Appendix 1
House of Commons Education and Skills Committee
Further Education
The Fourth Report of Session 2005-06
Preface
The Select Committee's Recommendations are in emboldened
text.
The Government's response is in plain text.
The Committee's conclusions and recommendations,
as set out in the report, have been summarised, with the report
paragraph number included for ease of cross referencing.
Some of the recommendations have been grouped.
Government response to the Committee's conclusions
and recommendations
Policy direction, current initiatives
1. Committee found evidence of broad support for
much of Foster's report and those proposals carried through in
the Further Education White Paper. However, there were some concerns
that some of the measures being considered have been insufficiently
thought through. (Paragraph 16)
The Government welcomes the Committee's endorsement
of its reform plans for the further education (FE) system. As
we set out in the White Paper 'Further Education: Raising Skills,
Improving Life Chances', the FE system has an absolutely vital
role to play in delivering the skills the nation needs for economic
prosperity and social justice. We are grateful to the Committee
for their thorough and careful analysis and have set out below
our response to their specific concerns and proposals.
FURTHER EDUCATION'S ORGANISATIONAL OVERLAY
2. We recommend that the Government carry out
an urgent review of whether the organisational, planning and funding
frameworks for further education and skills, viewed as a whole,
constitute a coherent system. (Paragraph 22)
The Government believes that the White Paper 'Further
Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances', sets out very
clear plans to create a more streamlined organisational, planning
and funding system, with clear, distinct and coherent roles and
responsibilities for all the key partners.
An important part of these reforms are the changes
we are making with the creation of the single Quality Improvement
Agency (QIA)—thus reducing costs by £26m—and
the single inspectorate (which will be operational from April
2007). This will simplify and clarify the learning and skills
infrastructure.
The QIA's Improvement Strategy, now out for consultation
and to be published this autumn, will set out a coordinated and
coherent national framework. In addition, the Learning and Skills
Council (LSC), through its agenda for change, is simplifying
and transforming its organisation and the way it relates to providers.
Staffing within the LSC will be reduced by around 1,100 which
will free £40m a year for investment in the front line. We
await proposals for major streamlining of the LSC's non-executive.
The Government believes these changes will deliver
a clearer, more coherent system. It is important that we allow
new and reformed organisations to 'bed down'. However, the Department
is keeping under active review the scope for further rationalisation
as we implement the reforms in the FE White Paper, and we will
be working closely with the independent Bureaucracy Reduction
Group as it develops its action plans and fulfils its challenge
role on behalf of the sector.
"SKILLS AND EMPLOYABILITY" AS A NEW FOCUS
FOR COLLEGES?
3. We recommend that the Government needs to spell
out what "skills and employability" actually includes
and excludes, and what this might mean for individual providers,
especially in terms of what they might cease to provide and areas
they would be encouraged to expand in. (Paragraph 31)
4. We recommend that the Government needs to outline
a much more convincing strategy for how it will maintain and develop
a broad range of provision overall, looking at and responding
to, local needs, as further education colleges rationalise their
provision. (Paragraph 32)
The Government's key delivery partners is the LSC.
The LSC is required to work with sectoral, regional and local
partners to understand demands. It sets out in the Annual Statement
(incorporating Priorities for Success) its priorities for funding
and directly links these to the new mission for the sector, and
the funding strategy that supports national targets for participation
and achievement for young people and adults. This document provides
clear guidance on the new mission and the public funding priorities
to deliver it.
Individual providers will use this guidance, together
with the outcomes of their reviews of their mission, to inform
decisions on what they might cease to provide and where they might
expand. We would not want to prescribe nationally what this might
be as it must be driven by local need.
LEARNERS
5. We recommend that the Government needs to make
a clear statement on how and when the expanded training for learner
representatives will be rolled out. (Paragraph 36)
We agree that strengthening the learner voice in
helping to guide and inform the development of opportunities for
students in FE institutions and their local communities is essential.
Learner representatives are an important way of achieving this
and our proposals are for colleges to have a minimum of two student
governors on the governing body. We are currently working
with key partners to develop the most effective and sustainable
approach to providing this support for learner representatives
with a view to piloting delivery mechanisms in the new year and,
depending on the outcomes, taking this commitment forward thereafter.
6. We want to encourage Government to go further
in collecting students' views, and we want to seek reassurance
that failure to collect and act upon student perspectives will
have real consequences for providers. (Paragraph 38)
7. We want to seek reassurance that colleges will
be required to publish annually, their findings on students' views,
and to show what action they intend to take as a result. (Paragraph
38)
8. We expect Ofsted and the LSC to come forward
with clear proposals in the area of mechanisms for student engagement,
and to make explicit how they intend to proceed in this regard.
(Paragraph 39)
The Government agrees that collecting and acting
upon student views is an important issue and will consider it
further. Indeed, each provider is expected to have a Learner Involvement
Strategy and we will consider what actions are appropriate if
they fail to do so. Providers will be expected to act on findings
from provider level learner satisfaction surveys and other learner
involvement approaches as part of the broader responsiveness agenda.
The Improvement Strategy is looking at targets for learner feedback
as part of self assessment. It is envisaged that providers will
analyse the outcomes from learner satisfaction data within their
self assessment reports, and use their development plans to demonstrate
how improvements will be made.
At the national level, we are working with LSC to
establish a National Learner Panel which will ensure that the
learner's voice is heard in policy development and implementation.
Through inspection, Ofsted already evaluates the
extent to which further education colleges make effective use
of feedback from learners. Inspections conducted by ALI also take
account of, and publish, learners' views. These mechanisms will
be brought together and strengthened when the Ofsted/ALI merger
is completed in April 2007. Guidance and reporting requirements
in this area will be strengthened. The assessment of learner engagement
is less well developed and more work will be undertaken in this
area. Ofsted will also consider how it might take better account
of learners' views as part of the evidence base for its inspection
work.
In addition, the Framework for Excellence will include
an indicator on learner satisfaction, and all providers will be
required to publish their findings in relation to this and all
other indicators. The Framework will be used in FE, sixth form
colleges and work-based learning providers from August 2007, and
in all providers from August 2008. Providers will make available
their overall rating from August 2008, and LSC will publish the
first overall ratings in September 2009.
9. We recommend that leadership training programmes
(which will become compulsory for new Principals) put particular
emphasis on the development of learner involvement in the running
of colleges and other types of further education provision. (Paragraph
41)
We agree that leadership training should include
a focus on involving learners in the running of colleges and other
types of providers. Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK) have highlighted
this as an area of importance within the occupational competence
standards for college principals, which will be published in the
autumn. This standards framework is currently being used to inform
the development and delivery of the Centre for Excellence in Leadership's
(CEL) leadership training programmes. We will work with CEL, and
in particular their newly appointed learner engagement manager,
to embed this within leadership training by September 2007. We
will also work with LLUK and LSC to develop and embed the application
of the standards framework within wider FE providers, and the
training they receive.
10. We recommend that the Government should ensure
that entitlement to Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is not
being lost because of genuine involvement in representational
activities. An initial step would be for the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES) to circulate guidance to local authorities,
advising them that the practice of withholding EMA payments in
these cases is not acceptable. (Paragraph 41)
The LSC provides comprehensive EMA guidance to learning
providers on the framework within which they should operate EMA. This
includes specific examples of legitimate absences, including—"National
Union of Students official business". We believe, therefore,
that guidance already clearly sets out that providers can
deem such activities as authorised absence, and that the learner
should not normally have their EMA payment stopped for such
activities.
EMPLOYERS
11. The Government is expecting Lord Sandy Leitch's
report to consider the issue of how employer demand for training
and willingness to invest in it can be increased. We expect the
Government to act quickly on any recommendations made in this
area. (Paragraph 49)
The Government welcomes the significant time and
energy that Lord Leitch has put into his Review. His interim report,
published in November 2005, very starkly set out the challenges
that the country faces if we are to develop the world class skills
base we need to compete internationally in the future. The Review
creates an unprecedented opportunity for us to generate much greater
and more widespread understanding of the importance of skills,
and we will take very seriously the recommendations Lord Leitch
makes when his final report is published.
12. We urge the Government to consider the merits
of promoting the more widespread use of employer levies. (Paragraph
50)
The Government is of the view that collaborative
voluntary action, led by employers in a sector working with the
relevant Sector Skills Council (SSC) is the most effective means
of driving skills development in a given sector. We do not believe
that pure compulsion is the answer. As set out in the Skills
Strategy White Paper of 2003, the Government remains committed
to supporting and enabling training levies where the majority
of employers in a sector endorse this approach. This is evidenced
by the work currently being undertaken with Skillset to establish
an Industry Training Board (ITB) for the Film Industry.
13. We recommend that the Government will need
to satisfy itself that Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are effectively
articulating the needs of the full range of employers, including
small and medium-sized enterprises. (Paragraph 52)
The Government agrees that it is essential that SSCs
articulate the needs of the full range of employers, especially
small and medium-sized enterprises. We are working with the Skills
for Business Network to develop the capability and capacity of
the network to ensure that they are progressing to 'exemplar'
levels of the SSC standards and are effectively articulating the
needs of the full range of employers, including small and medium-sized
enterprises.
14. We recommend that, in the medium term, the
Government will need to review both whether a demand-led system
is becoming a reality and, in parallel, remain attentive to any
tensions which may develop in the system between those with different
needs. (Paragraph 57)
We want progressively to move to a position where
more funding is driven directly by employer and learner choice.
By 2010, our aim is that 40% of adult participation funding should
flow through Train to Gain and accounts, with the majority of
funding being routed through these mechanisms by 2015.
We will be monitoring the impact of new policies
and evaluating their effectiveness both in meeting the needs of
employers and of individual learners. Raising the participation
of young people in education or training, reducing the number
of adults without basic literacy and numeracy skills, and increasing
the number of people trained at level 2 will be key measures of
success.
We will be consulting on funding arrangements for
young people and adults in late autumn 2006—building on
the 16-18 funding approach we have developed through the agenda
for change programme as the basis of a common system for schools,
colleges and providers, and introducing a new funding approach
for adults, so that funding is driven directly by learner and
employer choice.
INTERVENTION FROM THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL/EXPANDING
THE BASE OF PROVIDERS
15. We seek further clarification from the Government
on how competitive tender in areas of failing provision within
a college will work in practice, especially in areas where there
is a single provider and, potentially, few local alternatives.
(Paragraph 62)
16. We recommend that this situation whereby independent
operators cannot contract directly with the LSC for some areas
of learning needs to be looked at further and, we welcome moves
by the LSC to make public funding more accessible to quality,
established independent providers who are able to demonstrate
the capacity to expand. (Paragraph 69)
The Government is fully committed to promoting dynamism
and innovation by encouraging new high quality providers into
the FE sector through competition. The LSC will publish an Intervention
Strategy later this year, which will set out the arrangements
for tackling underperformance in the provision of further education.
The precise nature of intervention however, will vary according
to the specific and local circumstances. Competition will be
one of a range of interventions that will be available to the
LSC. Competition will not be held for its own sake.
The LSC will be taking this agenda forward in 2007/08
to test out the extension to formal competitions by putting out,
through procurement, substantial discrete blocks of currently
less than good provision, particularly where we need to expand
participation. If this is successful, the process will be extended
across the country.
17. We recommend that the Government should make
sure that the criteria for, and nature of, LSC intervention in
cases where colleges are apparently "coasting" is defined
with absolute clarity. (Paragraph 66)
The Government agrees with the Committee that there
is only a small minority of colleges and other providers that
are failing outright. We are pleased that the FE system as a whole
has demonstrated real attention to quality over the past five
years. However we are committed to eliminating inadequate provision,
and to tackling that which is barely satisfactory, not improving
or not as good as it could be. We set out in the FE White Paper
the broad framework for action in cases where colleges were inadequate
or coasting. This will include improvement notices issued by the
LSC, with a deadline for making the improvement (within a maximum
of 12 months). If specified improvements are not achieved within
the period, the LSC will take rapid and robust action. Precise
action will depend on the circumstances, but may include areas
of provision being put out to competitive tender. Further clarification
about how this will work in practice will be provided in the
Intervention Strategy which will be published later this
year.
These proposals are entirely consistent with our
commitment to develop a more trusting relationship with providers.
The onus on making the improvements will always initially rest
with the provider, within a framework of support from key agencies
including the Quality Improvement Agency (QIA). But poor and underperforming
provision justifies intervention. No learner's chances should
be blighted by ineffective leadership or teaching and learning.
And providers share our view that tackling underperformance is
an important strand in efforts to enhance the reputation of the
sector.
Inspection has made a significant contribution to
improving the quality of provision across the broader further
education system. Ofsted has agreed protocols for the early release
of draft inspection reports for inadequate providers to the LSC
and QIA in order that improvement activity can begin as quickly
as possible. Ofsted is working closely with the LSC and QIA in
order to define underperformance, both through inspection and
by other means.
INSPECTION, OVERSIGHT AND PLANNING
18. We will be seeking evidence from Ofsted on
progress toward the new arrangements to incorporate the Adult
Learning Inspectorate's (ALI) activities, and will also be keen
to look for evidence of a sustained focus on adult learning and
employer-focused provision, along with information on the allocation
of staff and budgets to adult and employer-focused work. (Paragraph
76)
The Government remains absolutely committed to independent
inspection and raising standards. We are clear that Ofsted will
ensure a clear focus on adult learning and employer-focused provision.
We recognise the need to retain the strong expertise in work-based
learning, vocational skills and the teaching of those skills in
future inspection arrangements. It will be particularly important
that the inspection framework and future arrangements meet the
needs of employers and users of training provision.
Good progress is being made towards the Ofsted/ALI
merger in April 2007. Many of the key characteristics of ALI inspections
will be retained. All ALI inspectors and inspection managers who
wish to transfer to Ofsted will be able to do so. This will enable
Ofsted to ensure a high degree of continuity in terms of the staffing
of inspections. The formation of a skills directorate will ensure
that a specific focus on adult learning and employer focused provision
is retained. Ofsted will evaluate providers' responses to inspection
in order to monitor the effectiveness of the new arrangements.
Feedback will also be sought from the CBI and other stakeholder
groups.
19. We would wish to see evidence of more consistent
quality before endorsing plans to move in the direction of self-
and peer-assessment. (Paragraph 80)
We recognise that although there are many outstanding
institutions in the FE system, not all providers are at a stage
to take forward self improvement activity without further support.
There have been significant improvements in the quality of further
education, work based learning and adult and community learning
in recent years. Inspection grades and success rates endorse this
view. The combination of rigorous self assessment and objective
external inspection has been shown to work well, however some
significant variations in quality remain.
The Quality Improvement Agency (QIA) has an important
role in helping providers identify and use appropriate self improvement
tools and materials as part of raising standards through continuous
quality improvement. Self assessment is one of a number of elements
of the LSC's Framework for Excellence from which will be derived
a quality rating system which will give employers, learners and
other key stakeholders a mechanism for identifying quality provision.
The QIA's Peer Referencing pilots are evaluating how this can
be used to enhance the capacity of colleges to self-assess and
self-improve. In parallel we are working with the sector to explore
how best to take forward the FE White Paper commitment to develop
self regulation.
20. We recommend that the Government should offer
strong support to inspectorates and other relevant agencies for
developing their work to build capacity for self-analysis and,
in particular, the ability to use the results of such analysis
to formulate plans for improvement. (Paragraph 80)
The Department is working with Ofsted, LSC, QIA and
other key partners to develop appropriate accountability frameworks
and supporting tools to do this. Ofsted's principles of proportionality
which reflect the government's wider principles of inspection
and external review include increased emphasis on regular self
evaluation by providers. The LSC's Framework for Excellence, QIA's
Improvement Strategy and their Peer Referencing pilots are supporting
the sector's capacity to undertake self-assessment and use the
results to raise standards of performance.
Both Ofsted and the ALI have significantly reduced
the resources devoted to the inspection of the best providers,
and intend to move further in this direction. Providing that monitoring
confirms that high performance is sustained, the best further
education colleges will receive only a very light touch inspection.
Ofsted believes that an element of external inspection is still
required throughout the system, but that this should be better
differentiated according to a proportionate, risk based model.
Ofsted and the ALI have been awarding a grade for
'capacity to improve' in all their inspections since mid 2005.
This grade makes an explicit judgement about a provider's ability
to self assess effectively and to bring about improvement as a
result of this process. This aspect of inspection is expected
to become increasingly significant over time.
21. We recommend that the Government should consider,
as an initial step, commissioning a feasibility study to assess
how the kind of "impact analysis" approach to inspection
might usefully be taken forward in light of resource constraints
and the imperative to "slim down" the inspection burden.
(Paragraph 85)
The Common Inspection Framework gives the inspectorate
the role of assessing how well providers meet the needs of
employers, individuals' aspirations, and are responsive to
local circumstances, as well as testing the quality of provision.
The inspection system also provides for inspectors to gather
the views of learners and employers as an important part of the
evidence base for making their judgements. In the future, the
new Framework for Excellence indicators and ratings will
include a provider's responsiveness to learners and employers.
This will be used by Ofsted as an input to their judgements.
It is for the LSC as commissioner to assess
the skills and learning needs of local communities and employers
and to procure appropriate provision to meet those needs.
ADULT LEARNING
22. We understand, and support, the Government's
intention to improve the quality and relevance of learning opportunities
for those at the very start of their return to education. However,
there is no demonstrable evidence that it is poor quality provision
or that with the lowest "returns" that has been strategically
cut in order to concentrate public funding on priorities. (Paragraph
92)
The Government welcomes the Committee's support
for improvements to the quality and relevance of learning opportunities
for those at the very start of their return to education.
We are working, with QCA and LSC in the lead, on
rationalising the current complex range of LSC funded provision
and qualifications below L2 to create a coherent but flexible
system of learning programmes and qualifications. A feature of
the Foundation Learning Tier (FTL) will be the establishment of
progression pathways focussing explicitly on the skills and learning
needed for progression to Level 2. Trials are running from August
2006 to July 2007. When implementation of the FLT is complete
in 2010 it will encompass all LSC funded provision below L2.
23. We recommend that a priority is placed on
strengthening the relationship between universities and further
education colleges through such mechanisms as the Lifelong Learning
Networks and regional partnerships. (Paragraph 93)
The Government believes that Lifelong Learning Networks
(LLNs) will be a key driver for improving progression opportunities
for learners on vocational programmes, including those currently
in employment, putting them on the same footing as those following
more traditional academic pathways. LLNs will work with key stakeholders
at the regional level including regional development agencies,
LSC and sector skills councils. They will add value to existing
FE-HE partnerships, building on subject-related activities such
as those led through Centres of Vocational Excellence in FE, and
outreach activity such as that led by Aim Higher. The Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has provided over £90m
to support 27 LLNs, spanning 113 higher education institutions
and more than 260 further education colleges.
24. There is a point at which the constant pressure
[on colleges] to react to a changing policy and funding landscape
undermines stability and puts pressure on long-established, valued
provision which suddenly becomes uneconomical to continue to provide.
This is a situation which must change. At the moment, secure long-term
funding is not a reality on the ground and there are questions
about whether it will become the norm for the majority of providers—rather
than those who perform exceptionally— in the medium term.
(Paragraph 93)
Our commitment is to make sure users of the further
education system—learners and employers—have more
choice and more say. Our strategy is therefore to move towards
a system that is more responsive to the needs, preferences and
priorities of those users. However, it is in no-one's interest
to create instability or uncertainty.
The LSC is looking at different funding options for
reflecting the choices made by learners and employers, whilst
making sure that colleges and providers know what to expect with
new opportunities for enterprising organisations to develop their
business.
25. We accept that within limited funding, there
are "difficult choices" that have to be made about what
is to be supported by the public purse, what must be paid for
by learners themselves, and what will be paid for by employers.
However, we argue, the dividing line between what is of value—to
individuals and to the economy—and what is less so, is nowhere
near as clear as is currently implied in government rhetoric.
(Paragraph 91)
26. During its first term in office, the Government
published "The Learning Age", which emphasised the benefits—and
the necessity for public funding of—provision for older
learners. We recommend that the Government, working with the Learning
and Skills Council, comes forward with more concrete information
on how it expects local authorities, working with the LSC, to
fund and plan this sort of provision. (Paragraph 97)
We recognise that people access education and training
for a number of reasons and that what people value is driven by
more than skills or economic objectives.
The Government remains committed to learning for
its own intrinsic value, including for learning for older people.
This is why we have safeguarded a budget for learning for personal
and community development at £210m pa in 2006/7 and 2007/8.
But we want to reinvigorate this type of learning. Too much is
poor quality which does not meet the changing needs of local communities.
This is why we have asked the LSC to convene local partnerships
to plan and co-ordinate this type of learning. Crucially the partnerships
will include a wide range of partners including local authorities,
and cover the range of related learning not funded through LSC
but funded by local authority sports, recreation and cultural
budgets, and also local health budgets, ESF, etc. The partnerships
will also include representatives of local communities and learners.
Local authorities have long experience in delivering
this type of learning and will be crucial to the success of the
reforms. An external Task Group including representatives of local
authority providers has been established to help steer the reforms.
27. We recommend that the Government base its
decisions on the targeting of funding [for adults] on much more
solid and extensive research than is currently available. This
research needs to provide a thorough analysis of the relative
benefits of different types of learning—particularly, what
the likely returns of public investment in different types of
learning are, and for whom. Only in this way can the Government
substantiate its claim that funding is being targeted where it
is most needed. (Paragraph 97)
The Government is confident that the broad thrust
of its skills strategy is right, and is supported by the evidence
published alongside its White Paper, 21st Century Skills: Realising
Our Potential.
Focusing more public funding on tackling the acute
lack of basic skills in the workforce and on securing a minimum
platform of broader employability skills for the lowest skilled
is the right approach. However, we know that we need to do more
work to make sure that this is targeted more precisely on the
specific skills and qualifications that will make the most difference
to the employment and future prospects of individuals and the
productivity and professionalism of businesses. We have asked
employers, via their Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), to develop
qualifications strategies for each industry sector and to identify
the qualifications that are most relevant. We intend to use that
intelligence to target public support for skills much more accurately.
We will at the same time continue to work with key partners to
improve the evidence base on returns to public investment in learning
(particularly to vocational learning where the evidence is less
strong), for example, through co-ordinated research programmes
between DfES, LSC and the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA),
drawing on expertise such as that in the Centre for Economics
of Education.
28. We are concerned that valuable provision could
certainly be lost and learners who could benefit from education
will not do so. We recommend that the DfES and LSC need to negotiate
a contingency plan to deal with this situation, should it arise.
(Paragraph 101)
Government does not want to see learning that is
valued lost. We do expect that where provision is in areas that
are primarily the responsibility of employers, such as first aid,
health and safety and food hygiene, then we would not expect to
fund those courses. Providers that can deliver that provision
cost effectively will continue to do so with employers paying
the market rate. Similarly where learners value high quality learning
and are prepared to pay more for courses then colleges can continue
to provide provision on a full cost recovery basis. We are seeing
evidence this is happening.
29. We recommend that in Autumn 2006, the DfES
or one of its agencies should undertake an impact assessment of
how the new fees regime is affecting the overall socio-economic
profile of adult learners. Monitoring should continue as the increase
to the fee assumption is rolled out, and the Government and LSC
should be prepared to take action if the findings suggest problems
in this area. (Paragraph 102)
We are monitoring closely the impact of our fees
policies. The LSC has already commissioned research looking the
impact of fee assumption increases on provider practices and learner
volumes. The LSC is also planning further work looking at learner
perceptions of fee changes. Our initial assessment of fee increases
in 2005/06 and 2006/07 is that colleges are successfully increasing
fees. We will continue to protect those on low incomes and who
lack the basic skills for employability.
30. We are not convinced that a coherent funding
logic is in place across the education system. (Paragraph 104)
Much work has already been carried out to draw together
funding for post-16 education and training. The LSC assumed funding
responsibilities from 72 Training and Enterprise Councils and
150 local authorities. The LSC has successfully introduced consistent
national funding methodologies for Work Based Learning and for
School 6th Forms—£3bn of provision. The
LSC's agenda for change programme will continue with the
work to ensure greater consistency of funding across the post-16
sector overall.
31. The announcement made in the Further Education
White Paper concerning a new level three entitlement for 19-25-year-olds
is very welcome, not least because it addresses a long-standing
issue of lack of support for those who, for whatever reason, have
not progressed to level three study before the age of 19. (Paragraph
104)
32. It appears that the level 3 entitlements will
be designed to soften the blow for those already enrolled on courses
rather than attracting significant numbers of new learners. We
recognise that there would be serious issues of affordability
in extending this scheme to everyone who might benefit from it,
and that arguing for additional funding for this scheme while
recognising a limited funding envelope would risk displacing funding
from other areas. We recommend that the Government needs to bear
in mind that the new National Learning Model will have to relate
to the 19-25 entitlement, and will also need to reference the
entitlements in the "national debate" about "who
pays for what". We argue later in this report that this needs
to take place as a matter of utmost urgency. (Paragraph 110)
We welcome the Committee's endorsement of our new
Level 3 entitlement. The entitlement will reduce the discontinuity
within funding arrangements that currently exists for young adults
and recognises that many young people complete their initial education
in their early twenties, thus providing a seamless transition
from 14 through to 25.
The introduction of this entitlement will enable
45,000 young adults to continue their initial education. However,
with any entitlement there will inevitably an element of deadweight,
that is why we are focusing on firstness, which will minimise
any such effect. The detailed scope of the national learning model
is still to be agreed with relevant bodies.
33. We commend the Government's decision to return
with new proposals for Learner Accounts. We cannot stress strongly
enough that lessons from the pilots need to be fully absorbed
before any plans for the future are made. (Paragraph 113)
Learner Accounts will help us move towards our aim
of developing a demand-led funding structure for further education,
and will help learners to make more informed choices about learning.
Final decisions on future plans will be dependent upon an evaluation
and assessment of the impact and value for money of the trials.
We expect that more detail on how Learner Accounts will actually
work will be available by the end of the year.
FUNDING FOR 16-18-YEAR-OLDS IN COLLEGES
34. We welcome the Government's commitment to
narrow the gap in funding between what colleges and school sixth
forms. We recommend that commitment to narrowing the gap further
must be demonstrated by revisiting the remaining funding gap after
the next Comprehensive Spending Review has taken place in 2007,
explaining clearly what further action will be taken, and by when.
(Paragraph 116)
The Government committed in the White Paper, "Further
Education: Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances" to
allocating comparable funding for comparable activity. As
part of this we continue to address the funding
gap between school sixth forms and colleges. The Government agrees
the gap is unfair and feels it to be an obstacle to the creation
of an integrated 16-18 education system. It is therefore
determined to tackle it as rapidly as possible.
As the Committee has acknowledged, some important
steps have been taken with FE funding rates being increased
relative to those offered to school sixth forms and confirmation that the
Schools' Minimum Funding Guarantee will apply equally to
funding allocated for those 16-18-year-olds studying in the FE
sector in 2006-07.
The funding gap will close from 13% to
8% in 2006-07 as a result of increases already made in funding
rates for FE; the application of the Minimum Funding Guarantee
to 16-18-year-olds in FE for 2006-07 allocations; and the
LSC's current work to align data collection and use between
school sixth forms and colleges. In 2007-08 the LSC will introduce
further adjustments to the collection and use of retention
and achievement data, which together with the continued
application of the Schools' Minimum Funding Guarantee to
FE for 2007-08 allocations, will narrow the gap
by a further 3%.
For the longer term, the LSC is currently consulting
on, and developing plans for, the introduction of a common
funding approach across school sixth forms and colleges.
These agenda for change proposals have been well
received by sector in the first stage of consultation and plans
for seeking the views of school sixth forms are well advanced. The
agenda for change proposals will create a common funding
and data collection/use system for all providers funded by the
LSC and will remove most of the remaining variables
which contribute to the funding gap. It is currently
expected that these proposals will come into force for all providers
from the start of the 2008-09 funding year.
However, as the Learning and Skills Development Agency's
2005 report indicated, closing the funding gap is not wholly about money. Some
small, but significant, differences in how data is collected
from school sixth forms and colleges, and others in
how that data is used to inform in-year funding adjustments also
contribute to the funding gap. The LSC has taken steps
to address some of these differences in 2006-07 and will go further
in 2007-08 and beyond.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
35. We very much welcome the commitment to developing
and implementing a coherent Workforce Development Strategy for
further education, and recommend that Government needs to make
clear how it intends to monitor progress and should negotiate
with the Lifelong Learning UK a clear timetable for the production
and implementation of the strategy. (Paragraph 119)
The Government agrees that we need to create a fully
qualified, professional workforce, dedicated to Continuing Professional
Development (CPD), and developing a coherent strategy to achieve
this is vital. We agree that it is important to establish a clear
timetable. We have discussed with Lifelong Learning UK (LLUK)
how they will develop the Workforce Strategy taking
into account the range of measures on workforce development announced
in the FE White Paper. We have agreed that LLUK will publish
the Strategy by July 2007, and we will continue to work closely
with them to monitor progress.
36. We welcome the announcement that Centres for
Excellence in Teacher Training will be rolled out and await further
details on the scale and nature of this programme. (Paragraph
119)
Centres for Excellence in Teacher Training (CETT)
will be collaborative ventures. In some cases, they will be based
upon existing local or regional Initial Teacher Training (ITT)
partnerships. In others, CETTs may be developed from new networks
of organisations that come together for the specific purpose of
enhancing training related to a particular occupational need or
national priority. The selection process started in September
2006 with a programme of dissemination and support events/workshops.
This gives lead in time for the first CETTs to be in place by
April 2007, and for all CETTs to be fully operational by September
2007. We expect there to be around 12 CETTs. This assumes one
CETT per region and allows for another 3 to meet national or specific
occupational needs. CETTs will be initially funded for 3 years,
up to a total cost of between £675,000 and £900,000
per CETT dependent on scope and scale.
37. We support in principle the idea of a standardised
requirement for Continuing Professional Development for further
education staff, as laid out in the White Paper. We recommend
that the Government needs to explain how it expects the Continuing
Professional Development requirement to be resourced, and how
it intends to apply the requirement to staff in non-college settings.
Government also needs to clarify how the requirement will apply
to part-time and fractional staff, who constitute a large proportion
of the further education workforce. (Paragraph 122)
The creation of opportunities for members of the
workforce to complete their Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) requirements will be included in the institution's three
year development plan agreed with the LSC. The LSC's development
dialogues will be a major tool for assessing progress and compliance.
Part time staff will be required to fulfil fewer
CPD hours than full time staff eg a person working 0.6 may fulfil
0.6 of the 30 hours requirement—18 hours a year.
Attainment of the Initial Teacher Learning and Skills
(ITLS) award will be required for all new teachers in the FE system
from September 07, leading to full Qualified Teacher Learning
and Skills (QTLS), which will be attained through CPD. This encompasses
those working in both college and non-college environments.
Ofsted will develop its arrangements to collect evidence
relating to staff qualifications and the extent of continuous
professional development at provider level. The qualification
levels of staff and the levels and effectiveness of CPD will contribute
to inspection judgements. Links will be made between this work
and the inspection of further education teacher training.
38. We recommend that the Government needs to
be clear about what contribution it expects external recruitment
to make and what particular skills needs such external recruitment
programmes will fill. (Paragraph 122)
Sir Andrew Foster found in his report that there
is not a good enough supply of leaders capable of getting the
best from their staff and managing highly complex business. Our
new recruitment programmes are designed to attract new talent
into the sector from a broader base.
With input from institutional leaders and other key
players, we now have initial proposals for the design, development
and implementation of the new recruitment routes. These take in
to account the contribution which these routes might make to the
skills needed in the sector. These proposals have been discussed
with LLUK, which has responsibility for carrying forward the development
of these schemes.
In the 'give something back' programme the
initial priority will be on construction. Attitudinal research
is now complete and LLUK are carrying forward plans for marketing;
running the campaign and developing systems to handle enquiries,
screening potential applicants; and link individuals to colleges/providers
with vacancies, in autumn 2006. For the other 3 programmes—"Make
a difference", "Business Talent" and "Business
Interchange"—design work will be completed by April
2007, followed by piloting, and leading to the launch of the programmes
in September 2007.
WORKFORCE DATA
39. We seek clarification on who is to have responsibility
for collecting and analysing further education workforce data
in the future? If responsibility is to pass from the Learning
and Skills Council to Lifelong Learning UK, we would wish to see
evidence that the latter has the operational capacity—and
the support it needs—to carry out this task effectively.
(Paragraph 129)
40. We recommend that in overseeing the implementation
of its plans for workforce development, the Government should
seek to ensure that the workforce data and analysis that underpins
planning takes full account of the work-based learning and adult
and community learning sectors. (Paragraph 130)
Lifelong Learning (LLUK) have welcomed the opportunity
to take over responsibility for workforce data, including quality,
analysis, interpretation and presentation. There are clearly challenges
associated with this and LLUK are keen to engage with stakeholders
to ensure a successful transition from the LSC's final SIR (Staff
Individual Record) collection in 2006 to new arrangements.
As part of this transition process LLUK have taken
responsibility for a workforce data group, which involves key
partners and stakeholders, and is offering advice on how the new
arrangements might best work.
LLUK have carried out work to identify potential
issues and are planning a programme of activity to ensure a smooth
transition and implementation to new data collection arrangements.
Based on a consultancy report produced in October
2005, LLUK are committed to extending the collection and analysis
of core workforce data to Work Based Learning and Adult and Community
Learning as part of their development of this area of work.
THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL AS AN INTERMEDIARY
BETWEEN COLLEGES AND WHITEHALL
41. We welcome redistribution to the frontline
of £40 million. However, we will be keeping the implementation
of these reforms under close scrutiny. We recommend that the LSC
should give a clear indication of its strategic role; should reinforce
its commitment to widening participation; as well as strengthening
the growing delivery of higher education in further education
by fostering much closer links with the higher education sector.
It needs to be more proactive in the regions, working closely
with effective regional university clusters to tackle skills shortages
and identify new needs and trends. (Paragraph 134)
42. We look forward to the LSC providing information
on how savings have been reinvested, along with further details
of how they plan to make the organisation leaner and more fit
for purpose. (Paragraph 134)
The FE White Paper makes clear that the role of the
LSC is to offer Government advice on strategy and policy, drawing
on its delivery experience and practical understanding of what
works and why; and to ensure that the system delivers services
for learners and employers efficiently and effectively.
The LSC has a statutory duty to encourage participation
in learning. The commitment to widening participation is reinforced
in the FE White Paper which gives the LSC a new remit to encourage
choice, diversity and specialisation, and to ensure delivery of
the 14-19 entitlement in each area, working within the local authority
led strategy. This commitment will be further reinforced in the
LSC's Annual Statement of Priorities.
Changes to the LSC's internal structure, including
the establishment of 148 local partnership teams and 9 regional
offices, will increase the LSC's effectiveness in working with
partners at local and regional level to identify and respond to
employer and learner needs. This will be supported by parallel
changes to the LSC's non-executive structure, which are expected
to achieve a much greater level of simplification and reduce the
bureaucratic burden on the LSC's partners. At the same time these
changes are expected to ensure the wider engagement of employers
and stakeholders, and more flexibility to respond to employer
and learner needs at national, regional and local level. Final
proposals are expected later this month.
The recently published Annual Statement of Priorities
makes clear that the initial tranche of LSC savings will be invested
in Adult Apprenticeships in 2007/08.
THE LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL AS A CHAMPION FOR
FURTHER EDUCATION?
43. We agree that it is appropriate that those
at the front line are encouraged to take responsibility for promoting,
and standing up for, further education. However, the LSC could
play a more active role in this regard. (Paragraph 137)
The LSC is responsible for delivering the objectives,
priorities and targets for post-16 education and skills as set
out in the Annual Grant Letter, within the funding available.
It advises the Government on the achievability of targets, and
on any operational issues which impact on the achievement of the
Government's goals. It has the primary operational responsibility
and therefore needs to work in close partnership with the sector
and other partners. It also has a key role in supporting action
to improve the reputation of the sector. This is different from
acting as a champion on behalf of the FE sector. That role is
for the leaders of the sector.
IMPROVING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DFES AND LSC
44. We welcome the changes that DfES and LSC are
together embarking on to improve the delineation of their respective
roles and responsibilities. However, we would argue that the granting
to the LSC of a greater degree of latitude in terms of how it
achieves the broad policy objectives which the DfES quite rightly
sets for it is not covered in sufficient detail in the recent
white paper despite the need for further reform in this area.
(Paragraph 141)
The Department will continue to exercise the lead
responsibility for strategy and will expect partners to take the
lead on delivery. This means that the LSC will continue to take
responsibility for planning, funding and securing the delivery
of post-16 education and training other than higher education;
and to advise on the development of post-16 strategies and policies,
drawing on its practical delivery experience and understanding
of learning needs, and of what works and why. However, fast-moving
reform across the public services, involving a number of agencies,
makes a rigid distinction between strategy and delivery unworkable.
We therefore intend to include partners in framing and refreshing
our strategy. In turn, we need to have an active understanding
of, and engagement in, delivery to secure effective performance
management, to coordinate communications and burdens, and to understand
front-line impact and risks.
The Department's response to the Capability Review
made clear that our aim is to secure an effective relationship
with the LSC within the context of promoting a more inclusive
collective relationship with all our key delivery partners. This
will be achieved partly through the new 'DfES Group', which will
bind together the principle bodies, including the LSC, which are
engaged in our collective goals, and ensure that together we achieve
a better and more cohesive set of outcomes for all groups of learners.
AN OVERALL STRATEGY FOR EDUCATION
45. We recommend that the development of a National
Learning Model should be an absolute priority for the Government.
We welcome the fact that the Government has committed to publish
a plan on a three-yearly basis and seek confirmation of when we
can expect the publication of the first document.
46. We recommend that the parallel "national
conversation" about funding needs to be based on a much clearer
research base about where investment reaps the most benefit, and
for whom. If such research does not exist, it needs to be undertaken
as a priority. (Paragraph 144)
47. We recommend that a National Learning Model
should also look at facilitating easier transition between further
education and higher education and improving the portability of
qualifications, via quality assurances from colleges to aid progression,
lifelong learning networks and the drive to rationalise the learning
pathways. (Paragraph 145)
48. We recommend that a national learning and
funding model needs to have a direct influence on the process
of setting national targets for further education, which exert
a strong influence on what providers can realistically offer.
(Paragraph 146)
We will publish the first national learning model
next year to coincide with the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending
Review. In developing the model, it will need to take into account
forecasts of skills gaps and shortages, labour market forecasts
and other key economic and social impact on the learning and skills
market. This will clearly need to include flows out of the schools
system and the contribution of the HE system and impact on progression.
The Government agrees that it will also inform the target setting
process. And it will be informed by an analysis of the skills
needs from the demand side (that is the needs of individuals,
employers and communities). But it is equally important that it
does not become a detailed national manpower planning tool and
that we allow the system the flexibility to respond to local demand.
MINISTERS AS CHAMPIONS OF FURTHER EDUCATION
49. We recommend that there needs to be a commitment
on the part of the DfES communications directorate to promote
accurate and proportionate information about further education,
with due regard to the amount of coverage given it, and a commitment
to making sure that critical statements are justified. (Paragraph
153)
We are committed to working with our partners to
support and build the reputation that the sector deserves. Colleges
themselves should take the leading role in promoting what they
do and the difference they make. But the Government recognises
that it also has an important contribution to make to promote
the role and benefits of further education. As the Committee recognises,
DfES and other Government Ministers have been playing an active
role in advocating the work of colleges and training providers.
To deliver the commitments in this area in the FE
White Paper, the DfES and the LSC have jointly undertaken to develop
a communication strategy. This is being supported by a stakeholder
group including representatives of colleges and providers and
key national organisations. The strategy will include a set of
metrics which will enable progress on reputation building to be
monitored and reviewed, and a set of shared messages about the
system and its achievements. DfES Communications Directorate will
support the implementation of this strategy through maximising
opportunities to promote these messages across the Department's
programmes and policies and to all audiences (learners (and potential
learners), parents, employers, teachers, the FE workforce, key
representative bodies and national opinion formers).
50. We welcome the Government's move to establish
a joint DfES/LSC programme board, but note with some disappointment
that the Government appears to have decided not to establish a
separate, well defined user group to advise its programme board.
We urge the Government to revisit this decision. (Paragraph 158)
We are committed to engaging our users in the development
and implementation of our reform programme. For this reason we
have established a Ministerial Standing Group on FE comprising
the chief executives of the major agencies, and representatives
of providers, learners and employers. The Standing Group will
focus on a strategic view of policy implementation, and provide
advice, where appropriate, to the joint DfES/LSC Programme
Boards which are responsible for the management of implementation
of the FE reforms, and the 14-19, and adult skills strategy programmes.
It will have a key role in commenting on progress on implementation,
securing stakeholder input into implementation and in communicating
progress to stakeholders. In addition, user groups (with employers
and learners or their representative) have been set up to support
the development of individual policies and programmes. In November
2006 we will be announcing the membership of the National Learner
Panel which, by giving learners a voice at national level, will
significantly increase their influence in the development of policies
and initiatives.
INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL COHERENCE
51. Inconsistencies remain between the funding
and planning arrangements for schools and further education colleges
at policy level which translate into paradoxical, and occasionally
self-defeating arrangements locally. We have heard examples of
instances where the costs of provision for additional 16-18-year-olds
recruited by a college cannot be met while at the same time, the
opening of a new academy is being considered for the same area.
It is not clear that the costs associated with Strategic Area
Reviews to determine 16+ provision in an area were justified when
the conclusions arrived at were sometimes overridden by school
planning decisions emanating from outside the LSC. This does not
sound like the result of a coherent policy which enables sensible
local planning. (Paragraph 162)
The Government is committed to ensuring coherence
across its programmes and policies, and to putting learners at
the heart of all that we do. We have recently published "The
Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners: Maintaining the
Excellent Progress", a report which looks at progress against
our Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, and our priorities
for the next few years. The report also includes lessons for the
Department and our partners for meeting the challenge of delivering
these priorities, and invites comments by 31 January 2007.
Measuring and improving value for money throughout
the FE system delivery chain is vital to gaining maximum impact
for every pound spent. DfES is committed to promoting a culture
of efficiency and effectiveness and embedding value for money
in policy development and performance management, including delivering
agreed efficiency targets. The LSC also has a crucial role in
securing value for money through commissioning effective and efficient
provision in support of Government objectives and priorities.
52. The Further Education White Paper says that
local authorities will take over the main strategic responsibility
for co-ordinated planning of 14-19 provision. We question how
a situation where local authorities have strategic responsibility,
but are not acting as fund holders will work in practice. (Paragraph
163)
Local authorities will provide the strategic leadership
for children's services overall so that the delivery of 14-19
reform is integrated with the wider agenda for children and young
people in the locality. The LSC will be local authorities' primary
partner.
The LSC will work closely with the local authority
and will continue to fund colleges, sixth forms and training providers
to play their part in delivering 14-19 provision including
the new 14-19 entitlement. The LSC continues to have
a statutory duty for planning and funding all post-16 provision;
but focusing more on the core role of ensuring that there is in
every area a diverse and dynamic range of high quality post-16
providers working in collaboration with schools.
| 
