Memorandum submitted by the Association
of Colleges (AoC)
INTRODUCTION
AoC (the Association of Colleges) is the representative
body for colleges of further education, including general FE colleges,
sixth form colleges and specialist colleges in England, Wales
(through our association with fforum) and Northern Ireland (through
our association with ANIC). AoC was established in 1996 by the
colleges themselves to provide a voice for further education at
national and regional levels. Some 98% of the 450-plus general
FE colleges, sixth form colleges and specialist colleges in the
three countries are in membership. These colleges are the largest
providers of post-16 general and vocational education and training
in the UK. They serve over 4 million of the 6 million learners
participating in post-statutory education and training, offering
lifelong learning opportunities for school leavers and adults
over a vast range of academic and vocational qualifications. Levels
of study range from the basic skills needed to remedy disadvantage,
through to professional qualifications and higher education degrees.
NATSPEC colleges are associate members of AoC.
SUMMARY
— Many further education colleges have
hundreds of students with a very wide variety of learning difficulty
and/or disability (LDD)
— These students are catered for in
mainstream provision with appropriate support and benefit from
the wide range of provision and facilities available
— The main difficulty faced by colleges
is in attracting suitably qualified staff when the pay levels
are considerably less than those of schools
— Increasing provision for 14-16 learners
will place additional demands on colleges to cater for the specialist
needs of those with LDD
— The 2005 Disability Discrimination
(DDA) Act amends existing legislation, placing a duty on public
sector authorities to promote disability equality
— the wider scope of the new Act raises
questions as to whether LSC can fulfil its new statutory duties
within extreme financial constraints, predicted as becoming more
challenging over the next few years
— LSC currently funds support costs
for residential students that should be funded by other government
departments
— DfES and LSC needs to clarify arrangements
to enable a single planning process for providers delivering post-16
learners
— There are questions about the means
by which assessment of young people's needs will take place in
future with the publication of Youth Matters, which effectively
disbands Connexions as a national service
— There are questions as to whether
the common funding approach, proposed in the LSC "An Agenda
for Inclusive Learning" will be implemented to ensure regional
fairness as well as being implemented for schools as well as colleges
— There are questions about the level
of skills in LSCs, to secure appropriate provision for learners,
and the communications that need to be developed and enhanced
between agencies and the development needs of practitioners
— To combat the variable quality in
existing provision, providers should use a system of peer review
to bring about improvements.
1. While the main focus of this enquiry
may be provision in schools, this cannot be treated in isolation.
Colleges currently cater for a very wide range of learning difficulty
and/or disability and the diversity of the college post-16 sector
is a great potential source of strength in meeting individual
needs. This includes severe to moderate learning difficulties,
sensory impairment, physical disability, specific learning disability
(eg dyslexia), mental health problems and emotional and behavioural
difficulties.
2. More people than ever with self-declared
learning difficulties and/or disabilities are now engaged in LSC—funded
education and training—around 579,000 learners across the
post-16 sector in 2003-04, with a total cost of the programmes
for these learners of over £1,000,000,000.
3. For the purposes of this submission we
feel that the most appropriate definition to adopt is that taken
from section 13 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. A person
has a learning difficulty if:
"(a) he has a significantly greater
difficulty in learning than the majority of persons of his age,
or:
(b) he has a disability which either prevents
or hinders him from making use of facilities of a kind generally
provided by institutions providing post-16 education or training."
4. Students with learning difficulties and/or
disabilities are catered for in mainstream college provision with
appropriate support and benefit greatly from the wide range of
provision and facilities available. This ensures they can be placed
on the most appropriate provision to meet their individual needs
and that specialist support and teaching is available. Colleges
have access to additional learning support funds which they can
deploy as needed to ensure appropriate support is provided.
5. Colleges which cater for this level of
need are happy to increase their intake and are often under considerable
pressure to do so. However, one limiting factor is the considerable
difficulty they experience in attracting appropriately qualified
specialist staff. This is chiefly because the pay in schools is
significantly higher than in colleges and in addition school staff
are paid an extra allowance in recognition of their specialist
qualification. Colleges often have to recruit and train staff,
often sponsoring them to obtain relevant qualifications. This
is costly.
6. We recognise that there are some learners
with needs that are so complex that they cannot be catered for
in a general college and will need the resources only available
in a specialist college.
7. Colleges are heavily involved in the
provision of learning to students from the age of 14 onwards.
Questions remain as to how successfully colleges can respond to
the increased demand on specialist resources for those with learning
difficulties and/or disabilities in the current climate.
8. The 2005 Disability Discrimination (DDA)
Act amends existing legislation, placing a duty on public sector
authorities to promote disability equality. The wider scope of
the new Act raises questions as to whether LSC can fulfil its
new statutory duties within extreme financial constraints, predicted
as becoming more challenging over the next few years. The LSC's
main duties are to secure proper facilities for education and
training, which are suitable to the needs of persons, aged 16-19
and to secure reasonable facilities for education and training,
which are suitable to the needs of persons of persons over the
age of 19 including learners with learning difficulties and/or
disabilities.
9. The general duty placed upon the LSC
is that it should eliminate discrimination and harassment, promote
equality of opportunity between disabled and non-disabled people,
and take into account people's disabilities, even if this means
treating them more favourably than non-disabled people. This will
have funding implications for the LSC when considering its funding
priorities. LSC cannot decide not to make provision for any individual
learner simply because the budget is overspent.
10. It is also the case in residential institutions
that LSC is funding the residential costs in addition to educational
costs. We strongly recommend that conversations take place between
government departments to ensure each allocates resources appropriately.
Currently we understand that 46% of residential costs relate to
living and support costs that should be allocated elsewhere.
11. All this is set within a context of
increased demand and static supply. Proposals in `Every Child
Matters' encourage multi-agency working and the development of
Children's Trusts which will be critical to draw funding from
various streams to support the learning needs of these groups.
There is a need to plan at an early stage for the transition both
into, and out of FE.
12. College principals urge for the use
of greater prescriptive planning, to help institutions/LEAs/LSCs
plan for demand and incorporate sufficient places/resources in
their 3 and 5 year plans. Whilst the recommendation to move to
regional LSC directors holding `placement budgets', the issue
remains about how fairness is to be measured, and how appeals
against decisions might be heard.
13. Streamlining development plans will
be essential—currently these are particularly complex for
specialist schools. DfES and LSC needs to clarify arrangements
to enable a single planning process for providers delivering post-16
learners.
14. It will be essential for the LSC to
develop its shared approach to planning and funding with partners,
as envisaged in its Annual Statement of Priorities', published
in December 2004. Central Government's approach to collaborative
packages of provision, better able to meet individual needs, will
also require proactive involvement by the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES) in supporting and developing the essential cross-departmental
approach, implicit in the `Valuing People' initiative working
with people with learning disabilities, and in the development
of Children's Trusts.
15. There are questions as to whether the
common funding approach, proposed in the LSC "An Agenda for
Inclusive Learning" will be implemented with sufficient checks
and balances to ensure regional fairness. Arrangements should
be set up to review the capacity of the system, to meet the needs
of learners with learning difficulties and/or disabilities within
a region and ensure that capacity is developed in order to meet
current and future demand.
16. There are also questions as to how a
common funding approach can be implemented for schools as well
as colleges, to promote further collaboration with colleges (3.23).
Review is needed of the methods of claiming funding which are
currently complex and inefficient.
17. There are questions about the means
by which assessment of young people's needs will take place in
future with the publication of Youth Matters, which effectively
disbands Connexions as a national service. The assessment of individuals'
needs is key to the development of learner-centred packages. In
light of the proposals set out in the Green Paper, it is likely
that the Secretary of State will give the responsibility for carrying
out assessments to another organisation.
18. There are questions about the level
of skills in LSCs, to secure appropriate provision for learners,
and the communications that need to be developed and enhanced
between agencies and the development needs of practitioners. There
will be a need for building LSC staff capacity to understand the
complexity of the issues involved and to make far greater progress
with mainstreaming disability and learning difficulty than has
been the case to date.
19. It is recognised that provision for
LLDD is variable in quality. AoC recommends, in line with LSC
LLDD Review Steering group, that providers should increasingly
network and use peer review to develop and improve the quality
of provision. This should be set up within the wider context of
self regulation for the FE sector, currently under discussion
with the Department, LSC and other agencies.
October 2005
| 
