|
The publication of the two Skills Strategy White Papers, the Further Education White Paper, and the commissioning of the Leitch Report represent a heightened policy interest in skills. The Committee commends the Government for its sustained focus on skills. It is vital that this policy focus is continued within the new Departmental structure, and that higher education is not allowed to dominate the work of the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills.
Skills and prosperity—a fundamental link?
We nevertheless raise a number of concerns about the direction of current policy. The Government's approach to skills is one predicated on a direct relationship between prosperity—both social and economic—and skills. Our evidence suggests that skills are only part of a very complex equation, and simply boosting training will not necessarily lead to increased prosperity—particularly in economic terms. What is needed is more coherent support for employers to develop their businesses as a whole, addressing skills needs alongside other issues such as capital investment, innovation and workforce planning. This should be coupled with a much stronger focus on management skills than is currently the case.
Improving the national stock of qualifications has been a central aim of skills policy—and Lord Leitch's ambitions are also framed in these terms. However, an increased national stock of qualifications will not necessarily be an accurate indicator of an increased national stock of skills. What is more, the tying of funding to courses leading to full qualifications goes directly against what many employers and individuals say would be of most benefit to them—'bite-sized' learning that can be built up over time. The new Qualifications and Credit Framework, which makes it possible to accumulate units over time is very welcome, but needs also to be accompanied by more flexible, responsive funding.
A coherent skills system?
The current infrastructure for delivering the Government's ambitions for skills is extremely complicated, and there is still significant work to be done to minimise overlaps between different intermediary bodies, reducing inefficiency and duplication of effort. A comprehensive review to map functions and funding flows across agencies is needed, as is a thorough value-for-money analysis of the system as a whole. This need not necessarily pave the way for further major institutional upheaval, but would allow evidence-based improvements and the release of resources over a period of time to tackle skill needs more effectively.
The system also often appears highly complex from a user perspective. Comprehensive adult Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) is vital, but many people have little or no access to it. We therefore warmly welcome the Leitch Report's proposals to improve the system of adult IAG, through the Learndirect brand, and the Government's response. The Leitch Report is the most recent in a very long line of reviews identifying significant weaknesses in the IAG system and so it is essential that the Government demonstrates absolute commitment to remedying this situation as a matter of urgency.
A demand-led system?
The Government's overarching ambition is move toward a system that is increasingly 'demand-led', meaning that what is provided in terms of skills training should meet the expressed needs of employers and individuals, as opposed to what it is most convenient for providers to offer. High expectations and significant resources are being attached to Train to Gain programme to realise this. While welcome in principle, Train to Gain cannot be described as truly 'demand-led', given the strict constraints on what is currently fundable.
We are particularly concerned by some of the evidence we have received on Train to Gain brokerage, which raises questions about quality and suggests that in some cases brokers may be succeeding only in adding an extra, unwelcome layer of bureaucracy to the process. Key partners—including some colleges—appear unconvinced by the substantial reliance on the current Train to Gain model. We are also concerned that much of what is funded under Train to Gain might otherwise be paid for by employers themselves.
It is crucial that funding of the skills 'infrastructure'—including brokers—is carefully targeted and demonstrably adding value. The Government and the LSC need to make explicit the criteria by which they are assessing the work of Train to Gain brokers and the steps they are taking to ensure value for money in this area.
Sector Skills Councils are presented as another key part of a demand-led mechanism, but they face real challenges in representing the views and needs of very diverse sectors, and of small and medium-sized employers in particular. Some also face capacity issues, especially regarding their ability to engage at local and regional levels. As such, they are unlikely to serve as an alternative to direct engagement between providers and businesses locally; the development of these sorts of relationships must be the subject of continued support and encouragement from Government.
Finally, but perhaps most importantly of all, is the issue of raising, not simply responding better to, demand from employers and individuals. Supply-side reforms are only likely to succeed if accompanied by sustained attention to the issue of increasing individuals' and employers' commitment to learning.
| 
