Memorandum submitted by GoSkills
INTRODUCTION
GoSkills is the Sector Skills Council
for Passenger Transport. Our remit covers the following industries:
bus, coach, taxi, private hire, community transport, driving instruction,
rail, light rail, tram, airports, ground handlers, airlines and
transport planning. This response to the Education and Skills
Committee's New Inquiries into Skills is provided in the context
of the passenger transport sector and reflects the situation faced
by employers in the sector.
Our responses to each of the questions raised
follow.
POST-16 SKILLS TRAINING
CONTEXT
What should we take from the Leitch Report on
UK skills gaps? What are the demographic issues which need to
be taken into account in skills policy?
From a perspective of the Passenger Transport,
the key issue is more one of skills shortages rather than skills
gaps. Our industries know that they have much more to do in terms
of attracting into employment a workforce drawn from a wider demographic
than currently.
As regards skills gaps, operators have an interest
in a workforce with good employability skills including basic
skills. There is some evidence that jobs involving foreign languages
are being offered selectively to foreign nationals.
Are the measures that we have available to assess
the success of skills strategy robust?
Although qualifications area reasonable proxy
for skills there is perhaps a need to support such measures with
an agreed national methodology for the measurement of productivity
gain through skills acquisition should implemented to provide
robust benchmarking data.
NATIONAL POLICY/ISSUES
Are the Government's priorities for skills broadly
correct—for example, the focus on first "level 2"
qualifications?
Level 2 is the threshold for employability and
is therefore critical to all industries and to all individuals.
The priorities in relation to level 2, Skills for Life and apprenticeships
are broadly correct for our sector. We welcome the Leitch Report's
recognition of a "wage premium" for level 2 NVQs assessed
in the workplace.
However, the focus on "first" in relation
to the level 2 target is problematic for a number of reasons:
— there is a significant difference
between pre-employment level 2 qualifications and work-based qualifications.
Five GCSEs (particularly where the five exclude English and Maths)
do not contribute to employability. It would be more appropriate
to enable some individuals (eg those without a level 3 qualification)
to access a first vocational/occupational qualification at level
2 even where they have already achieved five GCSEs;
— there is an ageing workforce and
we are increasingly reliant on the development and re-development
of the existing workforce. The restriction to "first"
level 2 can present a barrier to older individuals who have changed
careers or who have previously obtained level 2 qualifications
that do not contribute to their employability or current job role;
and
— there is an ageism factor in that
the level 2 entitlement is more likely to benefit younger people.
This can also put employers in a difficult position if they are
only able to offer training to younger employees who do not hold
a level 2 qualification, particularly where a group of individuals
of different enter employment at the same time. It is possible
that this situation will deter some employers from offering any
training leading to qualifications at all.
How do other targets, such as the "50% into
HE" fit with the wider skills agenda?
The great majority of job roles within the passenger
transport sector are at level 2 with some at level 3. Although
there are some higher level job roles (eg in engineering, transport
planning, air traffic control and operational management), the
50% target has limited relevance to the sector. Operators are
showing increasing interest in Foundation Degrees as a route for
upskilling employees.
What is the extent of joined-up working between
Government departments, particularly, the DfES and the Department
for Work and Pensions?
We welcome the Leitch Report's emphasis on the
integration of employment and training.
Do current funding structures support a more responsive
skills training system? How could they be improved?
The current arrangements for public funding
of work-based learning have failed the passenger transport sector.,
The Sector represents c3% of total national
employment yet attracts less than 0.3% of total LSC funding for
sector-specific skills.
The current funding structures are quite rigid
and are therefore not particularly responsive. The emphasis on
targets such as level 2 drive funding and qualifications. This
is particularly problematic for SMEs and the self-employed (the
latter frequently found in taxi and PHV driving) who do not always
find the approved qualifications and training appropriate and
who also have difficulty in accessing funding.
We welcome the Leitch Report's recommendation
that all public funding for work-based learning should go either
through Train to Gain (for employers) or through reformed individual
learning accounts.
Is the balance between the public, employers'
and individuals' contribution to learning appropriate?
In the passenger transport sector the bulk of
skills funding is provided by employers. Very little support is
available from the public purse. And it is the norm in passenger
transport for driving skills to be funded entirely by the employer
rather than the individual, as is the case in the LGV industry.
We believe that Train to Gain should develop
in practise into the holistic offer it already is on paper; that
is, the basic skills and level 2 entitlements (as reformed-see
our comments on the question relating to the existing level 2
entitlement above) should be delivered free of charge but employers
must expect to make a financial contribution towards the achievement
of higher level qualifications. There needs to be a clearer integration
of business support and skills brokerage and an agreed national
methodology for the measurement of productivity gain through skills
acquisition should be agreed and implemented to provide robust
benchmarking data.
SUPPLY SIDE
Is there a case for a less regulated supply-side
system with fewer intermediary agencies and bodies? What are the
potential risks and benefits of such an approach?
There is a buoyant private training provider
industry. These providers survive by selling training that employers
are prepared to pay for. However, there are no quality checks
on these providers and the provision is not always tied to national
occupational standards. Employers are, to a certain extent, at
the mercy of the providers as they have limited opportunities
to assess or judge quality.
Publicly funded provision is quality assured
and embraces qualifications agreed by employers on a national
basis. These benefits could be lost if the supply side were less
regulated. Leitch has recommended that SSCs accredit qualifications
and that only these are eligible for public funding. We welcome
this. However, it is essential that there continues to be national
regulation of qualifications eligible for public funding in the
interests of a level playing field between sectors, industries,
employers and awarding bodies.
What do national and regional agencies currently
do well? How are bodies such as the Regional Skills Partnerships
working?
We recognise the criticisms of the complexity
of the skills landscape made by Leitch. We are puzzled that no
clear prescription was offered, although an inference might be
drawn in relation to his comments on the London Skills and Employment
Board and its meaning for the London RSP.
Does the LSC need to be the subject of further
reform?
The impact of the recent reforms is not yet
clear. It would be advisable to assess the impact of the recent
reforms and the proposals in Leitch prior to considering further
reform.
What is the typical experience of a college or
other provider who wants to put on new provision in response to
local employer demand?
Colleges and other providers are free to offer
training commercially. Where the cost of the training is covered
by the purchaser, colleges and other providers are able to move
quickly to deliver the required training.
Do we need to consider any further structural
reforms in terms of which institutions provide what kind of learning?
DEMAND SIDE
Employers:
What should a "demand-led" system really
look like?
We shall be getting very close to a demand-led
system were the Leitch Report to be implemented in full.
Do employers feel like they are shaping
skills training—for example through Sector Skills Councils?
Employers in the passenger transport sector
have engaged with the skills agenda and contributed extensively
to the development of our emerging Sector Skills Agreement. However,
employers are often frustrated when they seek to access public
funding and discover that this is driven by national priorities
rather than their own company needs. Additionally, the current
training infrastructure offers limited opportunities to the sector
and again it can be frustrating for employers when they are unable
to find the right training. For example, there are no Centres
of Vocational Excellence specifically for the bus and coach industries
as the criteria adopted by LSC or their designation make it a
difficult model to apply to these industries.
Do employers feel closely involved with the design
of qualifications?
Employers in the passenger transport sector
are positive about their involvement in qualification design.
There are, of course, differences in employers' requirements and
therefore there is an ongoing need for negotiation with awarding
bodies.
Should employers be further incentivised to take
up training? If so, by what means?
Incentivising employers through the modalities
suggested by Leitch will be problematic in passenger transport.
Although a case for a compulsory levy is strong in those industries
where self-employment is the norm (taxi, private hire and driving
instruction), the notion would be resisted buy most trades bodies,
although welcomed by most of the regulators. There is no case
in the rest of the sector, whose training record is for the most
part creditable. Licence to Practise has been overtaken by existing
or forthcoming European legislation on licensing of certificates
of professional competence. There is little appetite from a highly
regulated sector which funds much of its own skills requirement
for Skills Academies. More realistic incentives would be a voluntary
levy in the form of a membership scheme delivering tangible benefits
to employers and individuals, coupled with the development of
amore integrated Train to Gain scheme (see our comments above).
GoSkills plans to introduce such a membership scheme early
in 2007.
DELNI has recently consulted on the benefits
of incentivising employers to offer apprenticeships. There is
a case for doing this in England as well, particularly to support
SMEs in developing their internal capacity to support apprenticeships.
It may also be appropriate to consider this in the context of
first level 2 qualifications, particularly if new criteria result
in larger, less-occupationally specific qualifications.
However, please see comments above in relation
to the potential negative impact of restricting funding to "first"
level 2s.
What is the role of Union Learning Reps?
We see an important role for ULRs in relation
to work-based learning in partnership with employers and SSCs.
It is essential that SSCs, as strategic bodies, work closely with
UnionLearn and ULRs, as well as with employers. We recommend the
close involvement of ULRs in the rollout of Sector Skills Agreements.
We plan to hold a joint conference with the TUC on our Sector
Skills Agreement.
What roles should employment agencies play in
facilitating training?
Learners:
What is the typical experience of someone looking
for skills training?
What information, advice and guidance is available
to potential learners?
What is available for those with the very lowest
skill levels, who are outside of education, training and the world
of employment?
What is the role of the new Learner Accounts?
What factors should be considered in their design and implementation?
APPRENTICESHIPS
What should apprenticeships look like? How close
are they currently to this vision?
Employers have different requirements from apprenticeships
but most employers in the passenger transport sector welcome an
industry-wide framework.
Employers value the NVQ and also the technical
certificate components as these are seen as developing a broad
range of understanding and skills. There is currently no negative
feedback on the existing frameworks.
What parts of the current apprenticeship framework
are seen as valuable by learners and by employers, and which less
so? Is there a case for reform of the framework?
Generally the NVQ is viewed as the most valuable
component of the framework with Key Skills usually viewed as the
least valuable. The issues around Key Skills usually relate to
the difficulty in aligning Key Skills requirements to specific
job roles.
The current "Apprenticeship as a Qualification"
project is not being well received in the sector. Employers are
keen to have a period of stability. Many have developed internal
systems to support the current framework and are not keen to undertake
potentially costly revisions. Additionally, partnerships between
providers and employers are working well with all parties clear
on their contribution.
Are the number of places available appropriate,
and in the right areas, and at the right level?
Most of the apprenticeships undertaken in the
sector are undertaken via employers who hold National Contracts
with the LSC. Large employers have not identified any difficulties.
The major issues for the sector are in relation
to the lack of training provision available. This means that those
employers who are unable to establish and run apprenticeship schemes
themselves are not able to access appropriate provision. GoSkills
is working with training providers (particularly CoVEs) to
try and improve provision and then to raise employer demand for
the new provision.
What is the current success rate for apprenticeships?
Apprenticeships are offered by larger employers
in the sector, with apprentices usually in paid employment. As
a result, completion rates are generally high— over 60%
across the sector and over 70% in some industries. This is significantly
higher than the national average for all sectors.
What can we learn from practice in other countries
with apprenticeship systems—ie Scotland and Wales?
Extension of the frameworks to adults will be
beneficial to the sector.
QUALIFICATIONS
Do the qualifications which are currently available
make sense to employers and learners?
Employers in the sector find the current system
straightforward. There are comparatively few qualifications for
the sector and most of the key qualifications have been designed
by employers.
Is the Qualifications and Credit Framework succeeding
in bringing about a rationalised system? Is there a case for further
rationalisation?
The QCF is likely to cause confusion. Employers
in the sector consider the current system to be flexible enough
and there is a general view that qualifications should not be
too flexible as too much flexibility can distort the focus and
aims of the qualification. Employers like to know what qualifications
mean and have a preference for sharply defined and focused qualifications.
It is unclear how the QCF will rationalise provision
as it is likely to create a proliferation of new units and pathways
through qualifications. There is no need for rationalisation of
qualifications for the passenger transport sector.
14-19 SPECIALISED DIPLOMAS
DESIGN AND
DEVELOPMENT OF
DIPLOMAS
What progress has been made on the development
of Diplomas to date? Where have been the sticking points?
GoSkills is a partner in the Engineering
Diploma Development Partnership led by SEMTA. We will convene
the DDP in Travel and Tourism.
Considerable progress has been made in engaging
employers in the development of the Diplomas. The content for
the new Diplomas has been discussed with employers and feedback
from employers has had a significant impact on content.
The sticking points have been primarily in relation
to decisions around assessment and ownership. Much of the initial
development work on content was carried out by SSCs prior to decisions
by QCA on the assessment model. Some SSCs including ourselves
reported their concerns over the possible consequences of this
planning flaw to SSDA at an early stage. Although content was
provided, it was not in the format required for assessment and
this meant that some work had to be re-visited. This will obviously
not be the case for the later Diplomas as the learning from the
first phase will inform the work on later Diplomas.
What role have employers and Sector Skills Councils
played in the development of Diplomas?
Sector Skills Councils have contributed to employer
engagement and the development of content: GoSkills has
been involved in the Engineering Diploma. We have liaised with
employers in the rail, bus and coach industries to secure their
input into the project. As well as involvement via the DDP and
Diploma specific consultations, we have worked through our network
of Regional Business Advisors to ensure that employers have had
numerous opportunities to comment and have received regular updates.
As a result of engagement with employers on
the Engineering Diploma and via our ongoing work to raise awareness
of the new Diplomas, we have secured support for the Diplomas
in the sector. GoSkills will be co-ordinating the development
of the Travel and Tourism Diploma from January 2007 and we have
already generated interest and support throughout the sector.
Who is responsible for the co-ordination and development
of Diplomas? Is there a case for a stronger co-ordinating role
for one of the agencies involved, or for the appointment of a
senior responsible officer or champion?
Co-ordination has been an issue throughout the
development. Whilst the multi-agency approach is beneficial in
securing support, it also creates confusion around responsibilities.
There is a case for one of the agencies being allocated a lead
role. This lead role should extend to the ongoing review and revision
of Diplomas.
Is there a clear system for accrediting and awarding
the Diplomas?
This process is still evolving.
TEACHER AND
LECTURER TRAINING
What are current levels of teacher/lecturer training
activity in preparation for Diplomas? Is this sufficient to make
Diplomas a success?
We have no comments to make on this and the
succeeding questions.
CO-ORDINATION
BETWEEN SCHOOLS
AND COLLEGES
What is the current level of co-ordination between
colleges and schools in local areas?
What are the barriers to co-ordination?
What are the lessons that can be learned from
areas where there is strong co-ordination on 14-19?
What are intermediary bodies such as LAs and LSCs
doing to foster co-operation?
How engaged are head teachers and college principals
in the Diploma agenda?
How are the rules on post-16 expansion likely
to affect the rollout of Diplomas?
January 2007
| 
