Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-419)
MR MARTIN
DUNFORD AND
MR GRAHAM
HOYLE
9 JANUARY 2006
Q400 Mr Wilson: Do you think there
is spare capacity in the independent sector to pick up any slack
from poorly performing colleges?
Mr Dunford: Yes, massive.
Q401 Mr Wilson: Again, what is your
evidence for that?
Mr Dunford: Colleges are located
in particular geographical areas to serve that local community
largely, whereas an independent provider can be like that or it
can grow and go where the market is and where the demand is. Frankly,
to turn on the ability and turn on capacity to deliver for an
employer, where you start in one place and they want you to do
it somewhere else, is quite easy to do and it comes from getting
results in the first place. The contingent factor would be the
workforce and how many people are out there—we heard about
this earlier—qualified to train and deliver. If you solve
that problem, we can expand. My organisation was a tenth of its
size 15 years ago, there are others that are growing even faster.
Q402 Dr Blackman-Woods: A large part
of the report you gave to us covered apprenticeships. I wonder
if you can summarise briefly for us what you think the main problems
are with apprenticeships at the moment and how they can be put
right?
Mr Hoyle: I am happy to take that
on board. The premise of the question was the main problems with
apprenticeships and how they can be put right.
Q403 Dr Blackman-Woods: It is because
you are fairly negative, or at least your conclusion is that everything
is not rosy.
Mr Hoyle: I think the problem
was that perhaps the paper was not very clear in the way apprenticeships
are assessed, recognised and evaluated because I do believe they
are far, far better than the way we describe them. That comes
back to what we consider to be of value within the apprenticeship
system. If you look at the Adult Learning Inspectorate report
of November and, indeed, the statistics from the LSC, the proportion
of young people who fully complete their apprenticeships is rising
dramatically and needs to go further, but what worries us, however,
is there are a lot of other things that apprentices gain of real
significance and success even though they may not complete the
apprenticeship which can be in some sectors because the apprentices
are pregnant or they change jobs. There are lots of reasons why
they move somewhere else which are not negative. Our concern is
that the apprenticeship programme was wanting to get as many people
through to full completion as possible but it also enabled a lot
of youngsters, especially those who struggled at school, to get
their basic skills, to get a technical certificate, to get an
NVQ that is of tremendous value and counts as success elsewhere
in the broad sector, but these do not count, it is all or nothing.
That is where our concern is.
Q404 Chairman: An apprenticeship
traditionally does not have a qualification linked to it, does
it?
Mr Hoyle: Not the original ones.
If you go back before the reinvention of modern apprenticeships
in 1994, they were wholly owned and wholly funded by employers.
That is not where we are now. We have very, very considerable
public expenditure, £800 million a year or thereabouts, and
what has come with that investment, which is welcome, is an expectation
that elements of the apprenticeship will include key skills as
mandatory, a complete NVQ 2 or 3, a technical certificate. What
you have had introduced in the last 10 years with the government
expenditure investment has been a series of mandatory elements
not chosen by the employers. You have got a mixed economy within
the apprenticeships and it has to be evaluated differently. What
we are saying is, having done that, let us count and give real
credit to the young people for achieving all the elements. That
is where our main concern is. We believe they are successful and
will continue to get more successful.
Q405 Dr Blackman-Woods: I think that
is fine and that has helped. You say that a lot of young people
cannot get access to apprenticeships so they go into other work-based
learning routes. Is there a problem with them doing that? Is it
an issue of branding, that they are doing other qualifications
and work-based learning that they do not recognise as an apprenticeship
and perhaps we need to do something about the branding?
Mr Hoyle: Can I kick this off
and I am going to ask Martin, who is heavily involved in this
issue in his organisation, to come in. What concerns us at the
present time is as the quality of apprenticeships goes up, and
there is a level of funding constraints in there—I do not
want to get on to funding too much but it is a pretty critical
issue—as young people are staying on longer, drawing down
more money to completion, and providers are becoming more selective,
making sure they have picked the youngsters who will complete
the course, you are getting a smaller programme. That is happening
now. That is happening as we sit here during this year and we
are doing some work with our members to try to ascertain the size
of it. It will not have hit the official figures yet but the programme
at the moment is contracting. What concerns us is the young people
who want to get on to apprenticeships but cannot and what is going
to happen to them because we are really worried that they are
going to be pushed down to the Entry to Employment or a programme
in a college and that is going to squeeze the people at the bottom
end, the people who are most at risk for whom these alternative
preparation courses were designed. We are seriously worried that
there is pressure down the bottom of the line and the people most
in need are going to be floating around the bottom and leave the
quality training game. That is our concern, but you operate in
this area, Martin.
Mr Dunford: That was a full answer
given the limited time, Chairman.
Q406 Chairman: So what is the bottleneck?
Is it funding or is it lack of placements, or both?
Mr Hoyle: To be honest, in certain
areas lack of placements is an issue and has been throughout and
in some industries it is still difficult, and it would be wrong
for me not to acknowledge that, but that is not what I just described.
What I just described was the fact we are going to move to a situation
where there are placements and youngsters who wish to take them
up who will not be allowed to, they will not be selected or whatever,
and our concern is what happens to them until they are able to—
Q407 Chairman: Why will they not
be, because of the high rate of drop-out?
Mr Hoyle: Because of the increased
selectivity on the part of providers who are going to make sure—
Q408 Chairman: The percentage of
failure is quite alarming in some apprenticeships, is it not?
Mr Hoyle: It depends on your definition
of the word "failure", Chairman.
Q409 Chairman: If someone said to
me there was a 10 or 20% failure rate in terms of failing to complete
apprenticeships I would be concerned, but we are talking much
higher rates than that, are we not?
Mr Hoyle: The full completion
level is now pushing 50%. Eighteen months ago it was a third.
That is a massive increase. You have got to understand what is
happening with the other 50%. The other 50%, for the most part,
are changing jobs. We would love them to stay in that job and
complete the training period, that is the aspiration.
Q410 Chairman: Has that analysis
been done? Is that anecdotal or do we know that for a fact?
Mr Dunford: If I can come in there.
The research into success of measures and work that the LSC have
done we believe was prompted by the Association of Learning Providers
where we gave talks at the LSDA summer conference back in summer
2002 and it was picked up by the press. Basically this alluded
to these types of issues. What we have to remember is that people
on apprenticeships are learning at work as opposed to being at
college or school or whatever where the prime focus is learning
and the qualification. That may be the case with traditional apprenticeships,
say at British Aerospace or whatever, but in the service sector,
for example, which is the expanding sector in terms of employment,
that is not the case. There is not a tradition of learning and
so on. There had been no analysis at all on staff turnover so
we did some through the Institute of Personnel Management which
showed—these figures have been bandied around like Digby
Jones' 23 billion for at least five years and the LSC have picked
them up now—56% staff turnover in retail, 52% in hospitality
across all ages and higher in the younger age group. There is
that issue. The trouble is this always sounds like excuses. If
framework achievement in a sector is on average 35%, and that
is pretty poor, whilst you bash everyone that this is rubbish
at 35%, it means you are not picking out the organisations that
are getting 40 or 50 and those that are getting five or 10. That
is my main point, we need some sophisticated measurement. If somebody
is getting 40 or 50% framework achievement in hospitality, for
example, that means they are very good at it. As a member of the
general public that does not sound very good, does it, 40 or 50%.
It also means there are people at the 5 or 10% end, although the
LSC and ALI are moving away from that between them. For example,
in London it is very difficult to get successful apprenticeships.
My success rates in my organisation in Central London are not
nearly as good as anywhere else and we put that down to staff
turnover.
Q411 Dr Blackman-Woods: Given the
turnover in some sectors that you have described, how realistic
is it to expect employers to put more money into apprenticeships,
which is clearly what we need if it is going to expand?
Mr Dunford: These are the big
questions you get to when you start to examine this and the LSC
say it is for the SSC to come up with a framework that suits the
particular industry. At least they are starting to talk about
frameworks now and maybe changing them, but people have been saying
this for two or three years and the frameworks are just the same.
Q412 Dr Blackman-Woods: Do we need
some further work on this to fully understand?
Mr Dunford: I think so. The level
of analysis is almost emotional. It is an average of 50% or 40%
and is it not poor, whereas in some sectors the average might
be 70%, and then you get benchmark figures and targets maybe for
that sector which are if you achieve 50% you are doing well because
of the danger of averaging.
Q413 Mr Marsden: I wonder if I could
just press you a bit further, Martin. I am very interested in
what you were saying, not least because in somewhere like Blackpool
hospitality issues in terms of training are very important, as
indeed are stay-on rates and turnover. In the paper that you submitted
you bang the drum, and you have banged it again today, for work-based
learning and that makes me want to ask you the following question:
you heard in the previous session the concerns of us on the Committee
about the engagement of SMEs with training and you also heard
my particular concerns about older employees getting training.
Is there a particular role for your sector in terms of meeting
those needs in the future, say over the next five to 10 years?
If so, what does Government need to do more to enable you to do
it?
Mr Dunford: I think there is.
We are just starting an adult apprenticeship pilot at the moment
which is funded by Government for unemployed ethnic minority origin
people in IT. It is a very small programme of 30 people. It is
about engaging those people who otherwise perhaps would not go
to college or a traditional institution. Although we focused a
lot on employers and contestability, on that side of things, one
of the points we want to get across is we can do so much more,
and your question alludes to this. For example, for adults in
traditional basic skills and employability skills, we have argued
that key skills, for example, within apprenticeships should be
called employability skills because we would all be able to understand
what everyone is talking about much more. Choice of provider is
not just about quality, how many people read all the Ofsted reports
or whatever before they make a decision? It is about location,
mode of work, "Are you open 51 weeks of the year? Are you
able to take me? I want to come and do the learning? Is it a nice
friendly environment? What is the success rate?" It is very
much about customer service, like any market should be. In my
own organisation, as I say, 19,000 enrolments on FE this year
nearly all at the basic skills end for adults and there is a huge
issue there. As to what Government should do about it, I just
do not think they have got enough money because part of the problem
is there are a lot of initiatives and a lot of statements about
what the Government wants to achieve but even last year with apprenticeships
a number of our providers were not fully funded.
Q414 Mr Marsden: You do not think
it is that money is being wasted because of duplication of initiatives?
Mr Dunford: It could be, and I
think there is a lot of deadweight as well, but that is a personal
opinion. Someone talked before about the Government funding things
and then spending the money back, and a lot of apprenticeships
are delivered in the Navy, the Army, the forces and some very
large PLCs. There is nothing wrong with that, but if money is
really tight, like any business if you what to target a particular
sector, be that SMEs, be it adults with basic skills needs, you
have to be very clear about how you market it and what you allow
to be funded and what you do not allow to be funded. With ILAs,
which most of our members were never involved in, the policy intent
was basic skills for people below Level 2. What led that was the
one million participation target, so they got the ILAs from whatever
routes they could get and there were adverts in the Sunday
Times every week for copy editing and all the rest of it and
get your ILA. In other words, there was a clear policy intent
from ministers but the target took over, in my view.
Chairman: Stephen has been very patient
indeed this afternoon.
Q415 Stephen Williams: I would like
to ask you some questions about the role of the Learning Skills
Council, the Department for Education and Skills, the Government
in general and the relationship between the three. When Andrew
Foster was before us he said there needed to be a more trusting
relationship between the DfES and the LSC, which rather implied
that he did not think there was much of a trusting relationship
between the two at the moment, and essentially there needed to
be less micro-management perhaps by the Department of the LSC
at a local level. Do you agree with that general assessment?
Mr Dunford: I am not sure how
much micro-management does go on at the local level. As I say,
looking forward, I think a hell of a lot of things have changed
and through his bureaucracy review group where he made the same
point about the relationship between the DfES and the LSC and
the Foster review of FE, it seems to me, because we do not work
in the LSC so we do not experience it, things are improving. As
I said in earlier remarks, we very much welcome agenda for
change. There are elements of detail we will work through
with the LSC but it seems to me the only way of implementing the
fundamental tenets of the Act. It was quite amazing how for the
first three or four years the people who worked in the LSC did
not seem to know what the policy intent of forming the LSC away
from FEFC and the 72 TECs was, they just behaved as if they were
bits of both as opposed to this organisation to create demand
and also purchase from a mixed learning economy.
Q416 Stephen Williams: Do you have
any suggestions as to how the relationship between DfES and the
Learning and Skills Council should develop in the future?
Mr Dunford: Graham you meet the
officials more than I do.
Mr Hoyle: I think the issue here
is for those two organisations to establish a greater clarity
about where their respective responsibilities start and finish.
I can remember discussions before the LSC was set up, where people
were arguing that the big problem was going to be the tension
between the national LSC and its local offices. That was a real
issue and has now been resolved, I think. I always felt, and said
at the time, the bigger issue was going to be the relationship
between the DfES and the LSC. I think Foster was quite right to
say that needs to be clarified. Policy is going to stay within
the DfES because of the ministerial involvement in that, quite
rightly, and although £10 billion makes the LSC a very powerful
organisation, at the end of the day overall policy and direction
has got to stay with the DfES. It would be unwise for the LSC
to start delving into that. Similarly, having set up the policy,
if you are going to set up an organisation and give them £10
billion to deliver, then you ought to allow them a fair amount
of freedom to deliver within policy parameters. That sounds pretty
logical and one would argue probably should have happened. I think
what Sir Andrew tripped over was the fact that clarity is not
yet there. That is as an observer from the sidelines. If that
is a major problem, and if Sir Andrew says it was he obviously
found it to be the case, the quicker it is resolved, the better.
Q417 Stephen Williams: Mr Dunford,
you just welcomed the agenda for change, the Learning Skills
Council's own proposals, their own restructuring, and previous
witnesses have done that as well. Do you think it goes far enough?
They have gone through several restructurings since they were
set up, do you think they have got it right now at last?
Mr Dunford: I do not fully understand
that because there has not been much talk about the 148 local
groups. As I understand it, that sounds quite good. Probably the
previous local was not local enough, but too small for the back
office functions of finance directors, operations directors and
so on, so we welcome the regionalisation agenda on one end and
it remains to be seen about the local. For example, I work in
Tower Hamlets, Barking and Dagenham, Brixton and so on, do you
get a much more local focus rather than the whole of East London
or Central London? If that happens, I do welcome it.
Q418 Stephen Williams: Another thing
that Sir Andrew Foster developed when he was here giving evidence
was this concept of FE being seen as a sector on its own between
broadly a schooling and HE and skills spread across the three,
I suppose spread more thickly in FE. He recommended the national
learning model in order to bring some sort of coherence to the
whole and also to explain how the Government allocates its funding.
Do you think there is any merit in a national learning model?
Mr Hoyle: I am not quite sure
if this is the point you are asking. One thing I am quite clear
about is that although Sir Andrew looked primarily at further
education colleges, I think his report made it quite clear that
he was still trying to get into the whole of the sector. He did
not want to use the word sector, as I recall from some of the
paragraphs, I cannot remember what word he used now. Certainly
we would go along with that, that we do need to move away from
FE equals colleges equals one part or their sixth-form colleges,
which are really quite different. There are work-based learning
providers, there is community learning, mainly within local authorities.
We have got to start moving away from these subsets and trying
to think they may be different and in opposition to each other
and describing much more of a comprehensive flexible sector. If
that is what he was after, then we would support that entirely
and move away from these subsets. Also then, lumping them all
together and getting wrong comparabilities, we have alluded to
some of those things earlier on in the discussions.
Q419 Stephen Williams: Mr Dunford,
you were on his advisory group, presumably you have got more of
an insight into what he was after.
Mr Dunford: If he means that what
he is after is we get rid of some of the examples I am about to
describe where you can be a provider to the LSC for, for example,
entry to employment apprenticeships but you cannot for FE provision
in ESL or basic skills, so you have to subcontract it to a college,
this is quite dangerous, in fact, because when the pressure on
the adult budget occurs—which has happened this year—what
the colleges do, some of them, not all—maybe I would do
the same if I was running one—is put institution first,
learner second, and they drop most of these subcontract arrangements
with perfectly good providers. I made 60 people redundant over
the summer because some of the FE colleges we have worked with
have just stopped the provision and its target bearing basic skills,
adult provision which the Government wants and the LSC wants and
in the end the LSC failed to intervene. If anything, they need
more power to be able to do that, but they are extremely sympathetic
that provision should continue. I know this has gone on in Derby,
for example. Their intention was the 12 partners they work with
they would terminate immediately on hearing about their budget.
I think there was some movement after that, including with ourselves.
That was what happened. You can be delivering what the LSC and
the Government wants, basic skills and adults, and lose it all.
This is why the contestability issue and the implementation of
the act is so important, which makes it really very clear that
sort of thing should not happen.
|
