Memorandum submitted by William Devine,
Chief Executive Officer, National Forum of Engineering Centres
(NFEC)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. On national policy, there is little evidence
of joined-up working and ample evidence to the contrary: Government
departments and their agencies do not sing from the same song-sheet.
The Foster Report points the way forward, calling
for a simpler education system more in line with those already
enjoyed by UK's competitor—and more competitive—countries.
The more complex a system, the more needed to fix it. Even by
its own chaotic standards, the UK is subjecting its education
system to unprecedented rates of change, so generating not less
ambiguity but more. 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.
2. A "demand-led" system should
look like a system that has evolved out of hard-won common ground,
based upon a consensus of all the stakeholders. This consensus
should be expressed in a single, brief answer to the key question
of our time in FE: "What is the purpose of publicly-funded
education and training?"
On the face of it, "What is the purpose
of publicly-funded education and training?" is a simple question.
Yet it is freighted with assumptions, cultural differences, hidden
agendas, and clashes of values. Until there is agreement on the
answer, there can be no common vision, and without that vision,
replies to the Committee's question are likely to be partisan.
Take the question of how closely employers feel involved in the
design of qualifications. The larger Blue Chip companies do feel
they're shaping skills training, the evidence being their participation
in the SSCs and National Skills Councils. But it is far from clear
how many smaller concerns wish to be involved, or indeed know
there is anything to be involved in, let alone know why they should
be. SMEs and micro—companies remain hard to reach and there
is no one-size-fits-all solution. Yet smaller companies employ
more than nine in ten people in engineering and technology. It
would be instructive to ask how many employers have signed up
to their own SSC Sector Skills Agreement and can say what their
sector priorities are.
3. THERE
IS PLENTY
OF INFORMATION,
ADVICE AND
GUIDANCE AVAILABLE
TO POTENTIAL
LEARNERS, BUT
MUCH OF
IT SO
ILL-INFORMED
AND -ADVISED
OR SO
MISGUIDED AS
TO DETER
MORE LEARNERS
THAN IT
INSPIRES.
Much IAG does more harm than good. It is not
enough, in explanation, to point to the well-documented failures
of the careers service, Connexions and previous "initiatives".
Throughout IAG, the information is often dated, the advice off
the mark because career opportunities are either not understood
or clearly-articulated. Guidance suffers because advisors are
generally far removed from industry, and are unable to pick their
way through the tangle of qualifications and chart clear progression
routes for the potential learner. In engineering and technology,
the position is even worse. The perception that engineering and
technology provide narrow career paths, that jobs are not available
and that engineering is an "oily rag trade" for the
less academic still prevails after 20 years and more of initiatives
and government investment. There is a hugely-disappointing return
on the millions of pounds spent on government "initiatives"
NFEC is a self-funding, self-help membership
body of professionals in FE and HE in FE. Our members include
employers, group training providers, professional training companies,
specialist schools and academies, as well as over 80% of FE colleges
or departments.
An independent advisory body, NEFC's main interest
is in the 14-19 agenda, the worked-based 16+ sector and lifelong
learning. Members across the UK share a commitment to the achievement
and exchange of best practice in, and to the consistent delivery
of, best-quality learning in engineering and technology.
Revenue generated from membership and commercial
consultancy and other sector clients is dedicated to providing
NFEC members with practical, problem-solving assistance without
charge or at reduced cost.
NFEC operates through seven regional organisations,
regular regional seminars and a twice-yearly national conference.
A particular strength of NFEC is its close links with awarding
and other bodies in the engineering industries and professions.
Among these are:
— Key Sector Skills Councils such as
SEMTA, the Engineering Employers Federation, and the Engineering
Council UK; professional institutions.
— Organisations in the academic and
vocational education infrastructure, among them QAA and QCA, HEFCE
and LSC, SSDA, OFSTED.
— Awarding Bodies including EAL.
— Organisations responsible for quality
improvement, such as Subject Centres and Quality Improvement Agency
(QIA) and the Learning and Skills Network (LSN).
To the best of NFEC's knowledge, no comment
in this submission is made upon matters before a court of law
or in respect of which court proceedings are imminent.
NATIONAL POLICY/ISSUES
Are the Government's priorities for skills broadly
correct—for example, the focus on first "level 2"
qualifications?
Yes. NFEC considers the focus on "level
2" to be an appropriate initial priority, erecting a firm
foundation from which to develop UK skills. One immediate benefit
is to improve self esteem, especially among adults, and so encourages
further learning. NFEC can cite many good examples from FE colleges
and private training-providers of learners and employers benefited
from this initiative.
Government, however, needs to ensure that further
learning takes place and that new skills are being developed.
There is a place for formalising existing knowledge and skills,
but the UK's competitive position demands a clear dynamic, and
that dynamic has to be of measured progress beyond Level 2.
If we are to tap the vast potential of FE to
transform the UK's position as a knowledge-based economy in an
era of increasingly severe competition, then the engineering and
technology sector requires development of Levels 3 and 4. This
is the next key priority and cannot begin too soon.
How do other targets, such as the "50% into
HE" fit with the wider skills agenda?
There is clear evidence among NFEC's members—employers
as well as education and training-providers that the government
focus on the HE 50% target is so narrow as to constitute a barrier
to skills development. Government has yet to grasp the potential
inherent in the HE agenda.
There is too much pressure for full-time progression;
which delays the experience of life and work that employers look
for in those they employ.
Government overlooks the opportunities provided
by FE, by workforce development and by the projects stimulated
by the Post-Langlands "Gateways to the Professions"
Report.
The Advanced Apprenticeship is a cornerstone
of HE development through workforce development. For those unable
to get a job, however, we need to ensure access to industry and
industry-based equipment is available, including virtual access.
In general the HE system must be opened up at
undergraduate level, enabling FE colleges to develop and deliver
undergraduate qualifications directly funded by HEFCE. This will
do much to engineer an HE system that is responsive, open, locally-available
and flexible enough to allow working men and women to continue
their career development without a break in employment. It will
also ensure that funds are spent at the "sharp end",
on the delivery of HE qualifications rather than huge sums of
money continuing to be wasted on the funding bureaucracy.
What is the extent of joined-up working between
Government departments, particularly, the DfES and the Department
for Work and Pensions?
Negligible.
The recent government audit of the DfES bears
out NFEC members' verdict.
Do current funding structures support a more responsive
skills training system? How could they be improved?
Funding is now so complex that it is better
approached through a question-and-answer discussion rather than
a short written response.
Central to any improvement, however, is:
— Removal of the age barrier to access
to public funding.
— Establishment of a single funding
body up to Level 5 in colleges and other providers.
— A funding system that follows the
learner, and puts him or her at the centre of learning.
— Taking care that the new system is
not abused as were previous arrangements.
Is the balance between the public, employers'
and individuals' contribution to learning appropriate?
No. The balance is skewed because the real question
is ducked. This question is "What is the purpose of publicly-funded
education and training?" This is the central question as
we move towards a demand-led education system.
NFEC members come from all sides of FE. For
the record, their common experience as both "demanders"
and suppliers leads them to believe that the purpose of publicly-funded
education and training is to do more than ensure the knowledge
and skills base required for the knowledge economy of UK plc is
met.
That purpose is also to promote an understanding
of the social relevance of publicly-funded education and training
in enabling individuals to exercise their right to learn and grow.
This amounts to a substantial contribution to the common good.
What publicly—funded education and training
is NOT about is meeting employers' short-term skills gaps. It
is about building capacity and capability to meet not only the
easily-identifiable skills gaps but also to ensure that there
is the solid knowledge and skills base to enable further learning
to be easily and cost- effectively undertaken. That responsibility
requires us to spread not just knowledge, but the desire and the
ability to learn. We are confronted by a whole generation that
needs to "learn to learn".
Only by agreeing upon the answer to the central
question of purpose will we arrive at practical answers to secondary
questions such as the nature of relative contributions. As yet,
there is no such agreement.
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?
What do national and regional agencies currently
do well? How are bodies such as the Regional Skills Partnerships
working?
Foster provides the lead on a simplified education
system and draws comparisons from competitor countries.
The rate of change sweeping through education
at present is unprecedented and generates ambiguity. There is
confusion throughout the sector, so it is hardly surprising that
the public does not understand what is going on and who is doing
what.
The LSC, HEFCE, QIA, Ofsted, LSN, SSCs, National
Skills Academies, RDAs and a swarm of award bodies present a blurred
and confused picture of who is responsible for what. There appears
to be a real lack of joined-up thinking, and a blurring both of
responsibilities and accountability.
Does the LSC need to be the subject of further
reform?
Yes.
LSC or some successor agency needs to provide
single funding in colleges up to and including level 5. In particular,
the Advanced Apprenticeship is unlikely to achieve its desired
impact unless funded by a single body. At present, some funding
is from LSC but with the Foundation Degree, for example, funding
is by HEFCE. There is also a quality-assurance issue as both Ofsted
AND QAA are presently required, duplicating effort and perpetuating
a QA system that by design is cumbersome, confusing and needlessly-expensive.
In a wider context, the role of the LSC needs
to be reassessed in view of the impact on QA and funding of the
responsibilities, stated or assumed, of the SSCs and the National
Skills Academies for quality assurance and the funding of providers.
These responsibilities clearly overlap those of LSC in its present
guise. It is not clear what role the RDAs play in this development.
What is the typical experience of a college or
other provider who wants to put on new provision in response to
local employer demand?
It is not clear whether this question assumes
the provision to be nationally-recognised and/or publicly-funded.
There is no typical experience, the issue being obscured by the
profusion of agencies and organisations that accredit and fund
"local" provision. It's time for a shakeout.
Each week brings examples from all over the
country of FE colleges and other providers working together successfully
to meet local demand. What is now required is a case-study approach
to underline development and dissemination of best practice. NFEC
is well placed to develop such an approach.
FE unfortunately suffers from "FE-ism",
or the sidelining of FE, deliberately or (more often) carelessly,
in public policy or discussion of public policy. FE has been complicit
in FE-ism because only recently has FE begun to speak out about
the great job it does for the students, the economy and the country.
Do we need to consider any further structural
reforms in terms of which institutions provide what kind of learning?
No. Structural reform is not the model to pursue.
It sounds good, but in practice "structural
reform" institutionalises restrictiveness and inflexibility,
choking off the opportunity to grow local solutions. An FE College
must be able to support its local people and businesses, and operate
with a public-service ethos based on sound business principles.
Fragmenting education through further structural reforms would
be to damage the UK economy and the wider social good. FE colleges
can be both generalist and build specialist provision on national
hub-and-spoke arrangements according to demand and capability.
It is not a question of either/or.
To achieve this responsiveness, flexibility
must be encouraged. The task ahead is to allow generalist rather
than specialist institutions to develop. That is how to meet varied
and continually evolving local demand with the most cost-effective
options.
Generalist colleges should be encouraged to
develop in parallel with specialist hub-and-spoke facilities that
span regions, their benefits being felt across a spread of localities.
Greater use of virtual environments is a cost—effective
and efficient way of raising UK plc's knowledge and skill levels.
So, too, are "best-practice" networks based on vocational
subject area to develop and share best practice.
DEMAND SIDE
Employers:
What should a "demand-led" system really
look like?
It should look like a system that has evolved
out of hard-won common ground, a consensus built upon the reply
to the key question of our time in FE: "What is the purpose
of publicly-funded education and training?" NFEC members'
working definition is given in the section "Is the balance
between the public, employers' and individuals' contribution to
learning appropriate?".
On the face of it, the question is a simple
one. It is, however, freighted with assumptions, cultural differences,
hidden agendas, and value-clashes. Until there is agreement on
the answer, there can be no common vision, and without that vision,
replies to the Committee's question risk being partisan.
That the UK is moving towards a demand-led system
in FE there is no doubt. But we—that is, everybody in FE—does
so hobbled for lack of a common purpose. There are just too many
organisations in the FE environment; responsibilities overlap,
some given and some assumed. Why replicate today's confusion,
duplication, misinformation, self-interest, and so waste yet another
opportunity?
So strongly does NFEC believe that the way to
a functioning demand-led system lies through this consensus that
we have begun a series in the NFEC E-Bulletin asking representative
figures from FE inside and outside NFEC to give their personal
definition of what a demand—led system should be about.
Do employers feel like they are shaping skills
training—for example through Sector Skills Councils?
Do employers feel closely involved with the design
of qualifications?
It depends upon which employers the Committee
means.
The larger Blue Chip companies are involved
to one degree or another, and do feel they're shaping skills training,
the evidence being their participation in the SSCs and National
Skills Councils.
With SMEs and micro—companies, however,
the answer is too often "No" and "No".
It's not clear how many smaller concerns wish
to be involved . SMEs and micro—companies remain hard to
reach and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Yet this sector
is a hugely-important employer. The problems are of long standing,
are well-known and the solutions easily—identifiable. Implementation,
however, is slow and initially expensive.
An interesting question to ask would be how
many employers have signed up to their SSC Sector Skills Agreement
and could say what the priorities are.
NFEC's opinion is that, whether they have been
asked or not, most SMEs and micro-companies view education and
training as a supply chain. They expect a best-fit solution, within
cost, understanding of the customer's requirements and delivery
as agreed.
Should employers be further incentivised to take
up training? If so, by what means?
No, not if "incentivised" means "forced".
If it does not, then "incentivised" should mean more
than "paid"—it should mean "showing how training
itself pays a dividend."
Enforced training through levy or taxation misses
the point, which is that partnerships come into being and work
best when there is a win-win situation and mutual respect for
and between the parties. Enforcing partnerships through financial
penalty is unlikely to be the best way to encourage partnerships
or to encourage the development of the best solutions in training
itself.
Anybody involved with FE who is not an employer
should see training as enlightened employers see it, as an essential
element in the supply chain, if not indeed the essential element.
The first step towards winning over unengaged
employers is to demonstrate clearly the value each and every training
activity adds to business performance. Just as the learner is
at the heart of learning, so business improvement must be at the
heart of training.
What is the role of Union Learning Reps?
Pivotal.
Union Learning Representatives play a pivotal
role by giving a balanced view, by providing a soft systems approach
to learning, and ensuring the needs of employers are matched as
closely as possible with the needs and sensitivities of individuals.
UK plc won't get far if employers and unions
do not work together promoting business improvement and long-term
personal development. On the other hand, you cannot legislate
people into learning. You can force employees to attend training
sessions, but without personal buy-in the exercise is without
value and wastes company time.
What roles should employment agencies play in
facilitating training?
This is an issue upon which NFEC is still consulting.
LEARNERS
What is the typical experience of someone looking
for skills training?
Patchy.
Learner-success improves year on year, and learner
feedback is hugely—supportive. But there remains much to
do if we are to catch up with the business performance of the
UK's competitors.
In most areas in engineering and technology
there are still more learner applications than available apprentice
places. If apprenticeships cannot be found then we must ensure
full-time education receives sufficient investment to make it
relevant to current industrial practice. We need to:
— Invest in providing lecturers and
trainers in the numbers and of the quality required.
— Providing real opportunities for
continued employer engagement and for meaningful continual professional
development.
— Investing in capital equipment and
flexible delivery systems.
— Expose the learner to "learning
by doing" and to learning through industrial practice.
These are the ways to ensure choice and continuing
individual development are unrestricted by the employment opportunities
available at any specific time.
What information, advice and guidance is available
to potential learners?
A lot, much of it doing more harm than good.
Pointing to the well-documented failures of the careers service,
Connexions for example, is not enough.
The major issues within IAG are recognised.
Information made available is often dated, and career opportunities
neither understood nor articulated; qualifications and progression
routes are not made clear and advisors in generally are far removed
from industry. In engineering and technology, the position is
even worse.
Despite over 20 years of government spending
and initiatives, hoary perceptions remain deeply rooted: engineering
and technology provide narrow career paths; at the end of education
or training, there will be no job to go to; engineering is an
"oily rag trade" for the less—academic. Such a
poor return on the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money thrown
at "initiatives" is hugely disappointing.
The quality of information, advice and guidance
can be turned around. The solution requires bringing together
the sector's key players: industry champions, the Engineering
Council, Royal Academy of Engineering, the Engineering Technology
Board, professional membership institutions (NFEC, for example),
government, employers, providers and peer champions (for learners).
These players can develop and articulate a narrative encapsulating
what engineering and technology are really about, what opportunities
they offer, and how to grasp them.
What is available for those with the very lowest
skill levels, who are outside of education, training and the world
of employment?
More and better than ever, but it's still hard
going.
This is where general FE can make a huge difference
in making our society more inclusive. FE colleges have the diverse
staff base with the necessary knowledge and skills to equip us
for this journey. The colleges also offer work-related learning
in a safe environment, and friendly knowledgeable and experienced
people able to help these "outsiders" who may have been
starved of nurture and beneficial human contact.
What is the role of the new Learner Accounts?
What factors should be considered in their design and implementation?
Learner Accounts and funding that follows the
learner and truly puts him or her at the centre are an admirable
innovation. Predecessor funding schemes have been abused, however,
so LAs need to be handled with great care. Demand-led provision
marks a big change, and its impact has yet to be assessed. Extensive
long-term piloting is vital if LAs are to deliver their full potential,
as is further consultation with stakeholders, not forgetting the
learners.
APPRENTICESHIPS
What should apprenticeships look like? How close
are they currently to this vision?
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?
The answers lie not in the design but the delivery.
On the one hand, employers approve of the frameworks
in engineering and technology. They support the need for the development
of generic softer skills as well as significant sector-specific
knowledge and skills. On the other hand, employers and learners
alike loathe how Key Skills are designed and assessed. The commitment
of learners and employers is demonstrably poor. The current structure
of key skills is dragging down apprentice success rates—yet
the solution is simple: it is "Integrate key skills (Functional
Skills) and life skills work fully into the vocational content".
Generic skills are best achieved through contextualisation.
Motivation is essential to success, and what
will encourage success is a fully-integrated delivery model without
the need for further or separate testing.
Technical Certificates and NVQ arrangements
require only normal review, and no modifications or overall qualification
is required.
It should be appreciated, however, that different
sectors have different requirements. In engineering and technology
the level of knowledge reflected by Technical Certificates is
a significant and crucial part of the apprentice framework. In
other sectors there is no Technical Certificate. We need to be
careful how and when we measure "success" and to be
sceptical of claims that there is a national standard.
As previously recommended, the Higher Apprentice
Framework deserves full support.
Are the number of places available appropriate,
and in the right areas, and at the right level?
It is doubtful whether anybody can say with
authority.
National data is difficult to obtain and inconsistent
from one source to another. Anecdotal evidence from FE colleges
and other providers suggests there are not enough places. There
is a critical shortage of apprentice places in areas such as electrical
installation, even for suitable young candidates. Yet the UK prefers
to import skills rather than grow its own.
We're drifting, half-blind, into a demand-led
system. There has been little long-term planning, and much to
well-founded concern. On paper, we're moving towards education
and training as a means of resolving the skills shortages faced
by employers today. But where, FE professionals ask, is the capacity-building
to come from?
What is the current success rate for apprenticeships?
It depends upon who you ask. NFEC says that
the success rate is improving, but nowhere near good enough.
LSC, SSCs, DfES and others all reported problems
with their management information systems. What is generally accepted,
however, is that there are year-on-year improvements in success
rates, but declining uptake in engineering and technology. This
is particularly acute at Level 3 and holds back the enlargement
of the UK's technician base.
What can we learn from practice in other countries
with apprenticeship systems—ie, Scotland and Wales?
We can learn to step carefully.
In particular, we must be careful that we are
comparing like for like. NFEC's extensive knowledge of the Scottish
and Welsh systems and cultures suggests there are marked differences
from English practice.
In general, however, it seems that once over
the border and into Scotland or Wales, funding models, are simpler;
there are fewer award bodies, fewer quangos; flexibility is prized,
and bite size learning accepted, resulting in an open FE and HE
system up to undergraduate level (especially at Level 4). The
vocational system is easier to understand and is accordingly held
in greater esteem. In engineering and technology the vocational
routes into HE are valued by learners, employers and universities.
The progression routes from Level 1 and onwards are well understood
and provide the required flexibility to balance and manage personal
and work issues throughout life.
QUALIFICATIONS
Do the qualifications which are currently available
make sense to employers and learners?
Not to all, by any means.
The larger employers better understand the mainstream
qualifications but will often refer to "ONC"—a
term defunct for many years. SMEs and micro-organisations have
less capacity to keep abreast of a bureaucracy-led vocational
system such as ours. The unnecessary complexity of and constant
change in vocational qualification types and names is a serious
contributor to the low esteem in which vocational qualifications
are held in our culture.
This self-defeating perception of vocational
education as playing little part in personal or national development
can be countered. Put the bureaucrats to work not in proliferating
but paring down the number of; qualifications; in articulating
progression routes; familiarising themselves with and then publicising
the doors vocational qualifications have opened.
This is one initiative whose time has come.
It should be aimed not only at the great and good in industry,
but to the technicians and engineers to whom young people can
relate.
Meanwhile, here is yet another vocational qualification—the
Specialist Diploma. Ask the person on the street what it is about?
Indeed ask a collection of employers and academics.
Is the Qualifications and Credit Framework succeeding
in bringing about a rationalised system? Is there a case for further
rationalization?
There are positive signs, and the QCA should
be fully supported during this developmental and pilot stage.
January 2007
| 
