Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-179)
SIR ANDREW
FOSTER AND
DR ROBERT
CHILTON
16 NOVEMBER 2005
Q160 Tim Farron: I do not want to
follow you up on that because I know Helen is going to. The final
question I have got is that there is concern amongst employers
about the gestation period from the conception of a great course
idea to the delivery of a course, particularly in the more technical
areas where basically the courses are all but obsolete by the
time they are on the books and being taught. Obviously, accreditation
and validation are very important. How do you get around that
problem so that you have got courses fit for purpose within FE
without undermining quality?
Dr Chilton: I do not think we
actually specifically looked at that question, but I think when
you get the Leitch review you are going to get another dimension
to this. One of the things which seems to be emerging is some
evidence coming to Leitch that employers are spending about £20
billion on training for productivity. If you set that alongside
the LSC budget you realise that actually an awful lot of employers
are shopping around for the things specifically tailored to their
requirements. When they come to FE, FE is locked into a need to
deliver products which relate to a qualifications framework, hence
they go through the various hurdles you are describing, and that
clearly does slow things down. You heard me argue earlier and
the report argues that there are two functions going on here.
There is putting people into the employment workplace with a capacity
to work, employability, and there is taking them out of the workplace
and honing them for a particular business productivity. Employers
are doing the second task and sometimes FE colleges are able to
work alongside them and compete for that, but they do have this
primary role of actually getting people fit for work in the first
place related to the local economy. So I am sure you are right,
this capturing of them and relating them to the strong qualifications
structure does slow down their flexibility, and some of them have
argued to us that they should have the ability to accredit their
own courses. Of course, one of the problems with this world is
that there are so many accrediting bodies and so many courses,
so that option is a bit of a dilemma.
Q161 Chairman: Is there not another
problem, because FE is incredibly flexible when it is looking
for money? A principal sitting there with his or her team is incredibly
adept, in my experience, of saying, "Oh, there's some new
money from the DWP, there's a bit of money from the Home Office,
there's a bit of money here," and the reason they are not
focused on a core mission is very often because they are desperate
for money and so, like a lot of organisations, they lose the plot
because they are chasing money to employ people to keep the place
running.
Sir Andrew Foster: I must say,
I got asked exactly that question at the AoC event yesterday and
my response would be that so much initiativitis ends up giving
a fuzzy reputation and actually one of the reasons why colleges
feel aggrieved is because they say, "Government, we have
responded to you here, we have responded to you there, and we
still don't get the money that you promised us." I think
that clarity of purpose about what it is the Government wants
this sector to do in the medium to long term and a degree more
of reliability of the money focused around a longer term purpose
would actually lead to FE colleges having some more independence
and not being as dependent all the time on where the Government
is on issues. It is for that reason that I argue for economic
skills and employability.
Q162 Chairman: You are going to get
questions in a moment from the rest of the team, when I give them
a chance, but where I just came from on Friday, Kirklees council
in Huddersfield were talking about community education, which
very often actually ties into the other steps into more formal
education, and in a sense in the report what comes out as you
read it is that you are saying this is the core mission of colleges
but you do not really say where it should be placed, not really.
You say there should be a better partnership delivering that,
but where, on what canvass, with what focus?
Sir Andrew Foster: Probably in
my first year looking at FE I spent a lot of time looking at how
you would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FE, but
it is absolutely impossible to look at the effectiveness of FE
unless you look at it in relation to what is happening in schools
and unless you look at it in relation to what is happening at
universities. You will see in the report that we argue that in
fact having chimney-stacked approaches to how you manage these
different significant sectors of the educational world is unhelpful.
So I would be arguing that the Government should have a much broader
and integrated education strategy into which these different parts
fit. The answer to your question would then have to be, how do
you have an overall approach? I think FE has lost out because
it has not fitted in particularly well with the policies which
are happening in relation to schools. The big school issue is,
how many young people who have done badly in school or had a negative
experience end up being the price that FE has to pay in terms
of trying to socialise them? Yet that problem gets shipped out.
I just do not think that is a very productive way of doing it.
I think you should view the way you manage the whole system, and
you will see that my challenge to the new Permanent Secretary
of the Department of Education is that that is a way in which
it would be better to manage things.
Q163 Helen Jones: I want to follow
up this business about what you call in your report learning for
personal community development, because you seem to envisage some
of that being delivered through colleges if there is no other
provider, but a lot of it being delivered through the LSC, local
authorities working, I think, with museums and libraries and the
voluntary sector. Does that not mean we will end up with a mish-mash
with no one having overall responsibility for delivering that
area of learning?
Dr Chilton: At the end of the
day, it is who has the purse strings, who is commissioning, and
this report would leave in place the local LSC structure. But
we argue that it must be focused and understanding of what it
is trying to achieve. It does not have to put all its money into
general FE colleges and sixth-form colleges; there can be many
other routes to achieving the objectives which we are setting
for it. The concept of employability is not simply acquiring a
vocational skill and a trade. For some of the youngsters it is
learning to be able to get there at nine o'clock every morning.
It is actually learning some very basic life skills to be able
to get onto the ladder towards employability. This is not ruling
that out when it picks that core purpose.
Q164 Helen Jones: Indeed, I understand
that, but I think the question I am asking really leads on to
one about staffing and resources. If a lot of these courses are
to be delivered as you envisage, through voluntary sectors, through
different parts of the local authority, are you confident that
they have the necessary staff who are trained to do that? Let
us look at voluntary organisations as an example. How many voluntary
organisations have staff in place with the qualifications and
experience to deliver the kind of things you are talking about?
Sir Andrew Foster: I do not know
that I have got good enough evidence to give you a substantial
answer to that. The idea behind it is not saying, "Let's
give this to the voluntary sector or other bodies willy-nilly."
The idea would be, what are the needs of the area, therefore what
are the priorities of the area, and then let us discuss who in
the locality is best-placed to deliver them. I think what we were
trying to raise in writing that particular paragraph was that
there need to be substantial links in the community. I do not
think it is, "Let's just offload," but I think there
are places where the voluntary sector and other parts of the local
community does have resource and does wish to be involved, but
I do not think it was on an offload basis, it was on the basis
of looking and seeing what there is in your community and making
sure you respond to it to see whether it can provide that.
Q165 Helen Jones: But if the colleges'
key mission is to be employability and skills—and there
is an argument for that, I do not dispute that—then the
rest of the learning will possibly have to be done through other
bodies. If, for instance, we are talking about a local authority
delivering it through museums and libraries, that has an on-cost
for the local authority, does it not, in terms of the usage of
staff, buildings and managers, and so on? Did you look at any
of these issues?
Sir Andrew Foster: No. I think
probably I need to go back to what you said at the beginning.
In describing or proposing a prime role, a prime focus around
employability and skills, I am arguing that that should be of
paramount importance. I am not saying that colleges should not
do the other things as well. I am saying, however, that they are
highly desirable but not as important as the primary, and then
that leaves local choice about whether the college continues to
offer those services or whether there are other possibilities
within.
Q166 Helen Jones: What I am trying
to tease out from you is whether those possibilities exist in
reality, given what needs to be put in place on the ground to
deliver them?
Sir Andrew Foster: In the conversations
which we certainly had with local government, you will know that
local government is very interested in a range of these issues,
wants to influence it and in many places would say it either has
the resources or certainly has the wish to and would be interested
to see how it could be developed if money could be made available.
If we are talking about the local LSC as a commissioner, then
it would have to be the money being made available.
Q167 Helen Jones: Yes, that is correct,
but of course what we are already seeing in some of our colleges
is that because of the emphasis on basic skills, adult learning
courses are either seeing a fees increase or they are being cut
back. There is a tension between the two.
Sir Andrew Foster: There is.
Q168 Helen Jones: There is also an
argument that some courses which do not fit the basic skills agenda
are actually, as the Chairman said, a means of bringing people
back into the education system who would not otherwise be there.
Does your report make any suggestions as to how you solve that
tension, bearing in mind that whoever deals with it there has
got to be a pot of money to fund it? If the LSC is putting most
of its money into skills and employability, there is no money
for adult learning, or there is not much money for adult learning?
Sir Andrew Foster: I think that
the position is exactly as you describe. I think we describe a
position where one of the frustrations in the FE world is that
they have had significant expectation put on them and they have
consistently not had as much money to fulfil that expectation,
and one of the frustrations of people with the FE and working
in it is of not having enough money to do what they wish to do.
Therefore, I argue for economic skills and employability on the
basis that somebody has to make some priority choices and that
actually it would be better for it to be clear what is a priority,
because otherwise what people in colleges say is, "We're
asked to do everything. We don't have the money," and we
then end up being the fall-guy in the middle of that conversation.
Q169 Helen Jones: Indeed. You talked
about the link between colleges and employers. I wonder if you
had any suggestions to offer the Committee on what should be the
link between colleges and the trade unions' learning representatives,
who are increasingly responsible for seeing a lot of learning
delivered in the workplace?
Sir Andrew Foster: We do mention
it, I cannot remember exactly in which paragraphs, but certainly
in the meetings we had with trade unions and in the meetings we
had with the TUC and in the explanation they gave of the growth
of learning representatives we were very supportive of them. We
thought it was an extremely positive development. I cannot remember
the paragraphs which are there, but we say it is a very good way
of outreaching and we would encourage there to be contact between
colleges and representatives, and I think we in fact refer to
how that has developed in Denmark in an even more positive way
than has happened here. So we stand in support of it and encourage
colleges in that direction.
Q170 Helen Jones: But again, it can
then be difficult to draw the line, can it not, on what courses
the college will be involved in, given your emphasis on employability
and skills? To give you an example, there is a very good set-up
in my area where the bin men have learning things on site. Some
of them would be doing computer courses, which I suppose you could
say is employability and skills. Some of them do Spanish for their
holidays. How would that work in practice under your proposal?
Would it be funded differently? Would the LSC, through the local
council, be looking after one bit and the college looking after
the other? How would that sort of thing pan out?
Sir Andrew Foster: We are continuing
to talk about the major governmental funding coming through the
LSC to a local level and it would be from the local LSC to the
local college, and it would have to be what were the priorities
which had been established which met economic need in that locality.
So the Spanish classes which you talked about would probably not
fall into that category, but if you look at p.37 of our report,
the chunk on trades unions, the example in Denmark, we are supportive
of this but it does have to fit within what the available funds
are.
Q171 Helen Jones: Yes, I understand
that. The only thing which bothers me about what you are saying—and
I agree with a lot of it—is that we could end up with a
situation where if you are able to go into higher education, if
you want to do Latin or classical Greek, whether it fits with
employability skills or not you can. If you are a manual worker,
we take a different view. Do you not see a difficulty in that?
Sir Andrew Foster: I suppose I
am just practically thinking about the sums of money which are
available and what the needs of the nation are. Where that argument
takes you is a basic challenge between the funding for universities
and the funding which goes into skills and people who had less
earlier academic opportunities.
Helen Jones: Yes. I just throw it into
the mix, because I do not think we think of higher education in
that way. Thank you.
Chairman: Sir Andrew, the Committee is
always encouraged when they can see witnesses thinking before
they answer. That is not always our experience!
Q172 Mr Marsden: Sir Andrew, can
I take you back to the skills area, which you have emphasised
several times that you feel very strongly should be a core mission,
and sitting here as the chair of the all-party skills group who
am I to disagree? Indeed, we have produced a report emphasising
many of the same sorts of aspects recently. But I want to ask
you about what we mean by skills, because we have already had
some discussion already about what might or might not be fundable.
I have an example in my own constituency at the moment where young
people who are in a foyer-type setting are having problems with
funding from the local LSC in terms of some of what I would regard
as basic bog-standard (if I dare use that phrase) courses to get
them skills for life but which are not seen as such necessarily
under the LSC's provisions at the moment. What are hot skills
and what are cold skills? What are hard skills and what are soft
skills, and what would be funded under the sort of core provision
you are talking about?
Sir Andrew Foster: We do not make
such a prescription, other than to say two things really. It does
come back to how much money you are going to put into the system,
which is a broad political determination, and I think then the
nation or the government of the day has an obligation to say how
much money it is going to make broadly available, point one. Point
two, though, is that what we are arguing for (and which the Government
has started to set in place but which we have not seen the results
of) is the strong determination of what are the economic needs
of a region. That is why the whole apparatus has been put in place,
as you will know, in relation to what RDAs have to say about the
needs of their area, what Sector Skills Councils have to say,
and that influencing very strongly what should be the skills priorities
for a region and then for a locality. So I would say broad governmental
determination here, but I think we have a chance of major development,
as long as it works, of a much more systematic and organised approach
to what happens in a locality and I just do not think that historically
that has happened. My answer has to be an answer of principle.
Q173 Mr Marsden: Yes. The trouble
is, that is not necessarily going to solve any of the problems
on the ground which I am referring to, but let me take you on
from that to the whole area of what the sector skills councils
are supposed to do. Again, if I look at it from my neck of the
woods in Blackpool, where we do not have certainly within the
area (although we have people from the area working outside) a
major traditional manufacturing situation. What we have is obviously
a very strong important leisure and tourism area and lots of small
and medium-sized businesses. Traditionally, FE colleges have not
necessarily been very good at addressing either of those areas.
As it so happens, before I get hit from a great height by my local
principal, let me say that the principal of our FE college is
making a determined effort in those areas, but what needs to be
done? If we accept your description that economic growth and skills
has to be a central core function, what needs to be done under
this new direction to make sure that small and medium-sized businesses
and courses do perhaps address leisure and tourism, which are
going to make just as much money as some of the traditional courses
for an area or sub-region, are treated on an equal playing field
with the more traditional ones and with large companies?
Dr Chilton: One of the problems,
if you are a small business, is that there are enormous demands
on you to run the business and deal with government, and finding
the extra time to then relate to the future development of a workforce
with the FE college is rarely something which is a priority, so
they are disengaged. We found a relatively small proportion of
employers have engagement with FE, but you still have a fundamental
interest in being able to find the right people to do the work
that you want to do. That is why I think the Sector Skills Councils
are so important, because they take a sector-wide, regional view
of what the requirements are. They look at the industry, the economy
locally, and therefore can act as a voice and a conduit for the
collective experiences of people in business and various sorts
of business. You then have to take that remit and find a way through
the Commissioner, the local LSC, to then buy the courses which
businesses want and then stay in touch with local businesses.
The big message in this report is about FE being able to relate
to learners, being able to relate to other stakeholders, feeding
those messages back into the system. One of the things which does
seem difficult in this world, and I think it relates to the questions
which Helen Jones has posed, is that if you said, "Look,
I think bin men should be able to learn Spanish," what is
the price tag nationally on a policy statement of that sort? We
do not actually have a model which enables us to price up the
policy implications of statements we might make, therefore we
cannot put them all together and see where the hard choices lie
and decide whether this commands resources against other demands
on resources, or within FE where we would place the balance of
our emphasis, upon which there would be a genuine debate amongst
various stakeholders.
Q174 Mr Marsden: I would agree with
that, but would you agree in turn that given we anticipate much
of the growth coming from certainly medium-sized businesses in
the non-manufacturing sector over the next 10-15 years, we have
got to make that fit much more closely?
Dr Chilton: Absolutely.
Q175 Mr Marsden: Can I perhaps just
take you on to another point, which you have touched on very briefly
in your report but you did not elaborate and obviously there is
a great focus, as you say, on skills and training. One of the
things which our report, the skills report, was concerned about
is the enormous implication of the change in demographics. You
had Chris Humphries on your advisory group and Chris, as you know,
waxes very eloquently on this. What are the implications of a
change in demographics over the next 10-15 years where you are
going to have far more adults needing re-training and re-skilling
and far fewer young people even in the cohort for training and
skilling? What are the implications of that for what you are proposing
today?
Sir Andrew Foster: I think you
would clearly have to change your commissioning, your broad national
priorities as time went by, as you would at a locality level.
So it would have to develop as the demographic changes developed,
which is the thought that we had, but again we were talking about
laying out the principles and trying to make it a more coherent
system than we believe it currently is.
Q176 Mr Marsden: The demographic
change is already happening. It will accelerate. Do you feel that
the colleges and the LSC have got a handle on the urgency of this
problem?
Sir Andrew Foster: It certainly
is something which we talked to people about and certainly something
which people are aware about. I do not know that it had a sense
of urgency attached to it.
Q177 Mr Marsden: A last very brief
question on issues of urgency. In some parts of the report you
touched again on the commonality, which is accepted, the sheer
welter of numbers of qualifications and the problems with acceptance
and recognition of that. I think you referred to that right at
the beginning today. Is that something which you think is a short
order priority for being addressed within the next 12-18 months,
which I think is the timeframe you used?
Sir Andrew Foster: For me, the
broad approach which the Government is taking seems a sensible
one. The biggest challenge, frankly, is an issue of speed and
I think you will see that we argue for the framework which is
being proposed to be pushed at a faster pace than it is currently
being pushed at.
Chairman: We would like now, Sir Andrew,
to move to more general questions about quality and Rob Wilson
is going to lead on that.
Q178 Mr Wilson: Sir Andrew, in light
of some of the things we have been discussing, the initiative,
the poor funding, the schools system exporting failing pupils,
strategic confusion, is the fact that only 10% of FE colleges
are failing a surprise to you?
Sir Andrew Foster: Probably not.
I was trying to think just for a minute about failing hospitals,
failing schools, and what the normal distribution chart is and
frankly the level of complexity which has existed here is greater
than I have seen in some other public services with which I have
been involved in the past. I think the number of failing colleges
is not a great surprise.
The Committee suspended from 5.15 pm to
5.19 pm for a division in the House
Q179 Mr Wilson: Could I just put the
question I put to you in a slightly different way to see if I
can tease out more of a response. Do you feel that the FE colleges
have been relentlessly failed rather than, as you put it in your
report, relentlessly failing their learning communities?
Sir Andrew Foster: There are two
separate things I would say. One is that I think the system which
we currently have has not made it easy for colleges, which I think
is understanding your question better. I have some understanding,
therefore, of the situation of colleges and that is where this
report does lay a challenge to the Government, the LSC and the
regulatory framework. So there is a challenge to Government. There
is then, however, a challenge to under-performing colleges too,
so it is not either/or, I am afraid it is both, and if the learner
really is to be put first I think that this system has not been
very good at resolutely bringing about change either, in under-performing
colleges, but you will see that we do not just talk about under-performing
colleges, we are talking about under-performing departments and
that is equally as important as under-performing colleges. So
we are challenging departments even in reasonably performing colleges
or even excellently performing colleges. Basically, I am nobody's
dinner guest in FE any longer because I have been quite critical
and challenging of everybody, but I have done that after reflection
because I think this is a system which has not had as much attention
as it might.
|
