Memorandum submitted by The Age and Employment
Network (TAEN) and Help the Aged
TAEN—The Age and Employment Network
whose mission is to help create an effective job market which
works for people in mid and later life, for employers and for
the economy and
Help the Aged which is committed to a
future where older people are free from the disadvantages of poverty,
neglect and isolation.
TAEN is a network of 250 member organisations
who represent the leading experience on age and employment, guidance
and learning. TAEN participates in a wide range of Government
advisory groups and in regional and local projects.
Help the Aged plays a major role in all public
policy issues affecting the lives of older people. Help the Aged
sponsors TAEN because what happens to people in mid life has a
major impact on well-being in old age.
INTRODUCTION
1. Since the publication on 30 November
of the Select Committee's terms of reference for the Inquiry the
Leitch Report has been published. It sets out the goals for national
skills strategy, defined by more ambitious targets for qualifications
and a more highly skilled workforce. They are goals that have
been stated many times before but which have so far eluded us
all. Fundamentally they require:
1.1 Dedication, resources and time from employers,
large and small, to the skills of all their workforce, whatever
the occupation or sector. This has not existed in the past.
1.2 Recognition and action by all the population,
not just those with positive experiences of education, on the
opportunities of learning and qualifications. This does not exist
today.
1.3 Resources for those who cannot afford
to take the opportunities.
1.4 Learning methods, processes and "qualifications"
(in the widest sense of the term) which are meaningful and stimulate
1. and 2. above to happen.
2. The Leitch Report essentially addresses
No 4, concluding that it is the "system" that has failed
us and can now be changed to deliver the goals described in the
Report. It did not set out an implementation plan. At Annex 1
is a list of what has to happen to implement the proposals.
3. Our evidence to the Select Committee
responds to a number of the questions posed in the Terms of Reference,
but is also focused strongly on what is needed in the implementation
of the Leitch proposals.
4. Like many others TAEN and Help the Aged
support the main direction of these proposals. In particular we
support the creation of a universal adult advice service, the
closer links between the employment and skills agendas, the re-introduction
of Individual Learner Accounts and the expansion of apprenticeships.
5. Our main concern is that Implementation
of the Leitch Report is planned and delivered to work for all
ages, not just the 16-25 age group. The targets will not be met
if this does not happen. Implementation is about more than first
time employability and career-start vocational skills.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
Definitions
1. There should be agreed definitions and
usage of the terms "post 16", "post 19" and
"adults".
2. A good understanding of the definition
of "market failures" is needed, if they are to be used
as the criteria for public spending. They must distinguish market
failures for individuals and employers. Employment and skills
market failures for people in their 40s, 50s and 60s so this should
be an important focus in the allocation of Government resources.
3. We recommend that adults who are neither
in work nor on benefits (about 4 million) should form part of
the skills strategy and implementation.
4. Learning amongst the 10 million people
over State Pension Age underpins the growing contribution to the
workforce, community activity, caring, parenting and grand parenting
roles, in addition to general wellbeing.
Age tracking and reporting
5. The Government should be clear in setting
and reporting on all programmes and targets how they relate to
various age groups up to 65 and beyond. There must be clarity
about:
— numbers of participants by age;
— money spent by age group; and
— qualifications attained by each age
group.
because the three measures can lead to different
interpretations of progress.
6. Reporting on progress towards targets
should separate out the impact of the passage of time (the effect
of a 5 year cohort of 65-year-olds replaced by a 5 year cohort
of young entrants to the work force with higher skills) as compared
to the improvement achieved by training by employers, individuals
and governments in adult learning and skills.
7. The implementation plans should demonstrate
in a strongly articulated and publicly profiled way how they respond
to the fundamental changes in the age patterns of working life.
Qualifications
8. A very high level of faith is pinned
on qualifications as the currency of skills and employability.
Experience in 2002-06 makes it questionable whether the Level
2 funding criteria works for all or even the majority of adults
and employers. Qualifications are not currently fit for purpose
for all age cohorts. Part of the adult skills strategy should
be based on greater flexibility than the Qualifications system
allows.
9. A modular and transferable approach:
if employers and individual learners want to do parts of courses
that do not add up to a full qualification then that should count
for funding, because the Government accept that the system should
be driven by what employer and employees want and by maximum flexibility,
not centrally dictated planning.
10. Making qualifications fit for purpose
for all ages should be part of the remit of the Sector Skills
Councils leadership role (so far SSC Plans and Sector Skills Agreements
have been almost entirely devoted to attracting young people into
their sectors),
11. The proposed system could lead to increasing
numbers of qualifications; keep a tight check on whether reform
leads a simpler qualifications framework with fewer qualifications.
Train to Gain
12. Rigorous and transparent assessment
of progress is needed to ensure that the encouraging indicators
from the first year are maintained as it grows. A credibility
gap between what is claimed for it and perceptions on the ground
must not open up, as has been the case in some leading skills
and employability programmes.
Apprenticeships
13. It must be clear that this is a programme
of expansion of apprenticeships for all ages, not under 25s only.
The remit of the SSCs (p 100) must include creating apprenticeship
programmes suitable for adults with 10 or more years work experience,
people retraining in mid-career, as well as first time work-entry
programmes.
Career and learning advice services
14. We endorse the proposal for a universal
advice service. It is hugely important, if the changing pattern
of longer and later working lives is going to lead to productive
and rewarding careers for individuals and their employers. There
should be early action on this. It must take account of the experience
of all ages of adults, as set out in our evidence. We support
co-location of learning and employment advice services, but they
will only work if built on shared employment/learning objectives
and PSAs (which is not the case now).
Learner Accounts:
15. We endorse the re-introduction of Learner
Accounts. If they are to be "virtual" the design must
create a powerful and tangible financial incentive to the individual
to participate. A precondition for any new funding support system
is that it can be understood by the public and has clear standard
messages about what they can get, when and for how much.
Welfare to Work and Job Retention
16. We endorse the proposals for closer
links between job support and skills programmes. Experience shows
that support for retention in jobs will need to be based on a
different model from the current Jobcentre system.
Lifelong Learning
17. The Government should make clear that
the reform agenda does not compromise Personal and Community Development
Learning (PCDL) and that the funding commitment should be held
constant in real terms. We agree that public funding must be prioritised
on communities with the least learning experience.
RESPONSE TO
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
(questions are listed below (in italics). We have
only responded to some of them, or to some of them in groups.
Page references are to the Leitch Final report unless indicated
as referring to the Interim Report).
CONTEXT
Q. What should we take from the Leitch Report
on the UK skills gaps? What are the demographic issues which need
to be taken into account in skills policy.
1. The Leitch Report does not communicate
the extent to which the skills gap is related to age and the changing
age profile of the workforce. Although it acknowledges that the
"UK cannot reach world class without skills improvement amongst
adults" (p 69) this message is not apparent in much of the
report. The impact of changing demographics and the ageing of
the workforce and population were addressed in the Interim Report
(p 41, 60-61) but merit a 7 line paragraph in the Final Report
(p 34). It is also largely silent on skills and gender. The varied
patterns of men's' and women's' working lives are a function of
both age and gender.
2. This is in contrast to the extensive
discussion and recognition of skills gaps amongst some ethnic
minorities, those with disabilities, between various areas of
the country and English Regions and between different socio-economic
groups (pps 35-36, 104-105).
3. It is not apparent from the Report that
implementation will fail unless it achieves a step change in skills
performance amongst the over 40s compared to current skills policies.
In summary the present position is that over 40s make up:
— 50% of working age population
— 65% of those without Level 2
— 7% of full Level 2 attainment
— 10% of Adult Basic Skills attainment
— 6% of user of learndirect advice
line
(More detail is in the TAEN Evidence to the
Leitch team.)
4. These figures demonstrate how little
impact the current skills strategy has had on the qualifications
of the over 40s. Many of them grew up with different school leaving
ages and learning participation patterns from today. Although
the numbers of older learners (part time and community learning
courses) in the UK is high by OECD standards, attitudinal barriers
to raising aspirations increase with time lapsed since last formal
learning experience. This is reinforced by employers' attitudes
(see Annex 2) and the rarity with which ideas about formal learning
and qualifications will have formed any part of the working life
experiment of the majority of people over 40. The four key factors
identified by Leitch (aspiration, full information, choice and
funding, p 105) become harder to fulfil later in working life.
5. The Leitch Report refers throughout to
people as an apparently homogeneous group, whether aged 16 or
60. In reality training is of course taking place in response
to many different employer or individual circumstances. The main
categories are:
— Initial employability and career/working
life start training;
— Training to update skills, for returners
and professional development;
— Re-training and career change (in
or outside the workplace);
— Personal development training; and
— Job induction and health and safety.
6. The proposed Train to Gain and Learner
Account strategy could indeed deliver all of these, but only if
the implementation process is more aware that this is what it
is aiming to do than the Report appears to be. The concept of
retraining gets a one line mention (page 61) and on page 128 there
is a recognition that "people will need to update their skills
more often as they change jobs, adapt to new technology and working
lives lengthen." The first and only reference to adult community
learning comes on page 111.
7. The record of both employer and Government
funded training does not inspire confidence in responsiveness
to these challenges. All forms of funded training decline sharply
from about 40 onwards (though unionlearn sponsored learning and
the first results from Train to Gain are more encouraging). The
stereotype thinking that older workers are not worth training
because they may retire soon or they find learning more difficult
are well entrenched amongst employers, individuals themselves
and training providers. The current work of Sector Skills Councils
is overwhelmingly pre-occupied with entry level training. Most
current performance reports still regard everyone over 19 as one
category and "mature students" as over 21.
8. We recommend that the implementation
is about more than first time employability and career-start vocational
skills. Implementation must be tested for responsiveness to demographic
change. It should be demonstrated in a strongly articulated and
publicly profiled way how skills programmes respond to the fundamental
changes in the age patterns of working life. As programme such
as Train to Gain and Learner Accounts expand, their performance
with all age cohorts throughout working life (which does not end
at 65) must be tracked and reported.
9. Public policy and skills strategy tends
to focus on those who are in work (approx 29 million) or on welfare
(approx 5 million of working age). We easily overlook those who
are neither (approx 4 million) plus 10 million over State Pension
Age. People who are not on Benefits and not in work are an important
pool of skills and experience, about half of them aged 50-SPA.
They are sometimes described as the hidden unemployed. While it
may be presumed that they are not a priority for public funds,
they should not be overlooked. Learners Accounts could be an important
development for them. We recommend that those neither in work
nor on benefits should form part of the Leitch implementation
plan.
Q. Are the measures that we have available
to assess the success of skills strategy robust?
1. No—as will be clear from the answer
to the previous question they are currently far from robust in
respect of the demographic dimension of skills performance.
2. The Select Committee's Inquiry is entitled
Post-16. The terms are not clear in either the DfES PSA targets
or the Leitch Report. Side by side (p 45) are a target for adults
to Level 2 which means post-19 and a target for adult basic skills
which means post-16. Government report that we are on target to
meet the adult basic skills PSA. But half the attainment so far
is made up of people under 19, illustrating that use of the word
adult is misleading and reporting misrepresents what is happening
in adult learning. Increasingly educational programmes refer to
14-19, blurring the original remit of adult learning agencies.
The Leitch Report statements about expenditure on adult learning
(p 50) are not clear on what definition is being used.
3. Recently there has been an increased
focus on skills attainment in the 19-25 age group, seen to be
lagging other countries. Government has extended the free Level
3 training entitlement to age 25 to more closely mirror the situation
in Higher Education post-19. The funding distinction between adults
under and over 25 is likely to be challenged soon as incompatible
with the recent Age Discrimination Regulations.
4. It is important to recognise that measures
of success can tell very different stories depending on whether
they are about numbers of learners, numbers of qualifications
gained and amounts of money spent. In terms of numbers of older
learners the available evidence is in many respects encouraging,
at least until the recent decline started. In terms of funding
and qualifications gained it is far from satisfactory, as described
above.
5. The Office of National Statistics/Labour
Market Trends data (Education and Training Statistics for the
UK for DfES), Individual Learner Records Data (Learning and Skills
Councils Reports, data from Awarding Bodies and surveys such as
the National Adult learning Survey, the National Employers Skills
Survey, CBI, NIACE and CIPD surveys concentrate on different parts
of the picture. None give an adequate picture of the trends by
age cohort over 19, although LSC are working on this.
Age tracking and reporting
6. The first step to understanding whether
the skills strategy is working for all the workforce at all ages
is to be able to track what is happening. We do this by locality
and for ethnic minorities and for gender, though it is harder
to do for disability and belief groups. We should do it for age,
for example in 10 year grouping.
We recommend that the Government sets out for
all programmes and targets how they relate to various age groups.
Expectation and performance against target must be reported. There
must be clarity about:
— numbers of participants by age group;
— money spent by age group; and
— qualifications attained by each age
group.
7. Government reporting tends not to distinguish
the impact of the passage of time on progress towards targets
(the effect of a five year cohort of 65-year-olds replaced by
a five year cohort of young entrants with higher skills to the
work force) and the improvement achieved by training by employers,
individuals and governments in adult learning and skills. The
Interim Report demonstrated (p 67, 70) that between 1/3 and 1/2
of some targets could be achieved by this age cohort effect, rather
than by underlying improvements in provision and performance.
We recommend that reporting on progress towards targets should
separate out the passage of time effect and the results of policy
action.
NATIONAL POLICY/ISSUES
Q. Are Government priorities for skills broadly
correct—for example the focus on first full level 2 qualifications?
In response to this question we cover four major
topics:
2. The role of qualifications and recognition
of learning that does not lead to qualifications.
3. The planned expansion of Train to Gain.
4. The role of Personal and Community Development
Learning (PCDL).
Market failures
1. We agree that it is correct to focus
Government effort and taxpayers' funds on market failure and those
who are least likely to advance by means of their own resources
or employer sponsored training. We agree with the Leitch Report
that Government investment should be targeted at market failures
(p 59). However, we need a shared understanding of the definition
of "market failures". It must distinguish market failures
for individuals and employers. The analysis in the Leitch Report
of a market failure is limited (p 59). It is under four headings:
time preference/risk, credit market failure, information failure
and externalities.
2. Market failures increase with age. The
stereotype that there is no benefit from training anyone "approaching
retirement" ie over 40 and that they cannot learn new skills
inform employers' attitudes. Older age groups have fewer formal
qualifications and gained them long ago. They may therefore have
considerable reservations about undertaking formal learning. The
payback on new learning and qualifications falls with age because
pay falls from mid 40s onwards. New over 50s entrants to jobs
are typically offered 20-25% less pay than existing post holders.
That and potential age discrimination against job applicants make
taking on new training more of a gamble later in a career. We
recommend that the logic of the market failure approach to Government
resource allocation indicates a strong focus on market failures
in learning and work for those in their 40s, 50s and 60s.
Qualifications
3. We recognise the challenge of devising
a system to distinguish those who need help from public funds
from those who can help themselves, without widespread means testing
systems. The focus on those without Level 2 qualifications is
a way of doing this.
4. However a very high level of faith is
pinned on qualifications as the currency of skills and employability.
Experience of the period 2002-06 makes it questionable whether
the Level 2 funding criteria works for all or even the majority
of adults and employers. Qualifications are a central part of
the skills system, but they are only a partial proxy for skills.
They are not currently fit for purpose for all age cohorts. Part
of the adult skills strategy should be based on greater flexibility
than the Qualifications system allows.
5. The Leitch Report ascribes much of the
failure of skills strategies to the fact that qualifications do
not fit the need of employers and individuals. The presumption
is that if this is corrected all will come right.
6. The evidence about the correlation of
qualification attainment with employment and good life prospects
is compelling. The unqualified are the only group of under-employed
people who have seen their employment rate fall over the last
10 years while everybody else's has been rising (p 31 etc).
7. That leads the Leitch team to an even
stronger focus on qualifications, despite acknowledgement that
they are not the same thing as skills. Basically there will be
no Government funding for anything that is not part of a full
qualification course, even though at least half of employer funded
training is not related to gaining qualifications. The Leitch
Report asserts several times (p 51, 56, 79-80) that:
— Individuals prefer studying towards
qualifications.
— The majority of employers prefer
training to lead to a qualification.
— Qualifications are the most frequently
used recruitment criteria.
8. The report cites a number of studies
which support these conclusions. It does not focus on the evidence,
both academic and from individual and employer behaviour, which
throws in doubt on the three propositions as they apply to most
adults and employers. Some of this evidence is summarised at Annex
2. We believe that the evidence supports moving to a skills strategy
and funding regime which is based on a mixture of qualifications
attained and non qualification based training.
9. The Report acknowledges that qualifications
are not the best measure of basic skills. Only 11% of people identified
as having basic skills needs complete a skills qualification (p
127) It recommends that progress is measured by survey results
rather than by numbers of Basic Skills qualification gained (p
62).
10. The Leitch team say (p 64) that they
received many proposals to drop the central Level 2 target. The
focus on full Level 2 or other qualifications is reinforced, but
the Report does not make the case for this (p 96)? The assumption
must be that the changed system of employer-driven definition
of qualifications will make Level 2 what they and employees want.
11. Flexibility and choice are two of the
most common words in the Report. Full is not about flexibility.
In another place the Report criticises the focus on full qualifications
in relation to enhancing employability (p 124). We recognise that
training providers and Awarding Bodies have done much to respond
to the desire for flexibility. Much training is delivered in bite
sized modules which suit both employers and employees. So should
it be penalised if it does not lead to a full qualification? If
employers are really driving the system, what if they want training
that does not correspond to a qualification? Why should FE Colleges
only be paid if they deliver a full qualification rather than
the package that the learner or employer wants (p 133)?
12. We recommend that if employers and individual
learners want to do parts of courses that do not add up to a full
qualification then that should be accredited, be transferable
and should count for funding. This is the logic of Government
accepting that the system should be driven by what employer and
employees want and by maximum flexibility, not centrally dictated
planning.
13. The reform of the qualifications system
must address the changing demographics of the workforce. Qualifications
have mainly been developed for first time learners and career
entrants. Personal attitudes to qualification are not the same
in mid and later working life. There is often antipathy to class
room learning as opposed to on-the-job learning. Clearly there
are major differences between occupations that require a formal
qualification and those that do not and the Report rightly says
that these issues must be tackled sector by sector.
14. It is not clear that the majority of
courses leading to qualifications are fit for purpose for those
with 20+ years of adult working and family life experience under
their belt. Qualifications can be a barrier to opportunity rather
than a stepping stone to opportunity.
15. We recommend that making qualifications
fit for purpose for all ages is built into the remit of the Sector
Skills Councils leadership role. So far SSC Plans and Sector Skills
Agreements have been almost entirely devoted to attracting young
people into their sectors- with the result that 4 existing SSAs
out of the total of 24 propose to monopolise the entire flow of
young people into the workforce!).
Personal and Community Development Learning (PCDL)
and lifelong learning
16. "Post 16" describes all adults
including nearly 11 million over the State Pension Age who currently
have the fastest growing employment rate of any age cohort (up
0.4 million in the last 4 years, with potential to increase by
at least anther 1 million.) There is a great danger that learning
for personal development will decline. All learning contributes
to employability because it contributes wellbeing, confidence,
health and an active life. Employability skills flow directly
from that. Nor should the contribution of adults as carers, volunteers
and family members be overlooked. A major reason for lifelong
learning for all ages is the inter-generational impact on children.
Learning failure tends to be passed through grandparents and parents
to children.
17. It is essential that PCDL is maintained,
that the reform agenda does not compromise it and that the funding
commitment should be held constant in real terms.
18. We recognise the case for funding to
be concentrated on those communities where lifelong learning is
most needed, and that this means some reduction of funding for
those communities who could afford to pay more.
Train to Gain and brokers
19. Since the Committee set its terms of
reference the Leitch Report has recommended that all adult funding
should be channelled into responding to needs established by Train
to Gain and Individual Learner Accounts. Great faith is placed
in the Train to Gain as a vehicle which will transform participation
in qualification-based learning throughout the workforce, despite
the fact that it has less than six months track record and evaluations
of the trial Employer Training Pilots threw up a number of questions.
It is described as a " clear success" (p 93 and repeated
on pps 49, 74 and 99). We support building on Train to Gain, but
recommend that the issues about its delivery are addressed realistically,
openly and honestly.
20. These questions are pertinent to people
in mid and later life who made up over 50% of participants in
the early months of Train to Gain compared to <10% of those
gaining Level 2-3 qualifications in recent years. The issues include:
21. Evidence that in many cases Train to
Gain qualifications are recognising skills acquired in the work
place with little or no additional training delivered. This is
excellent if it is a way of recognising that many in the workforce
have skills equivalent to a qualification. If carried to its logical
conclusion it would mean that the sum of qualifications was a
more accurate descriptor of the skills of the workforce than at
present. However, if it results in public funding being paid out
for notional training there is clearly a difficulty.
22. The risk that a proportion of the training
will be for activity which the employer would have undertaken
in any event (p 75). To that extent there is a dead weight effect.
It is probably an inevitable price of making headway with the
larger number of businesses where incremental training is stimulated
by Train to Gain. The evidence on reaching businesses without
a training record is encouraging.
23. Train to Gain brokers are described
as raising awareness of training, diagnosing skills needs and
signposting to the relevant provision (p 91). There is encouraging
evidence of their role in the early stages of Train to Gain. However,
the track record of Government business support services and their
reputation amongst employers is less encouraging. It should be
recognised that brokers are no different from previous Government
support services—people employed on behalf of the Government,
not currently working in business, but telling employers what
is good for their business. In the Final Report from the Adult
learning Inspectorate (ALI) there was a warning of the challenge
of maintaining standards of brokers. We recommend that a condition
of implementation of Leitch must be rigorous and honest appraisal
of the effectiveness of the brokerage system.
Q. How do other targets, such as the "50%
into HE" fit with the wider skills agenda?
1. We welcome the proposals for growth in
higher education to be driven in part by courses and Foundation
Degrees developed with business partners. Much of the current
work of Universities with employer partners has potential to reduce
the gulf between academic degrees and vocational apprenticeships
and combine the best of both.
Q. What is the extent of joined-up working
between Government departments, particularly, the DfES and the
Department for Work and Pensions?
2. We agree with the Leitch Report that
a precondition for success is the alignment of learning and employment
objectives, as highlight by the Report (pps 131-132). The degree
of antipathy and mistrust between the learning and employment
services is serious (although worse at policy level than at local
service delivery level). Employment services see their colleagues
as only concerned with qualifications regardless of employability;
training services see their colleagues as only concerned with
meeting targets of people into work, regardless of quality and
durability.
3. There is a tension between the education
and employment targets. The Education target is to maximise the
proportion of the age cohort in learning up to at least 19 and
into the early 20s. The employment target is to achieve an 80%
employment rate for everyone over 16. We have highlighted this
in our evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in
their Inquiry on the 80% target, suggesting that one option is
to run the employment target from age 21 or 25. If the Leitch
proposal to extend compulsory education to age 18 is taken forward
then the definition of "working age" (if it is retained
as a concept) will clearly have to rise from 16.
Q. Do current funding structures support
a more responsive skills training system? How could they be improved?
1. See response to questions on priorities
and qualifications.
Q. What is the role of Union Learning Reps?
1. 60% of Union Learning Reps are over 45.
Many are people whose interest stems from their own experience
of adult learning. They communicate with colleagues as fellow
members of a work force rather than a representatives of a learning
or training organisation. They have therefore has had higher success
rates with older workers with long past and limited/mainly unsuccessful
memories of learning. There is a lesson in this for communication
of Learning Accounts, although it clearly needs to reach beyond
the minority of workplaces that are unionised.
LEARNERS
Q. What is the typical experience of someone
looking for skills training?
1. It is doubtful that there is anything
which could be called a "typical experience". Indeed
the frequent requirement for public agencies to put people into
programme categories and label them has a deeply negative impact.
Understanding the diversity of individual situations and needs
is probably more important. There is huge difference between those
with existing skills and experience enabling them to seek out
new opportunities and those without. All the efforts over recent
decades to reduce this polarisation have been to no avail so far.
It appears to be an extremely entrenched feature of social exclusion
in the UK.
2. TAEN has carried out major studies of
the career and learning advice needs of older people. (Challenging
Age DfES 2002, Am I still Needed? 2005 with the Centre for Adult
Guidance Studies and a recent study with NIACE for the DfES IAG
Review.) We have also worked with Learndirect on the low take
up of services by over 40s.
3. Common experiences of older people, especially
those with no or few formal skills, in relation to advice on learning
and work may include:
— Very limited resonance with the idea
of qualifications or formal learning (normally excused by "no
time", "family responsibilities").
— Little recognition of their acquired
skills and how they might relate to a qualification.
— Strong influence of 20-30 years adult
life and work whose influence must be understood by advisers.
— Limited experience of any public
agencies operating with conviction that there are opportunities
for those in their 50s and 60s and that they are equally important
as young people.
— Sensitivity over risk of looking
stupid and cold calling unknown organisations. Strong reservations
about public agencies and their motives
— Experience of age discrimination
and barriers which undermine the idea of that learning can lead
to opportunities
— Experience of redundancy, industries
or regions in decline with low perception of the prospect of working
again.
— An interest in flexible working and
working part time.
— A desire to do work which recognises
existing skills and experience and reward levels, rather than
undervalues them.
— A desire for social contacts an engagement
as an incentive to learn and work.
— Health and life style considerations.
4. Low response rates amongst older learners
are sometimes cited by DfES as evidence that there is little demand
that should be met. This is a circular argument which will guarantee
that the ambitions of the Leitch review are not achieved.
Q. What information, advice and guidance
is available to potential learners?
1. We strongly support the Leitch Report
proposal to set up a universal adult advice service, built around
learndirect, and including co-location with Jobcentres and the
development of Skills Health Checks.
2. The nextstep and learn direct advice
services are the only part of the employment and training public
services which currently have specific target related to reaching
the over 50s segment of working age people, reflecting the difficulty
of increasing participation levels amongst older people. We have
always argued that better career development and change advice
for all ages are a precondition of a productive response to longer
working lives for both employers and employees.
Q. What is available for those with the very
lowest skill levels, who are outside of education, training and
the world of employment?
1. See response on Question about typical
experiences. In principle more is available to those with no resources
than to everyone else. In practice participation rates fall sharply
amongst the socially excluded.
Q. What is the role of the new Learner Accounts?
What factors should be considered in their design and implementation?
2. We have pressed for some time for a fresh
start for learner accounts, whose trial was abandoned for reasons
which had nothing to do with the intrinsic merits of the approach.
We welcome the Leitch report recommendation. We recognise that
the challenge is to extend their use to those who are not learners
by habit and personal circumstance. One question is whether the
qualifications system as designed by SSCs and others will constitute
an incentive to individuals to take on an Account (see above on
qualifications).
3. The visibility and clarity of direct
incentive will impact on the success at reaching new learners.
We recognise the financial control reasons which make it problematic
to give money into the hand of the learner (p 112). Nevertheless
all experience of employment credits, working tax credits, lump
sum incentives etc, shows that nothing compares to seeing the
colour of the money, as opposed to getting something for free
through a complex series of forms. We recommend that design of
the Learner Accounts seek a powerful direct financial incentive
to the individual to participate and that this is age proofed
so that the same incentives apply to all ages.
4. We agree that the current financial support
systems are not understood. The fact that there is no simple way
to explain in what circumstance any individual might or might
not get free or subsidies training is a major barrier. We agree
that there needs to be a transparent and simple set of eligibility
criteria. We recommend that a precondition for any new funding
support system is that it can be understood by the public and
has clear standard messages about what they can get, when and
for how much.
APPRENTICESHIPS
Q. What should apprenticeships look like?
How close are they currently to this vision?
Q. 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?
Q. Are the number of places available appropriate,
and in the right areas, and at the right level?
Q. What is the current success rate for apprenticeships?
Q. What can we learn from practice in other
countries with apprenticeship systems—ie., Scotland and
Wales?
1. We support the major expansion of apprenticeships.
We recommend that the Select Committee and the DfES make clear
that this is a programme of expansion of apprenticeships for all
ages, not under 25s only.
2. This is not made clear in the Leitch
Review. The main section on apprenticeships (p 97-98) has no mention
of adults. On page 65 the Report does however speak of "boosting
the numbers of Apprentices to 500,000, with most of the growth
coming from adults to drive progression in the workplace".
Para 5.68 (p100) then describes a process of expansion which relates
entirely to 16-19-year-olds. This must resolved because experience
so far has been of an announcement of adult apprenticeships by
Gordon Brown in 2002 followed by almost no funding or action since.
Average age of apprentices has been falling since then.
3. We recommend that the remit of the SSCs
(as described on p 100) must include creating apprenticeship programmes
suitable for adults with 10 or more years work experience, entering
a retraining, as distinct from programmes for school leavers.
The limited pilots of adult apprenticeships that have taken place
provide little guide to their potential. This is because apprenticeships
designed for school leavers were applied to mid-career adults.
They did however demonstrate that older apprentices had higher
completion rates than under 25s, a faster completion speed and
lower unit costs.
QUALIFICATIONS
Q. Do the qualifications which are currently
available make sense to employers and learners?
1. It is clearly hard to generalise across
all sectors and occupations. Those occupations that have well
known qualifications criteria to practice have far higher awareness
levels. This was demonstrated by the pilots for adult apprenticeships
where the pilot on social services and care roles attracted a
much higher level of interest for that reason.
2. See above for comments on typical experience
of older adults. We are not aware of any detailed surveys of attitudes
to qualifications, but all our experience suggests that the great
majority of individuals over 40 feel no relationship with today's
qualifications. They do not make sense to them.
3. Annex 2 sets out evidence which suggests
that for many employers and individuals, but of course not all,
the system does not make sense to them
Q. Is the Qualifications and Credit Framework
succeeding in bringing about a rationalised system? Is there a
case for further rationalization?
1. We recognise the QCA work and the Framework
are moving in the direction proposed by the Leitch Report. We
support the proposal for the qualification system to be driven
by SSCs and to be simplified (p 83-84). In reality the Leitch
Report invites a "free for all" in putting forward bespoke
qualifications. Individual colleges, learning provides and employers
can all design a qualification to fit their need (p 83). Unless
the SSCs spend a lot of time rejecting proposed qualifications
it sounds like a recipe for proliferation.
2. We recommend that the implementation
process keep a tight check on whether reform leads to a simpler
qualifications framework with fewer qualifications. There seems
to us a danger that it will not.
| 
