Memorandum submitted by the Department
for Education and Skills
1. THE PISA REPORT
There are several international comparisons
of pupil attainment available, notably the OECD Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA) and the various IEA studies,
notably TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science
Study) and PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study).
The Department's view is that each offers distinctive and valuable
insights into how the outcomes of our education system compare
with those of other countries.
PISA was designed by experts in the field of
international assessment, was built on established methods and
included external scrutiny by independent third parties with expertise
in this area. Some 28 out of 30 OECD countries chose to take part
and agreed to have their results included in the international
PISA reports. All countries taking part had to submit their data
to stringent, independent validation of the reliability of the
sampling and also had to satisfy the OECD that they had conducted
the survey in accordance with the international guidance.
We understand that the PISA results have prompted
much debate in many of the countries taking part and we are not
aware of any national government which has dismissed the survey
results or the validity of the survey method.
The 2000 PISA study was primarily a study of
"reading literacy" amongst 15 year olds and is the first
such comparison of this subject in which the UK has participated.
There is therefore no previous study to use to compare with the
PISA country rankings. PISA 2000 included some assessment of "mathematical"
and "scientific literacy" but these are not readily
comparable with the earlier TIMSS studies of mathematics and science.
In PISA, these two subjects were treated as "minor domains"
based on short test papers and with the emphasis on the application
of a limited range of maths skills and knowledge. TIMSS, in contrast,
covered a wider range of topics and the questions were much more
curriculum-based than in PISA.
It is true that England performed disappointingly
in mathematics in both TIMSS 1995 and 1999 but we did well in
science. Furthermore, our mathematics ranking was better in some
individual mathematics topics than others. Fundamentally, PISA
is not comparable to previous international studies the UK has
taken part in and therefore apparent contrasts in our ranking
do not, of themselves, imply inconsistencies or the superiority
of one study over another. Similarly, national performance in
these tests can vary according to the subject and age group tested.
So there is no necessary reason for rankings in one subject to
match those in another.
A separate study in 2001 of "reading literacy"
at age 10, conducted, as for TIMSS, by the IEA, (Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study, or PIRLS) showed England to compare very
favourably with the 34 other countries taking part, with a ranking
of third place.
For a full discussion of the issues relating
to the PISA study, see Professor S Prais' paper, "Cautions
on OECD's recent educational survey (PISA)" (Oxford Review
of Education, 29 2) and the OECD's response in September 2003
(Oxford Review of Education, 29 3).
2. REASONS BEHIND
THE BETTER
PERFORMANCE OF
SWEDEN IN
BASIC LITERACY
It is intrinsically difficult to explain why
countries differ in terms of education outcomes. Those outcomes
are shaped by a wide range of factors which go well beyond the
schools and the education system to include social, cultural and
economic influences. Attainment, particularly where adult literacy
is concerned, is also the outcome of a long process which will
cover experience of education in school as well as accumulated
experience since leaving school.
The IALS (International Adult Literacy Survey)
comparisons of themselves therefore can say little about the effectiveness
of current teaching of literacy in school. But evidence from other
studies, notably PISA-2000 (15 year olds) and PIRLS-2001 (10 year
olds), shows that although Sweden also did well at these age levels,
UK pupils scored on a par with their Swedish counterparts in reading
literacy for both age groups and significantly better than them
for mathematical and scientific literacy at age 15. Indeed amongst
those countries participating in both the IEA's 1991 Reading Literacy
Study and PIRLS 2001, only Sweden had a significant decrease in
performance (source: IEA's Trends in Children's Reading
Literacy Achievement 1991-2001).
The Department has not undertaken a study of
why Sweden performed so well in the IALS adult literacy study
in the mid-1990s nor is it aware of any such work in terms of
comparisons with the UK. There have, however, been some external,
non-UK studies of Sweden's performance in IALS and researchers
have suggested that the following factors might have been influential:
— Sweden's advantage seems to be greatest
among adults who have only completed secondary school and not
undertaken further full-time study. Furthermore, there is little
variation in literacy skills by social class. This suggests that
Swedish schools are particularly effective in teaching literacy
to the lower-attaining, less advantaged and less motivated and
so come nearer to achieving a high basic level for all.
— Low literacy tends to rise with age
but this effect is less pronounced in Sweden, suggesting that
the means for achieving high literacy levels have long been well-established
in Sweden.
— Swedish adults have a high rate of
participation in adult (lifelong) learning including through adult
popular education, which is largely public funded and which has
a long history, as well as in trade union organised "study
circles" which act as discussion groups and which require
reading and writing skills.
— Sweden has a well-developed social
culture with high levels of participation in voluntary activities
and a high rate of use of public libraries, both correlated in
IALS with higher literacy. This could, however, be partly an effect
rather than a cause of high literacy.
— Swedish television makes great use
of foreign language programmes which it sub-titles rather than
dubs, and this would tend to promote reading in low-income families
where TV viewing is more extensive.
— Sweden has probably benefited from
high levels of economic prosperity and consequent low levels of
unemployment which mean more opportunity for individuals to use
their literacy skills in their work.
3. SALARY LEVELS
OF LEAD
PLAYERS IN
THE SKILLS
ARENA
(a) College Principals
There are no national negotiated pay recommendations
for these groups of staff. All negotiating is done locally.
The median base salary of all college Principals
is £73,513, the median base salary of a general FE college
Principal is £78,530 (source: Association of Colleges
survey of remuneration of middle managers and senior post holders,
Jan 2003). The average salary of sixth form college Principals
is £65,004 (source: Sixth Form Colleges Employers'
Forum—salaries and numbers survey 2002).
(b) LSC Directors
The LSC has a non-executive council of 16, including
the Chairman and Chief Executive. The LSC's 2002-03 Accounts show
the actual salaries for both the Chair and the previous Chief
Executive. The current Chief Executive has a salary of £180,000
with a maximum annual bonus of £20,000. The remaining Council
members receive an honorarium of £4,000 pa, as do local Chairs.
Local council members do not receive a payment.
In addition to the Chief Executive, the LSC's
accounts show seven senior LSC Directors. The LSC has delegated
authority from the Department to determine the pay and terms and
conditions of senior directors and its staff. Although there is
no requirement upon the LSC to provide details of staff and senior
director salaries, the LSC does publish senior director pay ranges
in its annual accounts (see the LSC website: www.Isc.gov.uk).
The 47 local Executive Directors have two pay
ranges of:
(1) between a minimum of £48,000
and normal maximum of £68,600; and
(2) between a minimum of £55,300
and normal maximum of £79,000
depending upon the size, nature and challenges of
the area served.
(c) RDA Chief Executives (as at 1 December
2003)
|
| Agency | Name
| Date Appointed | Length of
Contract
| Contract
Expires |
Basic Salary+
Potential
Performance Bonus %
|
|
| AWM | John Edwards
| 1 April 2001 | 5 years
| Mar 2006 | £105,000 + up to 10%
|
| EEDA[46]
| David Marlow | 1 October 2003
| Rolling contract |
| £110,000 + up to 20% |
| EMDA | Martin Briggs
| 4 Jan 1999 | Rolling contract
| | £105,000+ up to 10%
|
| NWDA[47]
| Steven Broomhead | 1 July 2003
| Rolling Contract |
| £115,000+ up to 10% |
| ONE | Alan Clarke
| 1 June 2003 | Rolling contract
| | £115,000 + up to 10%
|
| SEEDA[48]
| Anthony Dunnett | 1 Jan 2002
(re-appointed)
| 2 years | Jan 2004
| £118,437+ up to 20% |
| SWRDA | Geoffrey Wilkinson
| 10 Dec 2001 | 4 years
| Dec 2005 | £100,000 + up to 10%
|
| Yorkshire Forward | Martin Havenhand
| 1 Apr 2001
(re-appointed)
| 5 years | Apr 2006
| £110,000 + up to 10% |
|
Source: DTI.
4. IMPACT OF
INVESTMENT IN
SKILLS ON
PRODUCTIVITY AND
PROFITABILITY
There is a positive correlation between skills and productivity.
Lower skills levels are estimated[49]
to contribute up to 20% of the productivity gap with France and
Germany. Numerous international "matched-plant" studies
have also shown that, whilst other factors are also important,
lower levels of skills in the UK workforce led to lower output
per employee through:
— a lower proportion of workers being qualified
specifically to do their current role;
— more machine down-time;
— slower implementation of new technologies and
production techniques; and
— too much managerial focus on routine tasks.
In terms of benefits to the individual, there is a significant
relationship between qualification levels and earnings.[50]
Higher levels of qualification attract higher earnings, vocational
qualifications (VQs) tend to provide lower wage returns than their
academic counterparts and some low level VQs appear to confer
no earnings gain, although higher returns to low level VQs can
be found in certain sectors. The construction sector, for example,
yields high returns to level 2 VQs.
Analysis of Industry level data on training and productivity[51]
found that industry productivity levels are significantly higher
if more training is undertaken. The study also finds that the
overall effect of training on productivity is about twice as high
as the wage effect (eg raising the proportion of workers trained
in an industry by, say, 5 percentage points is associated with
a 4% increase in average value added per worker and a 1.6% increase
in wages).
Higher productivity does not necessarily imply higher profitability
and there is currently very little evidence on the strength of
the link between investment in skills and company profit. Attributing
improvements in financial performance directly to skills investment
is difficult as there are many factors that influence profitability.
There is, however, some US evidence[52]
that, after controlling for other factors, the companies who made
above average investment in education and training saw an annualised
return of 16.3% compared to a market average of 9.2%[53]
over a five-year period. The same research concludes that businesses'
treatment of such investment leads to under-investment in skills
development. DfES is carrying out further work with DTI and the
Office of National Statistics (ONS) to match and analyse key datasets
(Annual Respondents Database, the New Earnings Survey, the Employer
Skills Survey and the Martin Capital Stock) to examine the returns
to increased skills for employees in the form of increased wages,
and for employers in the form of increased profits. The work will
also make recommendations on improving the way data are collected
to facilitate future studies like this. That work is due to conclude
in autumn 2004.
29 January 2004
46
Bill Samuel remains with Agency until 31 December 2003, his salary
is £106,000 + up to 10% performance bonus. Back
47
Mike Shields remains with Agency until his contract expires on
14 December 2003, his salary is £110,000 + up to 10% performance
bonus. Back
48
SEEDA new Chief Executive-Pam Alexander commences on 1 January
2004, basic salary of £125k + up to 20% performance bonus. Back
49
Britains's relative productivity performance: Updates to 1999,
O'Mahony and DeBoar, NIESR, 2002. Back
50
See for example, The Returns to Academic, Vocational and Basic
Skills in Britain, STF paper 20-Dearden et al, DfES 2000. Back
51
Who gains when workers train? Training and corporate productivity
in a panel of British industries, Dearden et al, IFS, 2000. Back
52
Investing in companies that invest in People, Bassi and McMurrer,
HR.com. 2002. Back
53
As measured by the S&P 500 Index. This tracks 500 companies
in leading industries and is considered by many investment analysts
as the most accurate reflection of the US stock market. Back
|
