Select Committee on Education and Skills Ninth Report


2  A coherent skills system?

A welcome policy focus on skills

4. The Government's Skills Strategy was launched in July 2003, with the publication of 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential.[1] This was followed in March 2005 by a White Paper, Skills: Getting on in Business, Getting on at Work.[2] Both documents had two central themes: firstly, increasing national skill levels to improve economic and social prospects, and secondly, making skills provision more responsive to the needs of employers and individuals.

5. In November 2006, HM Treasury published Lord Sandy Leitch's Review (hereafter the Leitch Report) of future skill needs to 2020. This recommended the establishment of more ambitious qualification targets—for example, reaching 90% of adults qualified to at least level two (up from 69% in 2005). It also recommended strengthening of so-called 'demand-led' mechanisms—for example, bolstering the role of Sector Skills Councils and a further roll-out of the Train to Gain scheme.[3] On Wednesday 18 July, the Government published its response to the Leitch Report in the form of the document World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England, which constituted a formal acceptance of the majority of the report's recommendations.[4]

6. 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 this area. It is imperative that in the new Departmental structure, skills policy remains a central concern and that higher education is not allowed to dominate. A premium should also be placed on joined-up working between the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, particularly considering that overall 14-19 policy and funding falls within the remit of the former, but apprenticeship funding will sit with the latter.

The National Skills Strategy and the Leitch Report

Skills and prosperity—a fundamental link?

7. A central premise of Government skills policy to date, which Leitch endorses, is that improved skills, signalled by an increased national stock of qualifications, will lead to increased prosperity—both for individuals and for business. However, many of those from whom we have taken evidence have suggested that the link—while probably present—is not as straightforward as it may seem; in the case of workplaces, it is clear that much depends both on how effectively skills are used in the workplace and how effectively skills development is tied to wider workforce development and other business sustainability issues- for example, investment in capital projects and research and design. John Philpott of the Chartered Institute for Personnel Development told us:

"There is one way forward, and this comes back to [the need for …] broadening the public policy debate beyond skills and qualifications per se to more of a workplace development strategy […]. I do not feel that we have really got that far in the public policy conversation on this. Certainly, Leitch, whether you like it or not, has not taken us much further down that road than we have been for many years."[5]

Similarly, Professor Ewart Keep of SKOPE argued:

"The […] thing that is missing completely from Leitch is anything to do with economic development and tying upskilling and economic development together. It is very interesting, in the Leitch final report, in 195 pages, that the RDAs get a single mention, and that single mention is to do with skills forecasting, it is not to do with economic development […]. I think that one of the biggest weaknesses we have is our inability to get skills policies aligned more closely with how we think about economic development, because until we do a lot of the money we invest in upskilling probably will be wasted, because it will not be used properly in the workplace. I think Leitch actually is quite misleading and an awful lot of effort will go into chasing targets, which we can meet but will not transform the economy necessarily."[6]

8. The relationship between skills and prosperity is more complex than is acknowledged in recent skills strategy documents or in the Leitch Report. Proceeding down a policy route which treats skills as an 'independent variable' is unlikely to lead to the hoped for levels of economic prosperity and sustainability. What is urgently needed is support for employers to develop their businesses as a whole, addressing skills needs alongside wider sustainability issues such as capital investment, innovation and workforce planning. Colleges and other providers should be further encouraged to develop more comprehensive support for their local businesses. Also needed is a stronger focus on developing management skills per se—an area our witnesses have identified as particularly weak in the UK and largely neglected to date in policy.

9. The Government's stated aim is to raise skill and qualification levels, in order to increase prosperity; in recent policy documents the two often appear to be seen as one and the same. The Leitch report continues this trend, quantifying future ambitions for skills in terms of the national stock of qualifications. Such an approach has historically resulted in policy priorities which skew funding and provision toward 'full qualifications'—something that has concerned very many of those from whom we took evidence, including the 157 Group of Colleges, who told us: "the largest single complaint from employers [is] that unless they sign up their staff for a full qualification then they can receive no funding support."[7] Currently, a new credit-based Qualifications and Curriculum Framework is being piloted: this aims to provide a framework for 'bite-sized' chunks of learning, which can be built up into recognised qualifications over time. The Qualifications and Curriculum Agency say one of the benefits of such a system will be that "employers who might not need the full skills portfolio offered by a particular qualification, can offer relevant units to their employees who can gain credit in a nationally recognised system and contribute to their 'learner achievement record'."[8]

10. Several of those submitting evidence also argued that not only could focusing on full qualifications distort what was provided but also could lead to an inaccurate measure of 'progress'. Alan Wells, formerly Director of the Basic Skills Agency, told us that in his experience, qualifications were sometimes being used to certify existing skills (in literacy and numeracy in this case) and that the process was therefore one of 'target-chasing':

"Using qualifications gained leads to double counting. Furthermore, there is some evidence that adults who had few if any difficulties with literacy and/or numeracy but have taken the National Tests in Literacy and/or Numeracy are counted as 'no longer in need' in claims made for the success of Skills for Life […] this is supported by the recent report by the National Audit Office [NAO] that found that the data system for assessing progress towards achieving the aim of the Strategy […] is 'not fit for purpose'. It was one of only 5 Government targets of the 53 reviewed by the NAO that was awarded a 'red traffic light' symbol."[9]

11. The targeting of funding on particular kinds of full qualification-bearing courses makes it difficult for providers to offer the kinds of learning employers often say they want. While there may be clear reasons for maintaining a commitment to well-defined qualification-bearing courses—not least issues of quality and portability for employees—a more flexible way of targeting funding is needed urgently, allowing the accumulation of 'bite-sized' learning which can be built up into a portfolio over time. In this respect, the move toward a credit-based system is very welcome and should be accompanied by parallel changes in terms of what is fundable.

'LEVELS'

Currently, Government funding is focused at level two—notionally equivalent to five GCSEs at A*-C grades—which is identified as the "basic platform of skills for employability."[10] The Leitch Report analysis suggested that over time, the proportion of jobs requiring lower-level skills would decrease and so the focus should be shifted progressively to level three qualifications. This proposal has received a mixed response in the evidence we received. Many clearly felt that the focus on higher skill levels was sensible, with the Association of Colleges saying the Leitch Report "rightly focuses attention on the need for more people to have skills at Level 3 and 4."[11]

12. However, others have questioned Leitch's assessment that low-skilled jobs will virtually disappear in the near future, therefore questioning also to what extent it is appropriate to shift targets (and funding) toward higher-level skills. The Business Services Association told us:

"While we accept the broad thrust of the Leitch Report on raising skills levels to NVQ Level 3, we are firmly of the view that Government's focus on Level 2 qualifications is correct. The jobs currently being undertaken within the services sector are not going to go away; indeed it is often the case in this sector that Level 1 qualifications are the most appropriate, either as a first step into training or where the jobs concerned cannot be assessed against Level 2 criteria—the role of kitchen porter is a typical example. Within this sector it is unlikely that skills levels will progress to Level 3 within the timescale proposed in the Leitch Report. We are concerned that, if the qualification levels increase without a concomitant upgrade in the level of job undertaken—with appropriate increases in remuneration—employees will become disillusioned. This, in turn, would be counter-productive to the laudable aims of the Report."[12]

13. There also remains the question of how applicable nationally derived targets are likely to be at the local or sectoral level. Steven Broomhead of the North West Regional Development Agency told us:

"We have had quite a lot of discussion with our sponsoring department, the DTI, about this very issue. Each RDA has its own regional economic strategy and needs and, frankly, we need to reflect the fact that if there are different economic issues and needs there must be different sets of targets in different regions. Certainly, the employment and skills issues are very different in the North West from what they are in the North East. […] We need a system of variable geometry which also fits with targets. I think that we are now at a stage with the sub-national review being carried out by Government as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review where we can have a discussion about national and regional targets so we can have a much more appropriate set of arrangements than we have at the moment."[13]

14. A separate issue is that of possible unintended consequences for individuals who, for whatever reason, are very far from achieving at level two or three. Gareth Parry of Remploy told us:

"I think the targets in Leitch are so ambitious there is a danger that everybody will go for demonstrating progress towards those targets, and, therefore, there is a danger that the people who are most likely to achieve level two will be focused upon first and that those people who are further away will get forgotten about. If there is a longer-term strategy for that candidate group and that learning group, that is fine, but the danger is that everybody will rush towards the quick wins, if I can use the phrase, and that the people in need of most support will be so far behind over a period of time that there is too big a gap to catch up in due course."[14]

15. Predicting skills needs to 2020 is not a simple task—some would argue it is impossible to do with any degree of accuracy. It is imperative that policy decisions taken on the basis of the Leitch analysis are sufficiently flexible to accommodate a wide variety of skills requirements that are present at local and sectoral levels. Also, if the decision is taken to refocus in the long-term on level three, the rights of individuals who are still a very long way from this point must be protected, and the temptation to achieve 'quick wins' by rapidly 'qualifying' those near the threshold must be avoided.

16. The Government should also look urgently at the practicalities of introducing more provision at levels three and four, especially in light of evidence from London and the South East on the difficulties of establishing an acceptable level of cost-sharing between employers, individuals and the state. There also needs to be a recognition of the need for closer working at the regional and sub-regional levels with Regional Development Agencies, in order for differing local priorities to be met, and further devolution of funding to ensure sufficient flexibility to meet local needs.

ADULT LEARNING

17. In the context of discussions about priorities for funding, several witnesses raised with the issue of the contraction of non-qualification-bearing courses for adults and 'first steps' provision designed to entice people back into learning. NIACE told us:

"There is […] a gap in present provision to help people across the threshold into further education and training. There is considerable evidence that many adults need to develop their motivation and confidence before being ready to commit to a substantial course of study. Such work, which reached its high-point in Access to HE courses for adults but also included other outreach programmes is under threat as a result of LSC decisions about short-course funding. Arrangements to preserve some 'first steps' work within Personal and Community Development Learning is not an adequate solution."[15]

18. In our report on further education in 2006, we expressed grave concern about a likely loss of adult learning places as an unintended consequence of funding priorities.[16] NIACE estimated in May 2007 that around 500,000 fewer adults were learning in 2006-07 than in the previous year.[17] We believe the Government's promise to maintain current levels of expenditure on personal and community development learning, and on other 'first-step', non-qualification-bearing provision, falls far short of what is required and will do nothing to redress the recent substantial fall in the number of adults learning. We are particularly concerned about the potential negative impact on the most disadvantaged individuals, including disabled people and those with the very lowest level of skills. There needs to be an urgent review of how to best support the development of soft and enabling skills for older learners. This is important in promoting equity and equality, facilitating progression, and meeting the demanding targets Leitch and others have identified for 2020. The demographic situation is such that adult learning and up-skilling will be a very important means of meeting these targets.

19. We received similar evidence concerning the availability of English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) provision. John Stone, a former college Principal (now at the Learning and Skills Network) argued that in recent years, the focus on level two targets had led to some colleges cutting places:

"The figures at my old college, the cut next year is £1.4 million, they believe, and that is 1,000 ESOL learners, and we are talking about Somali women living at home, with no basic skills, who are completely isolated by their lack of English, with all that means for social cohesion. Currently they have the students, the demand led is there for that, and they have been asked essentially to replace that with a stretch target of an additional 450 Level 2 students for which currently they do not have demand. I think these are distortions you get when targets are set outside the system, in the Treasury, and then ripple down through the system and create what is an unintended effect. The Government does not want to hurt Somali women living at home but actually wants ESOL to be a priority; but this is the impact of a rigid target system."[18]

From September 2007, there will be no automatic entitlement to free ESOL classes, with fee remission only available automatically to individuals on means-tested benefits. Additonally, adult asylum seekers waiting for a decision on their claim will no longer be able to access free ESOL provision, except in cases where they have been waiting for a period longer than six months. One of the unintended consequences of level two targets appears to have been a contraction of ESOL provision in some areas; the new funding rules for September 2007 risk putting ESOL classes beyond the reach of some other individuals. This is deeply concerning and we urge the Government to review the funding arrangements for ESOL as a matter of urgency.

The skills 'system'

Too many intermediaries?

20. As part of our inquiry, we asked the National Audit Office to compile a 'map' of the organisations and bodies with roles in skills delivery and planning. This proved to be a complex task, resulting in five separate diagrams (printed as part of the written evidence for this inquiry). Throughout the inquiry, we have explored with witnesses whether the current system, viewed as a whole, makes sense and represents the best use of resources. Some expressed very strong views that this was absolutely not the case. The National Forum of Engineering Centres told us:

"Confusion reigns throughout the sector, so it is hardly surprising that the public does not understand who is doing what and why. The existence of so many intermediaries, LSC, HEFCE, QIA, Ofsted, LSN, SSCs, National Skills Academies, RDAs and myriad award bodies, is both evidence of the UK's lack of joined-up thinking, and a perpetuator of the system's blurred responsibilities and accountability. To give just one example, both LSC and HEFCE fund the Higher Apprenticeship framework, while quality assurance involves both Ofsted and QAA."[19]

21. One point made repeatedly was that while complexity may be to an extent inevitable, what was important was that organisations had clear and well-defined functions, as KPMG emphasised:

"A simplification of the whole education and training, skills and economic planning infrastructure is needed, so that the money available is used to greatest effect on tackling skills issues rather than supporting major infrastructural requirements in organisations where many roles and tasks overlap or compete."[20]

22. However, Professor Frank Coffield of the Institute of Education told us he did not think wholesale change was the solution:

"We do not have one coherent system; we have a sector which is unbelievably complex. The first and obvious conclusion I reached when I looked at it three years ago was that we needed simplification and rationalisation. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that more change would be a mistake. I think that a cost benefit analysis must take place before any further change is introduced to this sector […] every time you restructure you lose two to three years. You are diverted from the main tasks by the meeting of targets. I think that the heart of the system is teaching and learning. […] learners […] are supposedly the beneficiaries of all this public money. They are the people who are neglected. There is endless talk about the structures, roles and responsibilities of organisations, but what we should really be talking about is: how do the most disadvantaged learners get on in this sector?"[21]

23. We accept that a degree of organisational complexity in the skills system is unavoidable, but there is still work to be done to reduce overlaps between different bodies, and tackling the resulting inefficiency and duplication of effort. While the Leitch Report has addressed this issue in part, we believe there would be merit in a more comprehensive review to map functions and funding flows across agencies, along with a value-for-money analysis. This need not necessarily pave the way for further major institutional upheaval, but could assist in the process of making incremental, evidence-based improvements and releasing money over a period of time to tackle skill needs more effectively.

24. One area we have taken a particular interest in is the concept of Train to Gain brokers. Brokers are intended to mediate between employers (particularly, SMEs) and providers, matching training needs to what is available locally. While many praised the brokerage system in principle, there was concern that in some cases, brokers may simply be replicating the work providers would have carried out themselves, or were being employed 'after the event' as a formality, simply in order to draw down funding. Mariane Cavalli of Croydon College told us:

"We have got issues now, for example, where we are talking directly with employers who still want us to do courses and provide training for them, but we have to say 'Go to the brokers.' They [the employers] may come back through the broker system, they may not come back through the broker system.[…] There are very fundamental issues, on the capacity and the strength and, I think, the connections which the current broker services have. They are continuing to be funded, of course, but I think there are issues about what they are being funded for and how we are quality-assuring them, and how we can seriously get behind them to make sure that together we deliver the Train to Gain agenda."[22]

We also received evidence that the bureaucracy involved in signing up a learner for Train to Gain and other forms of learning could be time-consuming. Dan Wright of Protocol Skills told us:

"I can confirm that on a paper based signup 14 forms are required. The electronic processes we have introduced in Yorkshire and Humberside have reduced the total number of forms to 5, which includes 1 paper document (Health & Safety). The electronic system gives huge advantages in the reduction of administration and bureaucracy and is welcomed by the learner and the employer. However, I can confirm that we still do not have authority to proceed with electronic signature."[23]

25. We are deeply 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. We are also concerned that much of what is being funded under Train to Gain might otherwise be paid for by employers. The fact that key partners—including some colleges—appear unconvinced by the substantial reliance on the Train to Gain model should serve as a strong warning sign that changes may be required. It is not clear how brokers assist in the process of developing close and sustainable relationships between providers and their local businesses. These types of relationships are likely to be vital for raising skills levels in local communities and while Train to Gain clearly has a role to play, any tendency to depict the scheme as the main means of engaging with businesses should be resisted.

26. As we noted earlier, 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 ensure there is adequate training in place for brokers to maximise their effectiveness. We also consider that progress on reducing bureaucracy and paperwork accompanying the sign-up and monitoring of new learners needs to be significantly accelerated.

NAVIGATING THE SYSTEM

27. Early on in our inquiry, we heard evidence from Union Learning Representatives on the realities of navigating the skills system on behalf of others. Hayley Pickles of USDAW described what this meant for her in practice:

"What I have to do is get in touch with all the providers in my area, find them all, find what courses they are putting on and I have to repeatedly go back, survey the members of staff. Also I work in a regeneration area, so I work with the community as well, and then I have to do sheets: what do they want to learn, when do they want to learn it and how do they you want to learn it? I have to collate all that information, and it takes quite a bit of time, and then go and find the providers for best value."[24]

Subsequent witnesses confirmed that for individuals and employees, finding out what was available in terms of skills training was often not a straightforward task.

28. It is unsurprising, therefore, that we received a significant volume of evidence agreeing with the analysis in the Leitch report that adult Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) services were extremely patchy—and in some cases completely non-existent—and were therefore in urgent need of improvement. For example, NIACE told us that:

"the experience of adults seeking skills training is becoming less satisfactory in comparison to previous years. One of the most positive proposals made by Lord Leitch was to establish a national careers service for adults in England. This, along with the current review of adult IAG, may finally succeed in providing a stronger focus for work than has been the case in recent years during which learndirect, locally-contracted nextstep services and Jobcentre Plus have not always worked with as much synergy and seamlessness as might be expected."[25]

29. Our evidence suggests that finding one's way around the skills system is often far from straightforward; comprehensive Information, Advice and Guidance (IAG) is vitally important, but currently 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 to it. This is the most recent in a very long line of reports that have identified significant weaknesses in the IAG system and so it is essential that the Government now moves quickly toward implementation. The Union Learning Representative system also deserves continued support, in recognition of its crucial role in liaising with employers, signposting, and encouraging employees in the workplace, and, if effectively linked in, could play a crucial role in the remodelled and expanded IAG service.

30. Many who would benefit from learning need intensive one-on-one support and encouragement to re-enter the skills training system. Services such as Crisis Skylight and Remploy's high-street brokerage officers—from whom we also took evidence—play a crucial role in this respect, guiding and supporting the most disadvantaged individuals back into learning.


1   DfES, 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential: Individuals, Employers, Nation, July 2003, CM 5810 Back

2   DfES, Skills: Getting on at Business, Getting on at Work, March 2005, CM 6483-I Back

3   Sector Skills Councils were established from 2003, to research and represent employer needs and demands, and secure employer influence on the skills system. Train to Gain provides a skills brokerage service to employers, and provides free training in certain cases.  Back

4   DIUS, World Class Skills: Implementing the Leitch Review of Skills in England, 18 July 2007,CM 7181 Back

5   Q 140 Back

6   Professor Keep also pointed out to us that countries identified in the Leitch Report as having higher levels of skills than the UK-for example Canada and New Zealand-did not necessarily have higher productivity levels, perhaps suggesting that the relationship between qualification stocks and economic performance was more complex than might at first appear.  Back

7   Ev 63 Back

8   Written evidence from Qualifications and Curriculum Agency Back

9   Ev 1 Back

10   "Government calls on employers to sign 'skills pledge'", DfES press release, 2007/0022, 8 Feb 2007 Back

11   Ev 71 Back

12   Written evidence from the Business Services Association Back

13   Q 645 Back

14   Q 354 Back

15   Written evidence from NIACE Back

16   Education and Skills Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2005-06, Further Education, HC 649 Back

17   NIACE survey for Adult Learners' Week, reported at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6666553.stm Back

18   Q 213 Back

19   Written evidence from the National Forum of Engineering Centres Back

20   Written evidence from KPMG Back

21   Qq 697-698 Back

22   Q 204, emphasis added.  Back

23   Ev 106 Back

24   Q 92 Back

25   Written evidence from NIACE Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 2 August 2007