Memorandum submitted by the University
and College Union (UCU)
1. The University and College Union represents
nearly 120,000 academic and academic related staff working in
universities, further education and specialist colleges and adult
and prison education services. UCU members are among the main
deliverers of post-16 education and training in the UK. Through
the learning programmes they teach and support, young people and
adults gain, refresh and expand the skills they need for employment
and/or further, higher or deeper study. UCU welcomes this inquiry
into post-16 skills training in England and the opportunity to
submit our views on the government's agenda and policies in this
area as well as the role of employers, providers and practitioners.
2. UCU was formed in June 2006 with the
merger of NATFHE, the University and College Lecturers' Union
and the AUT, the Association of University Teachers. Both the
predecessors of UCU commented on and submitted their views to
the long stream of government consultations and policies on skills,
as well as more recently to Lord Leitch as he prepared first his
interim and then his final report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. Although we welcome much of the Leitch
Report's analysis of the current state of skills formation and
the future skills needs of the nation, UCU is disappointed with
both the direction of travel and much of the detail of the proposals
in the final Report. In particular UCU rejects the view that much
of the future direction of skills formation, including the funding,
approval and content of qualifications, should be in the hands
of employers.
4. The problems and issues in relation to
skills formation in the UK are long-standing and deeply rooted
in cultural and class attitudes to and perceptions of certain
kinds of work, employment and economic activity, and the knowledge
and skills underpinning them. These attitudes go back over centuries.
They are also related to the structures of UK industry and its
financing that focuses on short-term profitability and maximising
shareholder dividends rather than long-term growth and stability.
This militates against investment in skills and training.
5. For a very long time the attitude of
too many UK employers to workforce development has been "poach
rather than coach". UCU would argue that the overall conclusions
of the Leitch Report fail to deal with these fundamental problems.
Their resolution has to lie with the abandonment of the voluntarist
approach to skills formation, on which we have relied for too
long, and the adoption by the government of more interventionist
policies, including a statutory underpinning of employer activities
around skills formation.
6. UCU would advocate use of fiscal measures
to encourage, recognise and reward employers' efforts in skills
development. A system of tax credits could operate, whose award
could be triggered by a number of measures such as gaining Investors
in People status, active involvement in sector skills councils
and Business for Education links.
7. We would argue that the Leitch solution
of even greater reliance on voluntary employer action in this
area repeats past mistakes. If trusting to employer action had
been the solution, the Leitch Report would not have been necessary.
UCU contends that international experience both in Europe and
the successful economies of the Pacific rim and Asia demonstrates
that government intervention, often associated with social partnership
including active roles for trade unions, is a successful method
of securing the kind of human capital development needed in modern,
globalised, high technology, high-skilled economies.
8. There is little in the Report about the
position of part-time and temporary workers' training needs. Yet
both groups are likely to increase in numbers and importance as
demographic factors have greater impact. Both groups usually miss
out on employer training, and both groups would benefit from some
move towards an entitlement to time off for study. UCU would argue
that in a report seeking to look at long term skills needs, these
omissions are serious.
9. An important, and we would say a crucial
strand of government policy in relation to skills, is the move
to credit and unit-based adult learning.
10. UCU considers that there should be more
work by the relevant agencies to find measures of success in skills
strategy that reflect a wider variety of perspectives. This would
involve looking at skills from an overall employment perspective
rather than an employer one. Thus skills needs and gaps would
encompass the views of those in and out of the workplace who will
actually acquire the skills, as well as those of their employers.
11. We are mindful that the priorities around
basic and Level 2 skills have an enormous impact on combating
social exclusion and marginalisation. However we have strong reservations
about the level 2 policy focusing on the achievement of a first
full Level 2 qualification.
12. In supporting the Government's broad
policy to help people with low skills achieve a platform on which
they can build higher skills, we have been concerned about the
consequent lack of focus on skills at Level 3—those the
economy really needs.
13. The imposition of fees will hit skills
acquisition at all levels. For those with the fewest skills, English
language provision is the key to employability and employment,
and then to more secure and better paid jobs.
14. UCU has supported the government's commitment
to increase participation in higher education. Expansion is justified
both by the proven value of higher education to society and by
the need to extend opportunities for higher education to groups
currently under-represented. But the union has been deeply concerned
as to whether sufficient resources will be made available to sustain
the increases in participation without worsening the quality of
the student experience.
15. Although one of the mantras since 1997
has been "joined-up" government, in the judgement of
UCU, this seems to be somewhat illusory.
16. UCU considers that whilst there could
always be improvements in the current skills funding structures,
they are no better or worse than previous structures and indeed
probably future methodologies. We believe strongly that what is
important is the culture that surrounds skills generation and
the underpinning framework.
17. The difference in the level of funding
for similar programmes for 16-19-year-olds is now well established
and accepted by the Government. LSDA research published in 2006
demonstrated this to be at least 13%. The Government has undertaken
to reduce it by 5% by 2008 and a further 3% by 2010, still leaving
a difference of 5%. This needs to be closed.
18. It is UCU's position that regulation
is necessary where public funds are being used. However, this
does not mean that there could not be fewer intermediary agencies
and bodies. There should be a thorough ongoing review of the numbers,
roles and purpose of all the intermediary bodies.
19. The establishment of Unionlearn should
lead to the further development of the role and activities of
the learning representative. We look forward to Unionlearn both
supporting the growing network of learning representatives and
disseminating good practice among unions and learning representatives.
20. UCU welcomes the recommendations in
the Leitch Report to establish a national adult careers service
to provide information, advice and guidance about education and
training, as well as careers. We hope that this is taken up by
government, and along with the current review of information,
advice and guidance, will finally succeed in securing the kind
of high quality service that has been needed for a long time.
21. The jungle of qualifications available
to adults has long been commented on as being part of the problem
facing the UK in skills development. It makes little sense to
either employers or learners. This is one of the reasons why UCU
has supported the moves to create a unitised and credit-based
adult learning curriculum.
CONTEXT
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?
UCU considers that the main points to be taken
from the Leitch Report are as follows:
22. Its analysis of the problems faced by
the UK around skills formation and the relationship between skills
economic success and other policies, especially those on social
inclusion.
23. The vision that the Report sets out
for the UK; that by 2020 the UK has to become a world leader in
skills, as benchmarked against the upper quartile of the OECD.
24. Some but not all of the report's underpinning
principles. So for example, we would argue that the raised ambition
envisaged has to be a shared responsibility between employers,
government and individuals; that the focus has to be on economically
viable and transferable skills; that a skills framework has to
adapt and respond to future needs as future demand for particular
skills types cannot be accurately predicted in a rapidly changing
world; and that existing structures must be built upon rather
than constantly chopped and changed.
25. However we would not take from Leitch
the principal thrust of his recommendations: that the way to improve
skills is by greater reliance on market forces and the efforts
of employers, and by giving employers almost the only voice in
skills generation.
26. Whilst accepting some of the critique
of the supply side part of the skills equation as laid out in
the Report, we do not accept the conclusion that most of the failure
in terms of skills is from this side. Indeed we consider that
the failures of the demand side of the equation are just as great
if not greater, especially when compared to international competitors
in Europe and Asia. These problems are compounded by the lack
of meaningful government intervention, especially the lack of
any statutory underpinning of skills generation
27. UCU does not agree with the somewhat
narrow definition of "demand-led" used by the government
and the Leitch Report. We describe below the approach to demand
that UCU would wish to see.
28. Those parts of the Report that demonstrate
the links between skills and fairness and social inclusion. We
were particularly struck by the sections 1.39 to 1.43 which demonstrate
the impact that social class has on skills; that social mobility
in the UK is low, with significant correlation between parents'
position in the earning distribution and the position their children
achieve. The figures given demonstrate that children of unskilled
manual workers with fewer qualifications have a 20% probability
of achieving the benchmark schools qualifications, compared with
69% of children of managerial/professional parents.
29. The Report's conclusions on the need
to embed a culture of learning into the country, and that this
means raising aspiration and awareness of the crucial importance
of education, skills and training; the need for all concerned
with skills to be able to make informed choices, and that learning
in pursuit of skills must be affordable to all. We would certainly
wish to take from the Report the specific recommendations around
these actions: the need for a national campaign to raise career
aspirations and awareness, and the need for a single adult careers
service.
30. However we have heard similar statements
and exhortations many times from governments and reports over
the last ten to twenty years. We have seen far less of sustained
action around these issues. Although the Report has strong and
important recommendations about the need for an integrated, universal,
independent and impartial adult careers, education and training
information, advice and guidance service, this demand has remained
unfulfilled for too long.
31. The Report's conclusions on the benefits
to the country of regenerating skill levels. We particularly welcome
a figure being put on this. However whilst skills are crucial
to economic prosperity, we would caution against over-reliance
on an improvement in skills reducing the productivity gap between
the UK and its main competitors. Leitch quotes much used figures
about the proportion of the productivity gap due to skills shortages
and deficiencies. This amounts to around 20%, leaving around 80%
due to factors other than skills. UCU would like to see the causes
of the main part of the productivity gap addressed and remedied.
32. The new targets for acquisition of literacy
and numeracy skills by adults and the increased target for those
with intermediate and high skills. We have reservations about
the use of targets which we will detail in response to the next
question posed by the Committee. Nonetheless, we welcome the new
targets as an indication of the Report's seriousness on the acquisition
of these skills in the workforce. We would point out that achievement
of these new targets will take additional resources.
33. The Leitch Report does deal with the
demographic issues underpinning the debates around skills. Sections
1.29 to 1.32 of the Report deal with the changing UK workforce,
highlighting its ageing composition, the way that increasingly
migrant workers are filling the skills gaps many industries face,
and also the fact that over 70% of the 2020 workforce is already
employed. Whilst the Report acknowledges these underpinning demographic
factors, it doesn't tackle the real adult skills issues in this
context.
34. We are disappointed that the Report
does not analyse further other aspects of demographic factors
on skills. For example, it says nothing on the impact of changes
to pensions policies, including many having to work beyond current
pension ages and the need for re-skilling many of such workers.
35. It does not consider some of the many
implications of this in terms of learning theory and practice
amongst older people. It does not analyse the many pressures that
will result from the dip in the numbers of young people entering
the labour market. The projected numbers of those aged 16 to 24
will fall from 6.9% in 2005 to 6.6 million in 2020—a drop
of 4.9%. In looking at a future with 60,000 fewer young people
aged 15-24 per year, it does not analyse the possible competition
between employers, education and training providers for these
young people.
36. The Report also fails to acknowledge
the possibility given this demographic factor of a future rebalancing
of resources spent on learning for adults and learning for young
people. It has little to say on the impact of the benefit system
on an ageing population that has to work longer.
37. There is little in the Report about
the position of part-time and temporary workers' training needs.
Yet both groups are likely to increase in numbers and importance
as demographic factors have greater impact. Both groups usually
miss out on employer training and both groups would benefit from
some move towards an entitlement to time off for study. UCU would
argue that these omissions are serious in a report seeking to
look at long-term skills needs.
Are the measures that we have available to assess
the success of skills strategy robust?
38. Overall UCU would argue that measures
that are available to assess the success of skills strategy are
less than robust and patchy across sectors. We consider that there
are two principal reasons for this:
39. The use of qualifications as a proxy
for skills Qualifications are taken by virtually everyone with
an interest in skills generation as an accurate proxy for actual
skills and their deployment in the economy. The Report again repeats
the reasons why this happens. To a certain extent this is inevitable
and the use of qualifications in this way does give some indication
of knowledge and skills acquired by an individual. However qualifications
do not give a full picture of the current state of skills acquisition
in the workforce or whether these skills are deployed effectively
or not. For example, recent research by the Learning and Skills
Development Agency showed that the greatest lack of Level 2 skills
is amongst workers undertaking employment that requires Level
2 skills. Either these workers do not require Level 2 qualifications
to do their jobs or something other than qualifications might
be required for them to be more effective.
40. The overall lack of sectoral mechanisms
to assess current and future skills requirements and measure accurately
any skills gaps Labour market intelligence is an uncertain activity.
Until recently and perhaps still so, the sources of accurate labour
market information have been disparate, and sometimes of uncertain
value. Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are charged with obtaining
and disseminating accurate and timely labour market intelligence.
However Sector Skills Councils are a relatively recent creation
and their performance overall is still variable. So too will be
the results of their labour market intelligence, and hence their
analysis of their sectoral skills needs and gaps.
41. The Leitch Report acknowledges this
variability and recommends that the SSCs should be reformed and
re-licensed. Whilst this may result in an overall improvement
in their outputs around labour market information and therefore
assessment of skills strategy success, it may also result in dislocation
and disjunction within SSCs, and this may delay their ability
to assess the results of skills strategy. We do feel that SSCs
have a vital role to play in assessing the success of skills strategy
but this must be deployed through a series of partnerships with
both government and those active in the workplace such as trade
unions. We make specific suggestions below.
42. Use of targets as a tool of measurement.
Since 1997 there has been a tremendous increase, and indeed a
proliferation, in the use of targets to measure the success of
government policies. The use of such targets can be positive in
focusing stakeholders and those involved with the implementation
of policies on key issues, and UCU does consider that the reformulation
of targets for skills acquisition at various levels outlined in
the Leitch Report is useful. However we believe that they can
have negative effects and are not a robust enough measure to assess
the success of skills strategy.
43. For example, having a target for the
achievement of full Level 2 may have a use in terms of a priority
in guiding government and its agencies' policies. It provides
a very useful measure of capacity building around skills in that
it shows how extensive the platform may be for further developments.
However it is probably of limited use in terms of assessing the
state of skills in the economy. This is partly because the target
is measured in achievement of full Level 2s whereas both individuals
and employers are probably more interested in achievement in parts
of a Level 2 qualification. Indeed an important, and we would
say, a crucial strand of government policy in relation to skills,
is the move to credit and unit-based adult learning. Just how
much this target may contribute to our understanding of the actual
level of skills is in the LSDA research we quote above. One conclusion
is that there is a level of skills acquisition in the workplace
by large numbers of workers which will not be reflected through
this measure.
44. An additional problem with the use of
targets, which can be seen in other areas of education, is that
a lot of effort can be expended by providers on those on the margins
of meeting the targets, to the detriment of longer-term work around
those who require more intensive or specialist assistance to achieve.
45. UCU considers that there should be more
work by the relevant agencies to find measures of success in skills
strategy that reflect a wider variety of perspectives.
46. This would involve looking at skills
from an overall employment perspective rather than an employer
one. Thus skills needs and gaps would encompass the views of those
in and out of the workplace who will actually acquire the skills,
as well as those of their employers.
47. We do see SSCs at the heart of this.
However we believe that there is still a problem in linking the
superstructure of SSCs to the base where the training actually
takes place. Of course the SSCs and others will canvass employer
views, but to complete the picture, we would advocate that SSC
sector skills agreements should include a recommendation/requirement
for workplace Joint Learning Committees that can make a partnership
assessment of skills requirements and gaps.
48. The aggregation of results from these
Joint Learning Committees would provide both government and SSCs
with the kind of sectoral information vital for them to then make
meaningful policy decisions, including having minimum skills requirements,
and give advice on stimulating demand and training, in just the
same way that workplace health and safety committees have stimulated
activity in that area.
NATIONAL POLICY/ISSUES
Are the Government's priorities for skills broadly
correct—for example, the focus on first "Level 2"
qualifications?
49. UCU considers that the Government's
priorities for skills are broadly correct. However we have concerns
and reservations about some aspects of these policies and the
way that they are being somewhat bluntly implemented.
50. We understand and share the government's
priority to raise achievement of both basic skills and the numbers
within the workforce having Level 2 skills. These are necessary
platforms for skills acquisition at higher levels, which are essential
for the UK's economic needs.
51. It is also crucial to seek to reduce
what by international comparisons, is an appallingly long tail
of underachievement. For a developed country and a member of the
G8 Group of the strongest world economies, to have such large
numbers of adults without literacy and numeracy skills verges
on being a national disgrace.
52. We are mindful that the priorities around
basic and Level 2 skills have an enormous impact on combating
social exclusion and marginalisation. However we have strong reservations
about the policy on Level 2 focusing on the achievement of a first
full Level 2 qualification. As we have stated above, it is our
contention that this may well not be what is wanted or required
either by individuals or employers. What perhaps should be prioritised
is the achievement of Level 2 by a variety of modes of learning,
including achievement through manageable "bites" of
learning. This would be in line with government policies around
the introduction of the Qualification Credit Framework. The current
Level 2 target operates as a rationing mechanism which limits
the potential longer term growth in Level 2 achievement that might
be possible through a gradual accrual of units over time making
up a full Level 2 qualification, or through being able to "top
up" qualifications to make up achievement of the target.
53. Similarly UCU has supported the emphasis
on adult basic skills by the government since the introduction
of the Skills for Life Strategy. But again the pursuit of targets
has led to a lessening of the focus on those who still require
pre- and entry level courses to build to eventual success at Levels
1 and 2.
54. In supporting the Government's broad
policy around helping people with low skills achieve a platform
on which they can build to higher skills, we have been concerned
about the consequent lack of focus on skills at Level 3—those
which the UK economy is really short of, especially when compared
with our main international competitors. We acknowledge that the
government has now recognised this. It has recently announced
its intention to introduce an entitlement to Level 3 qualifications
for those up to the age of 26, and the piloting of Level 3 Train
to Gain programmes.
55. However, alongside these changes it
has also announced that as part of the process of rebalancing
who is to pay for learning, the costs of Level 3 programmes and
above will rise. We don't believe that this policy is based on
evidence as to the elasticity of demand for training. We have
strong doubts as to whether employers are prepared to pay a more
economic price for training, or that many individuals who might
look to take Level 3 programmes to improve their employment opportunities,
will be able to afford higher fees.
56. There is one area of government policy
where we consider that recently announced changes will have an
extremely negative impact on a range of government's existing
policies including its skills strategy. This is the withdrawal
of an entitlement to free provision of English for Speakers of
Other Languages courses (contrary to the position for literacy
and numeracy).
57. This will have a very damaging effect
on social inclusion policies and those aimed at integrating immigrant
communities. It is strange that on the one hand the government
calls for immigrant communities to integrate more by learning
English, even introducing an English test as part of citizenship
processes, yet on the other imposes fees for many who would take
up this provision. We would recommend a reversal of this damaging
decision.
58. The imposition of fees will hit skills
acquisition at all levels. For those with the fewest skills, English
language provision is the key to employability and employment,
and then to more secure and better paid jobs. For those with higher
level skills language provision can increase their productivity
and ensure greater effectiveness. A body of evidence shows that
intensive and early intervention to help immigrants and migrants
to the UK acquire language skills is cost effective.
How do other targets, such as the "50% into
HE" fit with the wider skills agenda?
59. Despite the understandable and perhaps
necessary focus on lower level skills to alleviate the UK's long
tail of underachievement, and to enable those without such skills
to have a platform for progression, a modern, globalised economy
requires skills at intermediate and higher levels. The many analyses
of long-term skills needs, including those of the Leitch Report,
point out that future employment growth will be in areas that
require such skills, and highlight the UK's deficiencies in these
areas, especially compared with our international competitors.
60. UCU has supported the Government's commitment
to increase participation in higher education. Expansion is justified
both by the proven value of higher education to society and by
the need to extend opportunities for higher education to groups
currently under-represented. But the union has been deeply concerned
as to whether sufficient resources will be made available to sustain
the increases in participation without worsening the quality of
the student experience. We would urge that the forthcoming CSR
ensures there is sufficient funding in the sector to support the
proposed increase in participation.
61. UCU welcomes the direction of the Leitch
target that the UK should aim for an increase of the current 29%
to more than 40% of the adult population to qualify to Level 4
or above. However, we have reservations about the target for 50%
of the 18-30 age cohort to have had a higher education experience
by 2010. We are concerned that the focus on young people could
mean less effort at attracting those over 30 to higher education.
We also wonder what the message to many young people is, if this
target remains in this somewhat unrefined form. Does the 50% objective
mean an increased sense of failure for those 50% who do not enter
higher education? We are also very concerned about the impact
of top up fees on the ambitions of many young people from lower
income backgrounds. Will these make social divisions even sharper?
What is the extent of joined-up working between
government departments, particularly, the DfES and the Department
for Work and Pensions?
62. Although one of the mantras since 1997
has been "joined-up" government, in the judgement of
UCU, this seems to be somewhat illusory. We do welcome the relatively
recent interest by the Treasury in skills, as exemplified by their
support for the National Employer Training programmes, that in
their turn have grown into Train to Gain.
63. However, there does seem relatively
little synergy between the DfES and other departments. This is
seen at its clearest in the tensions between the DfES and the
Department for Work and Pensions around the welfare to work agenda
and benefit rules such as the 16 Hour Rule. The DWP targets tend
to be around getting people into jobs, any kind of job, including
those only requiring low or no skills. This can only increase
the numbers in the workforce without qualifications.
64. Meanwhile the DfES is concerned with
raising the numbers in the workforce with at least Level 2 qualifications,
possibly keeping some economically inactive. The DWP Rules can
mean unemployed learners being forced to abandon their studies
in mid-course to take unskilled and/or temporary work even when
these might increase their labour market position.
65. There are other disjunctions between
the Home Office and the DfES around prisoner education. We also
consider that the Culture, Media and Sports Department does not
always seem to realise that a focus on skills building in the
areas within its remit can lead to real and productive employment,
and that the Department of Health may underestimate the contribution
that learning can make to good health, especially as the population
ages.
Do current funding structures support a more responsive
skills training system? How could they be improved?
66. The difficulty in answering this question
is partly due to the constant changes to both the overall methodology
and the detail of the funding structures. Since the inception
of the LSC, we have seem a variety of policy goals set out, each
declaring the intention to move to a common funding system across
the various strands of the LSC's remit, including skills training.
Whilst recognising the need for adjusting and fine tuning any
funding methodology, the almost continual flow of these changes
makes it difficult for providers and users, individuals and employers.
67. We would argue that there should be
a period of consolidation and stability in funding methodology.
We recognise that there is always a need to simplify funding methodologies
and reduce bureaucracy around funding, but it is our firm belief
that any funding system that has to cover the diversity of learning
programmes, providers and locations, as well as the modes of learning,
will always be somewhat complex. There will always be a trade-off
between simplicity and sensitivity in any funding methodology
used.
68. UCU considers that whilst there could
always be improvements in the current skills funding structures,
they are no better or no worse than previous structures and indeed
probably future methodologies. We believe strongly that what is
important is the culture that surrounds skills generation and
the underpinning framework. We would however make a series of
points on funding which could improve the current position.
69. Quantum. It is a central contention
of UCU that one of main problems around the funding of skills
is the amount of resources—the size of the quantum. Leitch
quotes figures of £17.4 billion as employers' spend on direct
training and of £12 billion as government's. These would
seem to be sizeable sums. However Leitch goes on to state that
this combined level of investment compares poorly by international
standards. Even in higher education, UK funding is around 50%
lower than in the US and 40% lower than in Sweden. UCU would argue
that there are simply not enough resources being devoted to skills
generation.
70. Later in the submission we will argue
that the government needs to ensure that employers pay more of
the costs of training, especially that training from which they
directly benefit. We would also argue that the government must
take the lead in ensuring that there are enough resources for
skills. In its submission to the 2008-11 Comprehensive Spending
Review, UCU argues that the amount of expenditure spent on education
and training should rise as a proportion of GDP. This would ensure
that that there was not the constant battle over the division
of the education and training budget between the resources for
young people and those for adults.
71. Demand led funding. The Government's
solution to the question around funding structures is again spelt
out in Leitch: it is to rely on employers and market forces. It
describes this as moving to a "demand-led" system where
all spending on adult skills above Skills for Life and Level 2
skills will be through employers. We will elaborate our opposition
to this particular concept of "demand-led funding" below.
In short we consider that this reliance on competition and market
forces in skills will lead to meeting the short term, more immediate
needs of employers. In most European countries employer needs
are modified through discussions with and inputs from the social
partners such as trade unions who can offer an expanded articulation
of what is required.
72. This definition does not recognise that
employees have their own set of needs around skills and does not
recognise longer term, national needs that will not be articulated
by employers.
73. National or local priorities. We have
a system that is driven by national targets and priorities. Leitch
recommends (and the government agrees) that outside lower level
skills, resources for adult skills will be directed through employers
meeting their immediate and often local needs. Thus adult skills
resource allocation seems to swing between the poles of national
and local/organisational priorities without ever striking a balance.
We believe a balance is needed. NIACE has recommended in its recent
publication, "Eight in Ten: adult learners in further education",
that one way of creating such a balance would be to have 80% of
college funding for meeting national priorities and the remaining
20% for colleges to use to respond to local needs and demands.
We see merit in this proposal.
74. Elasticity of the funding of training.
It is axiomatic in economics that price and demand and supply
of a good are inextricably intertwined: if price rises then demand
drops, if price falls then demand will increase. The rate of this
rise/fall in demand in relation to price is termed elasticity.
The direction of government policy is to increase the price of
training for users especially for higher level programmes that
have a greater return to the investment made. However, we believe
that the whole issue of the price elasticity of training is an
area where there seems to be insufficient information and data
for good policy making. This needs to be urgently rectified.
75. The funding gap. The difference in the
level of funding for similarl programmes for 16-19 year olds is
now well established and accepted by the government. LSDA research
published in 2006 demonstrated this was at least 13%. The Government
has undertaken to reduce this by 5% by 2008 and a further 3% by
2010. This still leaves a difference of 5%. This needs to be closed.
76. The differential in funding means that
colleges, in order to sustain programmes for young people of a
similar quality to those of schools, must fill this gap with funds
that might otherwise go for adult learning. It is yet another
demonstration of the inbuilt preference in government resources
towards work with young people over that with adults. This can
be seen in the words of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 which
states that there should be "proper resources" for education
and training for young people, yet only "reasonable"
resources for adult learning. The justification for this becomes
less and less viable with the projected fall in the numbers of
16-19-year-olds from 2009. We are on the brink of a moment where
a rebalancing of the amount of resources devoted to young people
as compared with those for adults, could be made without "robbing
Peter to pay Paul".
77. Funding of qualifications. Currently
both funding and entitlements relate to the achievement of full
qualifications. We believe that this does not allow providers
of skills training to be able to respond properly to both the
needs of employers and individuals. We also consider that it runs
against the direction of government policy in terms of the moves
towards a credit and unit system for adult qualifications. There
needs to be urgent consideration of the issues involved in a move
to funding based on achievement at module and unit level.
Is the balance between the public, employers'
and individuals' contribution to learning appropriate?
78. UCU does not consider that the balance
between the public, employers' and individuals' contribution to
learning is appropriate. We believe that much more needs to be
done to ensure that employers meet the costs of training their
workforces. This should include a move away from voluntarism in
skills generation. We would advocate some sort of statutory underpinning
of employers' responsibilities in this area, such as including
training in the remit of collective bargaining, the creation of
learning committees in every workplace, and a minimum amount of
time off for study for every employee.
79. We agree with the proposition put forward
concerning the main responsibilities of the state, the employer
and the individual in respect of the costs of training; that the
state should be responsible for employability and transferable
skills especially where there is "market failure", and
there are not returns on the investment for the training; that
the individual should be responsible for training and development
that is around their personal needs; and that the employer should
be responsible for training from which they derive direct benefit.
To this we would add that the state should be responsible for
the contribution to learning at whatever level to those who have
benefited least from previous education and training experience,
and those who lack the means to make a significant contribution
due to their lack of or level of income.
80. We hear constant exhortations from government
that individuals need to pay more for their learning. We hear
far less about the need to secure employer support. Indeed employers
are increasingly being given more and more generous support for
their training. Even the welcome Leitch recommendation that workers
might be given statutory access to training, would not be effective
until 2010, and only if it is shown that employers have not responded
to this latest call for action on their part. We believe that
statutory access should be introduced as soon as possible.
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?
81. UCU does not consider that there is
a case for a less regulated supply-side. We are in favour of reducing
bureaucracy. We are in favour of moves to self-regulation of their
activities by providers. However we are mindful that increasingly
lighter touch regulation and inspection in the learning and skills
sector seems to mean ever more heavy-handed self-assessment on
the part of the management of providers. We call for the kind
of trust relationship that providers call for from government
and its agencies, to be replicated in the internal systems and
relationships of providers.
82. It is UCU's position that regulation
is necessary where public funds are being used. This is even more
necessary when the lack of a democratic dimension throughout the
sector is taken into account. We ask that when considering regulation
in the sector, it is remembered why this has grown: because of
a series of abuses and financial scandals on the part of providers.
It is often claimed that the potential benefit of a less regulated
supply-side would be more innovative and entrepreneurial providers
responding ever more quickly and flexibly to employer needs.
83. We do not believe that these traits
and activities need be constrained by regulation. Indeed there
is considerable evidence that there are providers who display
these traits and undertake these activities now. Among the risks
in a deregulated supply-side, we would identify the possible misuse
and abuse of public funds; the duplication of provision of learning
by competitor providers meaning waste and inefficiency, and the
lowering of quality when the emphasis is on keeping prices down
to secure take-up by employers.
84. However, we would make clear that our
support for regulation does not mean that there could not be fewer
intermediary agencies and bodies. There does need to be a thorough
going review of the numbers, roles and purpose of all the intermediary
bodies. Those that are not considered to be essential to the good
working of the sector should be abolished. There may well be a
case for the functions and roles of others being subsumed by those
that are considered essential to the good working of the sector.
What do national and regional agencies currently
do well? How are bodies such as the Regional Skills Partnerships
working?
85. Among the national agencies that are
working well, UCU would identify Oftsed and the Sector's skills
council, Lifelong Learning UK. It is too soon since the latest
restructuring of the LSC to comment on its performance now. We
do feel, however, that some of the criticisms of the LSC's performance
stem from it being given too wide a remit and having too many
responsibilities.
86. Our experiences of Regional Development
Agencies are mixed because of the variability of the Agencies
themselves. Our principal criticism of existing national and regional
dimensions is that the lack of a democratic dimension leaves them
apart from the very populations they seek to serve. We see the
creation of real regional government as being the only sensible
way of ending this alienation and creating the necessary synergies
between government policies and agencies at regional levels. In
the area of skills such agencies should involve real social partnerships
so that instead of merely employer interests being catered for,
it would be the whole spectrum of "employment" interests
that were being met.
87. On Regional Strategic Partnerships,
UCU believes that there is a great variety of approaches across
the nine regions. This may be due to the different circumstances
of the regions, but it may be because of different levels of capacity
and capability within the Partnerships themselves. We cannot identify
a great deal of sharing of good practice across the Partnerships.
We do not detect a good understanding of skills beyond the meeting
of regional projections of national targets. Whilst seeing some
merit in the concept of city regions, there should be some clear
definitions of what these might cover.
Does the LSC need to be the subject of further
reform?
88. As we have made clear, we think it too
soon after the last restructuring to say whether the LSC needs
further reform. We have also made it clear that we would wish
to see an element of democratic control in the LSC. Whilst not
opposing the sections of the current Further Education and Training
Bill that would abolish the local LSCs and the Young People's
Learning and Adult Learning Committees, we do have concerns about
how local voices will be heard in the deliberations of the regional
LSCs, and that there might be a diminution of advice and scrutiny
around age-related issues.
DEMAND SIDE
Employers:
What should a "demand-led" system really
look like?
89. UCU's vision of "demand-led"
differs considerably from that of government, especially as exemplified
in the Leitch report. This seems to equate demand with what employers
say they require. What individuals might want, they will have
to pay for, although this could be delayed and staged through
resort to loans and special savings accounts such as new version
of Individual Learning Accounts.
90. In our view "demand-led" must
start from a definition where "demand" is derived from
the needs of "employment". This would encompass both
the needs of employers but also those of the workforce. Both have
legitimate demands and needs. Thus any moves to identify employer
requirements would be supplemented by those of the workforce,
especially as put forward by their representative organisations.
91. This is the kind of model which is used
in some European countries. In Germany skills gaps and the actions
to meet them are organised through a system in which at national,
regional and local level there is joint discussion and action
between the state, employers and trade unions. In the Netherlands
funding for skills is through employers, as represented through
sector organisations, but their analysis and actions are strongly
mediated by a requirement to obtain trade union approval for their
allocation of resources. An over reliance just on employer needs,
carries the danger of meeting their immediate and short term needs,
and failing to identify and meet more long term and sectoral and
national/regional needs.
92. There are also problems in actually
identifying employers, and which employer views should be taken
in to account. Employers are rarely a homogenous group. Even using
SSCs throws up problems. Does the SSC represent the views of the
greatest number of employers or those organisations employing
the greater number of employees? City and Guilds estimates that
3% of employers account for 72% of employees and 2.5% of private
companies have 64% of the employed. We have already suggested
that SSCs working through workplace learning committees, could
identify at an aggregate level employment demand, which could
then be responded to.
93. Demand from employment interests is
only part of the definition of "demand-led". Demand
from individuals must be part of any definition. The Government's
definition includes individuals but does not explain how these
views will be found. UCU believes any system of both listening
to the views of individuals and identifying what they want and
need, and of advising them through what is all too often a confusing
jungle of learning routes and qualifications, must have an independent,
impartial, well resourced careers, education and training information,
advice and guidance service for adults. We welcome the recommendations
in Leitch around such a service and for "skills health checks".
94. Additional problems around a "demand-led"
system attach to whether the system should respond to everything
thrown up in such a system. What happens if employers or individuals
identify and demand the kind of learning programmes and skills
that are not within the Government's priorities? What happens
if individuals identify wanting to pursue learning programmes
that have been cut because of a shortage of funds or because they
do not result in qualifications that meet government targets?
What happens when demand outstrips supply or the resources that
have been available?
95. An example of this is the current situation
with ESOL provision. The Government's answer is to introduce fees
as means of rationing provision. Whether ability to pay is a reasonable
form of deciding who receives learning must be open to debate.
Should employers be further incentivised to take
up training? If so, by what means?
96. UCU considers that a more productive
approach to employers taking more seriously their responsibilities
around skills would be to move away from the voluntarist approach
that has characterised the UK's position for over a hundred years.
The experience of most of our European and Asian competitors show
that that some form of government intervention is needed to underpin
a robust approach to skills. The issue in a globalised, increasingly
technologically driven economy is too important to be left to
exhortation or the well meaning efforts of a Skills Tsar. UCU
would advocate a number of statutory measures to underpin employers'
actions and responsibilities:
97. Training coming into the remit of collective
bargaining as is the case if union recognition is awarded by the
courts.
98. A minimum amount of time off for study
for all employees.
99. A statutory requirement for a company's
Annual Accounts to specify the amount of expenditure on training
and development.
100. Investment in training being allowable
for corporate tax purposes as is other investment.
101. A statutory requirement for every company
above a specified size to have a learning committee, and to negotiate
a learning agreement with its employees.
102. To offset these new requirements on
employers, UCU would also advocate use of fiscal measures to encourage,
recognise and reward employers' efforts in skills development.
A system of tax credits could operate, whose award could be triggered
by a number of measures such as gaining Investors in People status,
active involvement in sector skills councils and Business for
Education links.
What is the role of Union Learning Reps?
103. The emergence of union learning representatives
in the workplace, often stimulated by funds from the Union Development
Fund, is one of the most remarkable developments in lifelong learning
over the last decade. Since their first conceptualisation in the
Fryer Report in 1997, the numbers of learning representatives
and their activities in the workplace have grown steadily. Learning
representatives received a boost in 1999 with the establishment
of a statutory right to time off for their duties. The establishment
of Unionlearn should lead to the further development of their
role and activities. We look forward to Unionlearn both supporting
the growing network of learning representatives and disseminating
good practice among them and the unions.
104. Learning representatives have made
a considerable impact on workplace learning, especially in relation
to the development of literacy and numeracy and programmes leading
to Level 2 uptake in the workplace. They have often played a crucial
role in the successful development of Employer Training Programmes,
now Train to Gain.
105. UCU considers that the role of the
learning representative will take on different aspects in different
workplaces. This may vary according to the nature of the workplace
and workforce, the attitude of the employer to both unions and
to training and development, and the levels of skills required.
106. As far as developments within UCU,
and we think they will not be different for many unions, we have
seen three major roles for UCU branch learning representatives:
107. A role in relation to local collective
bargaining over training and development. After customised accredited
training provided by UCU, our learning representatives, are able
to offer their branch and local negotiators expertise in negotiating
issues at local level. They are in a position to place local developments
within a national context, and advise their negotiators on the
local consequences of national framework agreements, as well as
the impact of various national regulatory frameworks where these
exist. Learning representatives are crucial in assisting the branch
negotiating local learning agreements and securing either learning
committees or union representation on existing institutional training
and development committees.
108. A role in terms of giving branch members
individual help, information and guidance on training and development
opportunities. In most of the contexts in which UCU learning representatives
work, there are limited occasions where UCU members need such
help, working as they do in education institutions. However the
learning representative has an important role in relation to part-time,
casual and temporary staff, all of whom often have limited access
to training, or face particular problems in accessing it. UCU
learning representatives are also able through the information
they gather, to address the many equality issues around access
and take-up of training.
109. As part of a transmission route for
communications to and from the national union on developments
around initial training and continuous professional development.
Information on both what members need and want from training and
development informs the union's policies and activities in relation
to its work with Lifelong Learning UK, and with the union's links
and work with the DfES. This is particularly important as the
issues of initial teacher training and CPD have become more important
in the sector, especially in advance of important changes later
this year.
110. Although the role of learning representatives
is being recognised by increasing numbers of employers, a number
of changes would go a long way to cementing their vital and useful
role in workplace skills development:
111. A statutory right to establishing workplace
learning committees and learning agreements.
112. Extending the remit of collective bargaining
to include consultation on training.
113. Entitlement to time off for study for
all employees.
114. Ensuring that learning representatives
do receive time off for training and that where employers are
granting time off for union activities, time for learning representatives
is in addition to that already granted.
115. The right to time off for learning
representatives to be able to conduct their activities in the
workplace.
What roles should employment agencies play in
facilitating training?
116. Employment agencies can play a large
role in the employment of many different types of worker and workplace.
They are often a way of employers evading their responsibilities
to their workforces. With temporary and casual workers often employed
or found via employment agencies, it is vital that they are not
allowed to become a means of employers avoiding their responsibilities
in skills training and development.
117. Any regulations such as licences to
practice must also cover workers employed through employment agencies.
Indeed where employment agencies are taking a leading role in
certain types of employment or in certain sectors, then there
should be legislation to underpin their responsibilities with
regard to training and development.
118. An example of this would be around
the current discussions on ESOL provision. As part of their policy
decision to charge those in work for ESOL courses, the government
say that employers must pick up the costs of such programmes.
Given the prevalence of employment agencies and "gang masters"
bringing in migrant labour, it will be essential that there are
strong procedures in place to ensure that they do pay for these
programmes for workers they bring into the country.
LEARNERS
What is the typical experience of someone looking
for skills training?
119. UCU does not know what might be considered
a "typical" experience. Any experience will be dependent
on a number of factors such as:
120. What kind of training the person is
seeking?
121. What employment sector are they seeking
to enter or advance in?
122. What has been the previous experience
of education and training of the person?
123. What are the qualifications held and
at what level?
124. What savings or other financial support
does the person possess or have access to?
125. Are they working, and if so full- or
part-time, temporary or casualised?
126. What sex, ethnic origin, age, perceived
mental or physical ability?
127. Where they live/work?
128. UCU does not believe that there is
a satisfactory picture or understanding of the range of experiences
of someone looking for skills training across the variety of situations
where training is available. We do acknowledge that there have
been recent attempts to discover the views of learners in the
learning and skills sector, and to make the learner voice stronger.
These will cover trainees in colleges, adult education and work-based
learning.
129. However, there is far less known about
the experiences and views of those undertaking training in the
workplace. For example there are extensive surveys of learner
satisfaction in colleges, adult learning services and work-based
learning providers. There has been no similar survey of views
of trainees in the workplace. This amounts to a serious deficiency
especially as it is the intention of government policy to route
resources through employers. There is an urgent need to research
trainee experiences in the workplace.
130. In looking at the experience of those
seeking training, we would point out that the range of possible
training programmes is becoming narrower with an ever increasing
focus on training which has more immediate connection and rewards
in the labour market. We are aware there is less choice about
when and where trainees can learn, and many will have increasing
fees to pay if their training falls outside government priorities.
What information, advice and guidance is available
to potential learners?
131. All too often the information, advice
and guidance available to potential learners is patchy and of
uneven quality. This is why UCU welcomes the recommendations in
the Leitch Report to establish a national adult careers service
to provide information, advice and guidance about education and
training, as well as careers. We hope that this is taken up by
government, and along with the current review of information,
advice and guidance, will finally succeed in securing the kind
of high quality service that has been needed for a long time.
132. Information, advice and guidance has
for far too long been subject to an almost never ceasing series
of initiatives and restructurings which has meant the services
available have not always been of the highest quality. It is UCU
policy to seek a single all age information, advice and guidance
service. This would mean uniting an adult service with those for
young people. This would be particularly important in ensuring
the transition of young adults into work. However we realise that
the IAG services for young people, Connexions, is yet again undergoing
change and now would not be the best of times for such a unification
of information, advice and guidance services.
133. Earlier in the submission we made reference
to the increasing and often vital role that workplace union learning
representatives can make around IAG. We believe that this would
be bolstered by some of the legislative underpinning to their
role and to workplace training that we have advocated.
What is available for those with the very lowest
skill levels, who are outside of education, training and the world
of employment?
134. Because of the Government's priorities
around Skills for Life and Level 2 skills the position of those
with very lowest skills and who are often outside education, training
or employment is improving both in terms of information, advice
and guidance and actual provision. However UCU would identify
some actions which we consider could improve their position in
terms of taking up learning programmes:
135. Loosening of government and LSC priorities.
The prioritising of resources for those programmes that directly
contribute to the achievement of government targets in some areas,
has had the effect of cutting funding to learning programmes that
lead to courses that contribute to government targets such as
pre-entry literacy, numeracy and ESOL programmes. Such a crude
and blunt implementation of prioritisation is unhelpful to those
with the lowest skills levels who need smaller progression steps.
136. Increased funding for "first steps"
provision and non-accredited programmes in Personal And Community
Development Learning. Similarly some "first steps" provision
and much non-accredited learning has been squeezed by directing
resources at government priorities. Such courses are extremely
valuable in allowing those with very low skills, those who are
outside education, training or employment to build their confidence
and motivation in their abilities to learn.
137. More synergy between LSC funded providers
and JobCentre Plus provision. By building on the Leitch recommendations
to create a new integrated employment and skills service by drawing
together existing services such as Jobcentre Plus and the new
proposed adult careers service. If such a service can link to
learning providers and offer universal access to work-focused
careers advice, basic skills screening, job placement and links
to workplace training, then it may prevent many of the low skilled
and those alienated from learning from disappearing down the gaps
between agencies and services.
What is the role of the new Learner Accounts?
What factors should be considered in their design and implementation?
138. It seems as though the Government is
intending a major role for the new Learner Accounts as part of
creating their vision of a "demand-led" system. UCU
had considerable reservations about the original version of Individual
Learner Accounts as being an initiative that was largely culturally
inappropriate for the types of adults with low skills and low
income for whom it seemed to be aiming. We also were concerned
about the possibility for fraud and misuse of public funds, which
unfortunately did happen.
139. UCU acknowledges the care that the
Government is taking not to repeat the mistakes made in its first
initiative around Learner Accounts, and that the entitlements
to Level 2 and 3 qualifications means that this new version of
Learner Accounts will be directed at those seeking higher level
skills at and above Level 3.
140. However, we are concerned about the
amount of resources that may go into the new learner accounts
if the Leitch proposals are adopted. With the Government currently
committed to routing £1 billion through Train to Gain, this
may mean around £2 billion being routed through Learner Accounts.
This is a very large sum and certainly dwarfs the resources allocated
to their first version. However UCU would prefer to see these
resources going to schemes to directly support learners. We believe
that many for whom these new Accounts are intended will be risk
averse when it comes to taking on debt as a result of undertaking
training. We would point out the decrease in higher education
take-up among young people as a result of the imposition of top-up
fees. This is among groups who are less debt averse than those
who might take up the Learner Accounts may be, and where there
are very clear rates of return in terms of higher future salaries.
141. UCU does welcome the Leitch recommendation
that there should be further investigation of the possibilities
of unions being able to negotiate collective learning accounts
for their members. Such Accounts were present on a small scale
in the first version of Learner Accounts but had not been fully
developed before the scheme was ended.
APPRENTICESHIPS
What should apprenticeships look like? How close
are they currently to this vision?
142. UCU believes that new forms of apprenticeships
that have been developed for over a decade now have been relatively
successful in recreating an employment based route to skills and
qualifications for young people. They do and should continue to
comprise both underpinning knowledge and practical job-related
skills. Their most important aspect is their relationship to actual
employment and the way they can combine theoretical off-the job
and practical on-the-job-training.
143. To the apprenticeships at Level 3 for
18-21-year-olds, have been added a number of other schemes: the
apprenticeships at Level 2, the Entry to Employment programmes
which can be precursors to actual apprenticeships and the Young
Apprenticeships at GCSE level. These do have the positive advantage
of providing a progression route from lower level skills to full
advanced apprenticeships.
144. However, they do seem to be directed
at those who may not achieve through the national curriculum and
general education. In that, they may perpetuate the traditional
UK disparity of status between the general/academic route and
the vocational/applied route for young people. Should the new
diplomas that are being developed be successful, there will need
to be work on links between them and apprenticeships which will
be outside their scope.
145. UCU is also concerned at the relatively
low rate of completion and success in apprenticeships. The government
currently quote a figure of around 51%. This compares very poorly
to the success rates expected of colleges.
146. Leitch proposes that most of the growth
in apprenticeships by 2020 will come from adults, and the extension
of apprenticeships to adults has been signalled for some time.
Progress on creating viable apprenticeships for adults is now
urgent.
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?
147. We understand that there can be differences
between those parts of the apprenticeships seen as valuable by
learners and those seen as valuable by some employers. It is our
understanding that learners value the underpinning and transferable
parts of the programme, as well as those that directly connect
with workplace practice. Some employers see as valuable those
parts of the framework that connect more directly to actual practice
in their workplace. Indeed there is evidence that some employers
actively discourage their apprentices from completing their programmes
once they have completed those parts and units the employer sees
as valuable.
148. There is also evidence that both apprentices
and employers tend to see those parts of the programme around
key skills as being less valuable. Given the emphasis that government
gives to the need for key skills in the workforce, this is regrettable.
There is a need for more independent analysis and research into
these aspects of apprenticeships.
QUALIFICATIONS
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 rationalisation?
149. The jungle of qualifications available
to adults has long been commented on as being part of the problem
that faces the UK in skills development. It makes little sense
to either employers or learners. This is one of the reasons why
UCU has supported the moves to create a unitised and credit based
adult learning curriculum. We continue to support the work of
QCA and the LSC in developing what is now known as the Qualifications
Credit Framework. However, we do consider that progress on this
continues to be very slow. We hope that it accelerates. Until
the first real steps have been implemented and evaluated, we do
not consider there should be further rationalisation. We do repeat
our wish to see the work on the Qualifications Credit Framework
be linked to developments around credit in 14-19 and higher education
so that the UK has a single credit framework.
January 2007
| 
