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
