (Clause 89) provides that, for those
aged 19 years and over, public funds may not be used for the payment of registration or
other fees associated with assessment, moderation, verification and accreditation of an
external qualification, unless that qualification is approved; the course itself, however,
would be eligible for funding. To ensure that the approved qualifications meet high
standards, are necessary and enable progression, we are likely to set prior accreditation
by the QCA as a core criterion. When the QCA has completed its initial programme of
accreditation, and subject to that part of the legislation being implemented, we propose
that courses not leading to approved qualifications will remain eligible for funding, but
will be regarded as learning that does not lead to a qualification."
Through the 1990s Open College Network credits were the largest single
source of accredited course activity funded by the FEFC. Many fall outside the current
formal qualifications framework
- At first sight this paragraph looks problematic for Open College Networks, but NIACE
believes that the Department will ensure that the spirit of assurances given by Baroness
Blackstone in the House of Lords on this matter will be honoured. On 15 February
2000, Lord Addington introduced a probing amendment, focussing on payments for certain
specified NOCN course activities. In debate he asked "whether the workings of the
National Open College Network courses are safe under the provisions of the Bill".
Baroness Blackstone replied "I am happy to confirm that". With that assurance,
the amendment was withdrawn. NIACE would welcome confirmation that the Minister’s
assurance was correct.
Learners with disabilities and learning difficulties
- NIACE understands that until the Special Educational Needs and Disability Rights Bill is
introduced, it is difficult for the Department to set out its plans in full. Paragraphs
2.39-2.60 of the paper, while helpful, are only part of the picture.
- How the Government’s different priorities for young adults and older learners will
impact upon people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities have been discussed
extensively in both Houses of Parliament. If adult learners over 25 are not to be
"statemented", NIACE will wish to monitor carefully how well the new
arrangements afford students with learning difficulties and disabilities an entitlement to
pursue education and training
Implications for local authorities
- The funding document explains carefully that 1998/99 will be the year used for
determining the size of the transfer of funding – which will be calculated by
reference to the annual return made to DfEE (the RO1 form). Since then, LEAs have had a
new Schools Standards Fund for three years. One year will remain outstanding under the new
arrangements and NIACE would wish to see a government assurance that this money is to be
included as part of the guarantee.
Ufi/learndirect
- The broad principles outlined in Paragraphs 4.21-29 of the paper provided a welcome
articulation of how LSC funding will interface with activity funded through
Ufi/learndirect. The principles proposed appear helpful – but, as with the SEN and
Disability Rights Bill, there are many points of technical detail which remain unclear.
Part Three: Funding Flows and Business Processes paper
LEARNING FOR DIVERSE PURPOSES
- The emphasis within this paper is upon skills development for the labour market. There
is far less acknowledgement of the value of learning for social cohesion and inclusion and
almost nothing about the value of learning for personal development. This tone will not
reassure those providing non-accredited first step opportunities or those providing
programmes that attract other groups (such as older learners) that their work will be a
valued part of the new system. This is a missed opportunity for government to promote
linkage and coherence.
COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIP
- The paper contains surprisingly little about how Learning and Skills Councils will work
in partnership or collaboratively with others – Regional Development Agencies and
local learning partnerships to name but two. Paragraph 4.3 of the document gives a list of
agencies with which the LSC will work but little in the way of amplification about
"how?" and "upon what?" The role of local learning partnerships is not
developed at all in this document and the description of the planning cycle fails to
describe consultation periods or processes. What is needed is permission or authority for
local learning partnerships to grow and develop further. Without it, they risk
marginalisation.
- Much of the strength which lifelong learning can contribute to policy formation lies in
its ability to link with diverse agendas – including those of the Department of
Health and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The potential of Learning and
Skills Councils will be best realised through a range of alliances (as suggested by the
work of the Social Exclusion Unit) which not only consider the skills agenda but also set
out to foster active citizenship and promote aesthetic understanding. This is not
"mission creep": instead it represents "joined-up government", and the
absence of attention to this potential is a weakness.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR NATIONAL PROVIDERS
- NIACE welcomes the content of paragraph 5.41 and its recognition that there are
occasions when national contracting will be sensible. Such arrangements should not be
limited to large multi-site industrial and commercial employers. They need also to include
voluntary bodies such as the Workers’ Educational Association and the Pre-School
Learning Alliance with national programmes and also specialist institutions (such as the
Co-operative College) with a national remit. We would welcome explicit confirmation that
these will be included in the functions of any national unit established.
- We recommend that a national providers unit be established by the LSC, reporting to and
advised by the Adult Learning Committee. Concentrating the administration of the
Council’s dealings with distributed national providers will allow a body of expertise
to develop which will ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency.
FUNDING "BLOCKS" AND "TYPES OF LEARNING"
- Paragraph 4.10 refers to the allocation of money in "blocks" for different age
groups or "types of learning". NIACE would welcome further elaboration of
exactly what is meant by this. Clearly there will be allocations for young people and for
adults. Similarly, we understand that there will be formula-funded provision and
non-formula "discretionary" funding. What is not clear, however, is whether
"types of learning" refers to something more.
"DISCRETIONARY" FUNDING
- NIACE would welcome more clarification about the range of activities which may be funded
from the 10-15% "discretionary" element of local LSC funds. In particular, we
would appreciate clarification about whether Councils will be expected to fund a
wide range of activities to some degree, or whether coverage of particular items will be
entirely optional. Our preference would be for the former – simply "opting
out" should not be encouraged.
BRINGING IN NEW PROVIDERS
- The paper is helpful in its emphasis upon the need to seek a range of providers. What is
less helpful is the emphasis upon common standards rather than the "fitness for
purpose" of various providers. Without disputing the need for a minimum threshold,
what might be expected of a large FE college and what could be demanded of a small
organisation operating in a rural area, for example, would clearly be different. There is
a need for clarification and guidance about how prospective providers might engage with
existing providers and how consortia arrangements could be developed which allow
voluntary, public and private bodies to work together effectively, each building upon
their strengths.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR SUBCONTRACTING
- While LEAs will be satisfied with much of the content of this paper, the exception will
be in the sections concerning sub-contracting. LEAs which contract out their adult and
community education to colleges and other bodies appear to fall outside the definition of
"providers" (paragraph 1.8). This is perhaps an oversight. Such authorities are,
effectively, providers and should be treated as such. This was clear from the first
funding consultation paper.
Part Four: Conclusions
- These documents show that the merger between the former Department of Education and
Science and the Department of Employment has, rightly, strengthened the relationship
between the education system and the labour market. It has yet to show similarly strong
synergy in demonstrating the relationships between learning and:
