Memorandum submitted by the National Institute
of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE)
1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing
Education (NIACE) is an independent non-governmental organisation
and charity. Its corporate and individual members come from a
range of places where adults learn: in further education colleges
and local community settings; in universities, workplaces and
prisons as well as in their homes through the media and information
technology. NIACE's work is supported by a wide range of bodies
including the DfES (with which it has a formal voluntary sector
compact) and other departments of state, by the Local Government
Association and by the Learning and Skills Council. The ends to
which NIACE activities are directed can be summarised as being
to secure more, different and better opportunities for adult learners,
especially those who benefited least from their initial education.
2. NIACE welcomes the opportunity to contribute
to this inquiry. This memorandum considers the issues posed in
the committee's press notice of 30 November 2006 in order, preceded
by a summary of our key points.
KEY POINTS
3. The analysis that NIACE applied to the
2006 white paper Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances
(Cm 6768) remains central to this memorandum. We believe that,
if only for reasons of demography, the balance of skills policy
focus and resources must shift from young labour market entrants.
An assessment of what work will need to be done in the UK economy,
who will be available to do it and what skills they will need
points clearly in this direction.
4. In the coming decade, groups consigned
in the past to the margins of the labour market policy will assume
a higher priority. Among these are:
— Part-time and temporary workers for
whom time to study is a major issue since it will seldom if ever
be in the interest of employers to prioritise their skills development;
— Those employed in businesses which
are "cool to training" who will not be reached by the
Train to Gain initiative;
— Workers aged 45+ who are too often
neglected when it comes to training and development;
— Migrants (especially from EU accession
countries) whose potential contribution may not be recognised
by employers unfamiliar with a culturally and linguistically diverse
workforce with skills but not qualifications recognised in the
UK;
— Women—especially from ethnic
minority communities culturally resistant to high levels of female
employment outside the home;
— People currently on welfare benefits
-including those on Incapacity Benefits as a result of mental
health problems;
— Adults with literacy levels at and
below "entry level 2".
It remains our contention that skills policies
which do not work for these groups and others like them will not
work for the country. If Lord Leitch's reliance on sectoral bodies
to channel employer demand is to succeed, Government and Parliament
need to be assured that such bodies are fully aware of and sensitive
to this demography-related argument.
5. In the UK there is a long history of
mismatch between what labour market planners and education and
training systems wish to happen and the actual outcomes. Evidence
from overseas suggests the UK would do well to learn that countries
which adapt fastest and most successfully to industrial change
combine stable and well-understood structures with high levels
of investment (public as well as private) in general education
beyond secondary level as well as vocationally-specific training.
This is echoed in last year's Lisbon Council paper which concluded
that investment in adult education and on the job training have
a substantially more positive impact on human capital development
than other interventions in skills.
6. Much of this was accepted either explicitly
or by inference in Lord Leitch's interim report yet the final
report Prosperity for all in the global economy—world
class skills shies off from calling for broad investment in
those generic skills which produce people confident in their capacity
to learn and unafraid of change.
CONTEXT
The Committee asks: "What should we take
from the Leitch Report on UK skills gaps? What are the demographic
issues which need to be taken into account in skills policy? Are
the measures that we have available to assess the success of skills
strategy robust?"
7. Lord Leitch's report identifies an imperative
for the UK to improve its skills-base if it is not to lapse into
"undistinguished mediocrity" behind its competitors.
It identifies the particular challenges posed by large emerging
economies as well as those of Europe and North America. It is
surprising therefore that the report is curiously muted on the
subject of migration (two paragraphs) and the contribution that
it may make to meeting skills gaps as well as the challenges it
poses. It is restrictive to think nationally about skills development
when the economy and the labour market is becoming increasingly
globalized.
8. Although there is a Ministerial committee
on asylum and migration there appears to be little visible co-ordination
across government policies about the labour market consequences
of migration—including the differential distribution of
migrants across the countries and regions of the UK. Some concerned
with policy formation appear relaxed that market forces will find
solutions to skills and labour shortages resulting from the demographic
changes underway but NIACE does not share their confidence. There
is evidence that in some sectors firms are responding by recruiting
massively from EU accession states and by outsourcing jobs outside
the UK. Although the UK may continue to benefit in the short-term
from a flow of well-trained and skilled craftspeople and of low
waged labour, NIACE considers that the belief in market-driven
solutions may be dangerously short-sighted. After other EU members
open their doors to migrant labour we may not be able to rely
on the same level of supply. There is also an issue about the
consequences of importing skilled labour upon migrants' countries
of origin. This is recognised in medicine and allied professions,
where the consequences of poaching from developing countries is
understood—but less so in other occupations and for people
from the Accession countries.
9. In addition the impact of migration of
people outside the labour market is a serious concern. If well-qualified
and motivated migrant workers mean fewer opportunities for less
well-qualified and motivated UK-born people, there is real possibility
of social unrest and other socially negative consequences.
10. Emigration from the UK also requires
greater attention in order to fully understand UK skill needs
and education and training provision. Greater labour mobility
appears to be accelerating a "brain drain" of skills
from the country in some fields and although the UK remains a
favoured destination for higher education students from overseas,
the number of British students studying in Europe and North America
is also increasing.
11. The Leitch review is also opaque in
its analysis of the extent to which differences in international
productivity gaps can be explained by skill levels—and the
consequences of this for public policy. It appears to be the case,
for example that while skills explains part of the productivity
gaps between the UK and Germany and France (especially when it
comes to technician, advanced craft, skilled trade and associate
professional occupations requiring Level 3 qualifications), it
does not explain the productivity gap with the USA. Ewart Keep,
Lorna Unwin, Helen Rainbird and other researchers have noted the
dangers of overstating the impact that skills may have on productivity
compared to how employers organise work.
12. Furthermore, the skills gap most often
described by ministers is that which exists at lower levels: one
third of adults without a full Level 2 qualification; six million
adults are without functional literacy; and 17 million adults
are without functional numeracy. While Lord Leitch is correct
in identifying Level 3 as the critical point at which the economic
benefits of skills gain are felt this makes it all the more important
for social inclusion to ensure routes to help adults to this level
are maintained. As the balance of investment shifts to Level 3,
Government must recognise the risks to blocking the progression
of those currently marginalised.
13. The initial focus of the skills strategy
on Level 2 was rational and right. The shift to encompass Level
3 is perhaps a consquence of the failure of employers to raise
their game.
14. Alongside migration, a critical demographic
consideration is the age profile of the population. Here the analysis
of Lord Leitch's interim report is not followed-through into the
final version with any age-sensitive or age-specific initiatives
to combat skills decay and obsolescence in the older workforce
and to up-skill workers to extend their engagement in the labour
force.
15. The number of young people aged between
16 and 24 is projected to fall from 6.9 million in 2005 to 6.6
million in 2020 (equivalent to a fall of 4.9%). This creates a
potential "demographic dividend" with implications for
public spending. With 60,000 fewer people per year in the 15-24
age cohort between 2010 and 2020 there is an unusual opportunity
to re-balance spending to support policies for lifelong learning,
to promote an 80% employment rate and to benefit adults aged 25-65
learning for extended engagement in work. This could be done without
"robbing Peter to pay Paul". It appears to be the case
however that the Government intends to "goldplate" provision
for children and young people, increasing per capita spending
on a smaller cohort—most notably through its intention to
extend initial education and training for all up to the age of
19, the announcement by Downing street of 200 extra academies
and the Chancellor's announcement of extra funding for secondary
schools in the 2006 pre-budget report.
16. At the same time as the absolute number
of young people is set to decline, life expectancy continues to
rise, thus amplifying the ageing demographic profile and making
the dependency ratio more challenging. It is surprising therefore,
that the Government's white paper of March 2006 (Further Education:
Raising Skills, Improving Life Chances Cm6768) gives attention
to the phenomenon in just one paragraph (2.38). The scale of the
challenge does not seem to be recognised. Learning in later life
is about extended working as much as it is about opportunities
for pensioners to remain active.
17. There is a growing awareness that 2
in 3 of the new jobs to be created in the next decade will be
filled not by new young labour market entrants but by adults The
consequences of this have, however, yet to be appreciated. The
quality of labour market oversight nationally was not enhanced
when Government and the Sector Skills Development Agency approved
the first four of 25 Sector Skills Agreements that assumed collectively,
the recruitment of more than twice as many young people as actually
exist in the UK! This is a powerful demonstration of the limitations
of a sector-specific focus.
18. Older people are disproportionately
likely to be lower-qualified and have declining prospects of labour
market mobility as they age. Training and education can help them
to remain in full or part-time work or to return to work as well
as being more productive. The public policy implications of this
have been analysed by NIACE and Age Concern England in a recent
paper (Learning in Later Life: A Public Spending Challenge
(September 2006)). Although older workers have the potential to
fill the 2.2 million new jobs that the Leitch Review has projected
will be created over the next 15 years, if employment rates for
over-50s do not improve, the number of workers over 50 will grow
by only one million up to 2020 (the number of workers under this
age will, other things being equal, remain static). This is insufficient
to meet predicted demand. For a sustained growth in the proportion
of older people in work to happen, they will not only need to
have appropriate skills but they (and their employers) will need
to have positive attitudes to working in later life. The Government's
Opportunity Age strategy for an ageing society was launched
shortly before the 2005 general election and widely welcomed—yet
to date progress has been disappointing. NIACE believes that urgent
consideration be given to specific programmes targeting older
people that motivate and skill them to extend engagement in the
labour market—or better "age proof" existing policies.
19. NIACE believes that the economics of
training for older people should be seen as distinct from that
of the workforce in general, with substantially higher public
returns, which would justify a much higher degree of investment.
20. The economics of training for young
people, or people in mid career is complex, with rates of return
varying by sector, firm size, occupational role, region and timing
in the economic cycle. Simple calculation is also compounded by
the lack of precision in measures—what precisely do qualifications
measure? How far can notions such as "level" and "progression"
be used in calculation as if they represent points on a continuous
scale. At what rate do the benefits of training decay (a qualification
gained ten years ago is probably outdated, and will have little
value if the skills learned have not been practiced in the intervening
time). How does analysis value investment in learning on the job,
delivered through effective management of relationships and team
organisation (the commonest mode of learning in SMEs), compared
to participation in formal courses?
21. By contrast, the economics of training
in later working life is very simple. If training results in an
individual staying longer in the workforce, the public rate of
return is almost certainly strongly positive. Unlike training
at earlier ages, this public benefit is real even in the unlikely
event that the training delivers no actual increase in productivity
(in which case the private return to the employer, and perhaps
the individual, may be limited or insignificant). This suggests
a clear case for public investment.
22. The reason for this is straightforward:
every individual who stays in work a year longer generates a year
more of production (even if at a relatively low level), and corresponding
tax revenue. Furthermore, they spend a year less of their lifespan
drawing on a pension fund (unless extending working life extends
life expectancy), and are unlikely to be drawing on welfare benefits.
There are almost no kinds of training which could cost more than
this net return.
23. However Lord Leitch did not critique
how current Government policy works against this argument. Firstly
the priority to 16-19 education within a constrained LSC budget
diverts resources from older people to younger ones. Secondly,
the expectation that after age 19-25 employers and individuals
should pay an increasing proportion of the costs of training,
fails to recognise that the primary return at this stage of life
is public, not private. There is also an issue about the strong
focus of public investment in Level 2 qualifications. While the
evidence of the lifetime public and private return on a Level
2 qualification was demonstrated in the first Skills Strategy,
there is little evidence on whether the same kinds of return apply
to such a qualification acquired in the last decade of working
life. The cost to the individual in time and effort of a full
Level 2 qualification is substantial, and the likely return very
uncertain. Many individuals who have acquired decades of working
experience would probably benefit more (and be more likely to
opt into) short updating programmes, or the opportunity to achieve
accreditation for their previous uncertificated learning.
24. Research evidence of whether more training
leads to longer working life is thin: until very recently there
has been little academic or policy interest in workers aged over
50 although there are strong reasons to hypothesise that positive
relationship exists:
— The Labour Force Survey shows that
those who stay in work after 60 are more likely to have trained
than those who do not. (This correlation does not, of course,
prove causation, and it may reflect employers wisely only training
"stayers", rather than "stayers" being created
through training).
— Findings from the Centre for Research
into the Older Workforce (CROW) shows that an important motivation
for staying in work for older people is the chance to use skills
and knowledge. Raising the level of skills and knowledge through
training confirms individuals' sense of their own worth and contribution,
and status in the workplace, all of which might be expected to
lead to willingness to stay.
— CROW research also shows that older
workers resent being neglected and overlooked by their employers
for promotion and new challenges. However, there is evidence that
participation in training is perceived by employees as a sign
of trust and commitment, and they respond with increased loyalty.
— Research further shows a large proportion
of older workers who would like to work longer, but wish to do
so in new roles or on a part-time or flexible basis. However,
they also say that they do not ask for this because they fear
that drawing attention to themselves, or asking for something
unusual, will endanger the security of their present job. The
result is demotivated people serving time unproductively, against
the wishes of their employers and themselves. If training demonstrated
employee commitment to employers, and made job mobility easier
it would again increase loyalty, job satisfaction and retention.
— After the age of 50, when people
become unemployed, for whatever reason, their chances of returning
to the labour market at a comparable level are extremely low.
The result is thus a significant drop in general productivity.
It is therefore desirable to keep people with their present employers
wherever possible, and improving their motivation and productivity
is an important element of this.
25. Overall, NIACE suggests that both the
Leitch review and current government policy assumes demography
to more of a static factor than is actually the case.
26. We also believe that current PSA targets
have assumed too great an importance in measuring the success
of policies in this area. We believe that consideration of public
value might permit a more rounded approach, recognising that value
is created not only through the pursuit of outputs but also through
the way services are delivered and governed.
NATIONAL POLICY/ISSUES
The Committee asks: Are the Government's priorities
for skills broadly correct—for example, the focus on first
"Level 2" qualifications? How do other targets, such
as the "50% into HE" fit with the wider skills agenda?
What is the extent of joined-up working between Government departments,
particularly, the DfES and the Department for Work and Pensions?
Do current funding structures support a more responsive skills
training system? How could they be improved? Is the balance between
the public, employers' and individuals' contribution to learning
appropriate?
27. NIACE has offered consistent public
support for the skills strategy since its inception while also
working to make it more effective in meeting the needs of adult
learners. We support the focus on skills at Level 2 as an approach
to combating social exclusion and marginalisation. We do however
distinguish between this and the Learning and Skills Council's
insistence that the entitlement only applies to a first full Level
2 qualification—essentially a rationing mechanism. NIACE
regrets that the adult skills strategy has lacked the budget to
mrealise its aspirations. This is too blunt an instrument. Many
adults hold qualifications that are effectively obsolete, others
may need to "top up" qualifications (for example those
with three or four GCSEs) or be unready to commit to a full Level
2 because of other commitments in their lives. The skills strategy
offers little to them at present and progress towards a unitised,
credit-based qualification system through Framework for Achievement
have been unacceptably slow in coming to fruition.
28. The concentration on first FULL Level
2 also privileges an "assess, assess, assess" model
over learning-rich skills acquisition.
29. Similarly, NIACE has strongly supported
the emphasis given to Skills for Life as a focus for improving
levels of literacy, language and numeracy but believe that insufficient
attention is paid to those at pre-entry and entry levels who would
have difficulty in achieving Level 1 or Two quickly. Research
by Bynner and Parsons (New Light on Literacy and Numeracy,
NRDC, November 2006) suggests that it is at this level, rather
than where the national tests are set, which would be the most
effective way to break a cycle of intergenerational poverty and
have greatest synergy with the provisions, such as family learning
and Sure Start. Bynner and Parson's work also suggests greater
attention should be given to intensive provision for those in
greatest need. This is particularly important in a target-driven
approach where focus, perhaps inevitably, drifts towards those
people with the shortest journey to achieve the target. We believe,
therefore, that Lord Leitch's recommendation that language, literacy
and numeracy targets should shift from qualifications to population
outcomes is welcome.
30. On the subject of English for Speakers
of Other Languages, NIACE accepts that a service wholly free at
the point of delivery was unststainable but rather than introducing
charges across the board, believes that an entitlement up to and
including level one should be offered and that asylum seekers
should not be denied access to ESOL if their application is delayed.
There is evidence that intensive and early intervention to help
newcomers to the UK acquire language skills is more cost effective
than delay. In addition the cost of providing courses is less
than the costs of securing translation services. Recent policy
changes by government risk blaming foreigners for their foreignness.
31. NIACE has, since its first announcement,
been uneasy about the 50% higher education target—primarily
because of the arbitrary focus on 18-30-year-olds but also because
it appeared to be developed in isolation. Lord Leitch's consideration
of skills at all levels is very welcome in this respect and we
would hope that it led to greater joining-up between initiatives
coming from Department for Education and Skills (DfES). A critical
issue for the future is the level to which tuition fees might
rise. The greater the private contribution towards the cost of
HE—from employers as well as individuals—the lower
the public contribution towards the cost of HE. And the lower
the public cost of HE, the greater the public resources available
for other areas of education and skills.
32. It may be the case that Ministers and
the most senior officials believe that there is coherence and
synergy between the activities of different Department of State
but this is shared neither by many external stakeholders nor by
many civil servants. There have been clear tensions between the
priorities of the DfES and the Department of Work and Pensions.
Most noticeably this has been around the welfare to work agenda
and the 16-hour rule. The PSA targets for which DWP is responsible
result in systems designed overwhelmingly to get people, including
those with low levels of skills, into employment of any kind.
Other things being equal, this will swell the proportion of people
in the workforce without qualifications. The DfES, in contrast,
is tasked with raising the numbers of people in the workforce
(not necessarily in employment) with Level 2 qualifications —risking
the creation of a perverse incentive to keep learners economically
inactive until qualified. In practice, this can result in learners
being required to abandon training in mid-course for temporary
work only to repeat the cycle. Other examples of tension exist
between Home Office policies for refugee integration and citizenship
and the policies of DWP, DfES and the Learning and Skills Council.
How DTI initiatives integrate with and inform those of DfES and
DWP is not always clear operationally.
33. The announcement on 11 December, that
Sir Michael Lyons is to hold an extension to his inquiry into
local government and its funding in order to digest the Leitch,
Eddington and Barker reports suggests that more collaborative
policy-making is required. Peers too have noticed, in the second
reading of the Further Education and Training Bill, that there
is some dislocation between how Lord Leitch's demand-led system,
driven by employers' needs sits alongside the planning framework
that is to be established through Clause 4 of the Further Education
and Training Bill. The faultline between policies for the 14-19
cohort and of adult skills policy is stark.
34. Finally on the subject of joined-up
working, it is worth noting that the DfES in England seems on
occasion to be reluctant to admit that it might learn from alternative
policies in adult learning and skills pursued in the devolved
administrations.
35. Overall, current funding structures
could do more to support a more responsive system. In the report
Eight in Ten: Adult Learners in Further Education (NIACE,
2005) suggested that consideration be given to funding 80% of
college budgets under current methods but to provide the remaining
20% as a block grant, which colleges could use to respond to local
needs and demands.
36. NIACE has argued that if the public
benefits of adult learning are to be maximised, everyone needs
to invest more—Government, employers and individuals. We
believe the critical focus for public debate needs to be about
how the employers' contribution is best secured. While many individuals
are exhorted to pay more for their learning employers are offered
rather more generous support, sending out a mixed message. NIACE
welcomes Lord Leitch's proposal that workers should be given a
statutory right to access training if , by 2010, the bulk of employers
have not made voluntary arrangements. We have urged the Government
to determine explicity and publicly where the threshold of acceptable
progress will be set and how it will be monitored.
SUPPLY SIDE
The Committee asked: 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? Does the LSC need to be the subject of further reform?
What is the typical experience of a college or other provider
who wants to put on new provision in response to local employer
demand? Do we need to consider any further structural reforms
in terms of which institutions provide what kind of learning?
37. NIACE acknowledges the efforts the
LSC has made to reduce its own levels of bureaucracy—but
may providers believe there is much left to be done and the growing
tendency to see all providers as contractors rather than as institutions
and services embedded into their communities is unhelpful. We
believe that progress should have been faster in acting on the
recommendation of the National Audit Office ("Securing strategic
leadership for the learning and skills sector in England")(2005)
that "The Department and the Learning and Skills Council
should continue to look at options for eventual self-regulation
of colleges in the longer term." It is particularly disappointing
that Clauses 17 and 18 of the Further Education and Training Bill
intend to give the Learning and Skills Council new statutory authority
to remove the governors and/or senior staff of a college deemed
to be mismanaged, failing or underperforming. Although there have
been occasional well-publicised college failures in the period
since incorporation, it is not at all clear whether such statutory
powers are either necessary or appropriate. The overwhelming majority
of colleges are not failing—indeed learners rate their services
highly. Neither schools, universities nor private training providers
in receipt of public money face such intervention by a quango.
If a change in the law is necessary, Parliament might expect to
see a leading role written in for the Office for Standards in
Education before the LSC.
38. The overall effect of the LSC reforms
proposed in the Further Education and Training Bill is to make
the LSC less accountable and more centralised. In particular,
the reduction in the National Council's membership from 12-10
(clause 1) is unnecessary. NIACE is also concerned that the abolition
of the statutory Young People's Learning Committee and Adult Learning
Committee (clause 5) might lead to a diminution of the advice
and scrutiny available to the Council on age-related issues.
39. Elsewhere on the supply side, many stakeholders
are stuggling to cut through the confusion of how regional policies
and skills policies should relate. It appears at present that
the big losers from the Leitch proposals are reforms are the Regional
Development Agencies. It their Regional Economic Strategies which
are designed to shape the Regional Skills Plans of the RDA-supported
Regional Skills Partnerships. But Lord Leitch has come out against
adult skills planning. This prompts the question of whether RSPs
should become subsumed under proposed Employment and Skills Boards
or whether they are now unneccessary.
40. The only area where regional planning
of adult skills remains is still live is in the proposals for
London in the Further Education and Training Bill (which prompts
a further question of why, if planning is right for London, is
it wrong for the other eight English regions?). The key to the
London deal is less about the creation of a London Skills Commission
which presumably will be licensed as an ESB and more that the
Mayor will be responsible for a statutory adult skills and jobs
plan—suggesting that democratic accountability trumps the
demand-led principle and that the Treasury's sub-national review
of governance is where local authorities will argue for the principle
of new localism; supporters of elected city mayors will argue
for devolution to city regions and supporters of reformed RDAs
(perhaps with strengthened accountability through regional grand
committees of the House of Commons) will argue for decentralisation
of powers to the eight regions outside of London. In each case,
the planning of adult skills may be a key battleground.
41. In other respects local authorities
are not winners under the Leitch proposals. The demand-led principle
undercuts their claim to using Block 4 of Local Area Agreements
to plan LSC funded adult skills although it is suggested that
local authorities can work with ESBs.
42. Overall, in assessing the effectiveness
of Regional Strategic Partnerships, the experience of NIACE is
that:
— there is a great variety of approach
across the nine regions. Sometimes this may be due to different
needs, in others it may be different levels of capacity and capability;
— there is little evidence of sharing
of good practice across RSPs (using national agencies as intermediaries);
— there is little understanding of
the soft end of the skills spectrum ,(how individual motivation
is a key driver on the demand side) and an over-reliance on eye-catching
showcase activity;
— the capacity of regional observatories
to assist RSPs is highly differentiated;
— the link with Government Office 14-19
planning is negligible and the demise of TestBed Learning Communities
was a chance thrown away to link adult planning with that for
14-19;
— current talk of cities, city-regions
and regions without absolutely clear definitions is confusing
and takes energy away from the job in hand; and
— support for RSPs needs to go beyond
a simple devolution of responsibility for targets.
There has been little dissent from a view that
sectoral approaches should have an enhanced role in skills policy
yet, as the National Audit Office noted in December 2005, "The
Sector Skills Councils need sufficient time and capacity to develop
as genuinely employer-led bodies providing sector expertise in
developing skills training and formal qualifications. Lord Leitch
proposes a new role for SSCs but they are not all at the same
stage of development or level of competence. It remains to be
seen whether all will be able to meet the increased expectations
that may be placed upon them and it is not clear what mechanisms
will be in place should one fail.
DEMAND SIDE
What should a "demand-led" system really
look like? 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? Should
employers be further incentivised to take up training? If so,
by what means? What is the role of Union Learning Reps? What roles
should employment agencies play in facilitating training?
43. Lord Leitch is clear: "The skills
system must meet the needs of individuals and employers. Vocational
skills must be demand-led rather than centrally planned"
(Page 4). This means that adults skills must not be planned by
Sector Skills Agreements and Sector Skills Councils, nor Regional
Skills Plans owned by Regional Skills Partnerships and supported
by RDAs, nor Local Area Agreements and Local Authorities. As a
consequence, Clause 4 in the FET Bill which empowers the Secretary
of State for Education and Skills to endorse planning arrangements
to shape LSC funding looks as if it may be redundant already—something
that raises questions about how well-prepared the DfES was in
anticipating Lord Leitch.
44. NIACE believes that there are two elements
to a demand-led system—employer demand and individual demand
but notes that while adult learners interested in anything that
is not prescribed for them by the government and their current
employer are being exhorted to pay more, employers are being promised
more generous support. There will be an interesting moment ahead
if employers decide that what they want differs from what government
PSA targets assume they should want! In many surveys employers
attach less emphasis to training courses and the acquisition of
qualifications than do policy-shapers. It is disappointing that
Lord Leitch continues to see qualifications as the only worthwhile
proxy for measuring skills gain—this is a missed opportunity.
45. In determining how employer demand should
be identified, there is also an interesting issue about how sectoral
bodies should balance the voices of the greater number of employers
or the voices of those organisations employing the greater number
of employees. NIACE notes the figures from City and Guilds that
just 3% of employers account for 72% or employees and that just
2.8% of private firms account for 64% of employment. These are
critical questions for Sector Skills Councils.
46. The 2005 National Audit Office report
Employers' Perspectives on improving skills for employment
concluded that employers want a simple way of getting advice on
skills training; training that meets business needs; incentives
to train their staff and an opportunity to influence skills training
without getting weighed down by bureaucracy. As more concise way
of putting this is that "employers want to have their cake
and eat it". The UK has seen initiative after initiative
to "put employers in the driving seat" on post-16 skills—from
the incorporation of colleges, the establishment of Training and
Enterprise Councils and LSCs, Industry Training Organisations,
National Training Organisations and Sector Skills Councils. If
employers fail to rise to the challenge of Lord Leitch's proposals
to route adult vocational skills funding through Train to Gain
or Learner Accounts by 2010 and to invest more of their own money
then a purely voluntary approach will no longer be credible and
the Government should consider alternatives including statutory
paid educational leave. It is hard to see what more generous incentives
and encouragement could be offered.
47. The system of Union Learning Representatives
established over recent years has undoubtedly been one of the
most effective post-16 education and training policies introduced
by the government. Learning reps have been remarkably successful
in peer motivation, confidence-building and signposting opportunities.
The challenge will be to ensure that, without "mission drift"
in Unionlearn, the lessons learned in unionised workplaces can
be transferred to benefit people employed in non-unionised workplaces,
especially small and medium enterprises. NIACE believes that further
consideration be given to statutory joint workplace training committees.
LEARNERS
The Committee asked: What is the typical experience
of someone looking for skills training? What information, advice
and guidance is available to potential learners? What is available
for those with the very lowest skill levels, who are outside of
education, training and the world of employment? What is the role
of the new Learner Accounts? What factors should be considered
in their design and implementation?
48. NIACE believes 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. We believe that learndirect offers the firmest foundation
for the new service but have urged government to ensure that the
transition of young adults from the primary responsibility of
Connexions to the new adult service is given special attention,
similarly, a focus on work should not disadvantage those adults
further away from labour market readiness who may have complex
needs. In addition, NIACE urges that more consideration be given
to developing a regional focus for information, advice and guidance
work. Lord Leitch's proposals for free "Skills Health Checks"
(Para 6.28) are very welcome but have capacity implications which
mean their introduction should not be rushed.
49. There is also 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.
50. Once learners have identified a course
of study that they wish to pursue, their experience will increasingly
be one of a narrower curriculum with less choice about when and
where they can learn—and increasing fees to pay.
51. It is apparent that Learning Accounts
could be a sizeable element of the demand-led system of adult
skills proposed by the final Leitch Report—if only in terms
of tuition costs. The Government is currently committed to routing
£1 billion through Train to Gain. This leaves approximately,
£2 billion that might be routed through Learning Accounts.
Even if this balance were to shift to 50:50 the new Accounts are
likely dwarf the amount spent on Individual Learning Accounts
in their first incarnation (public funding of £250 million
per year). Whether, new Learning Accounts, like Train to Gain,
should have an HE dimension (perhaps for part-time HE) needs urgent
consideration since the type of accounts envisaged by Lord Leitch
appears to differ from the model proposed in the FE white paper
(the former both LSC and JCP funding, adult skills funding and
welfare to work skills funding (see para 7.49 of the final Leitch
report which also calls for an expansion of Career Development
Loans (Para 6.55), the use of Child Trust Funds to support adult
learning (Para 6.38), and the replacement of the Learner Support
Fund with a Skills Development Fund (Para 6.53). Each of these
elements could be integrated within Learning Accounts.
APPRENTICESHIPS
The Committee asked: 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? Are the number of places available
appropriate, and in the right areas, and at the right level? What
is the current success rate for apprenticeships? What can we learn
from practice in other countries with apprenticeship systems—ie,
Scotland and Wales?
52. Progress towards the large-scale introduction
of adult apprenticeships has been disappointing. Lord Leitch states
that most growth in apprenticeships by 2020 will come from adults
(Para 3.6) but exactly how many is unclear. A critical question
is whether Lord Leitch means a mix of Apprenticeships (at Level
2) and Advanced Apprenticeships (at Level 3) or just adult Advanced
Apprenticeships. It is difficult to assess the relative contribution
between Adult Advanced Apprenticeships and Adult Level 3 qualifications
in achieving the Leitch ambition of 1.9m extra adult first Level
3 achievements by 2020 in the UK.
QUALIFICATIONS
The Committee asked: Do the qualifications
which are currently available make sense to employers and learners?
Is the Qualifications and Credit Framework succeeding in bringing
about a rationalised system? Is there a case for further rationalization?
53. NIACE has observed (above) that progress
towards a unitised, credit-based qualification system through
Framework for Achievement has been unacceptably slow.
CONCLUSION
54. NIACE would be pleased to provide the
Committee with further information about anything in this memorandum.
January 2007
| 
