Memorandum submitted by Mr Alan Wells
OBE
SUMMARY
1. My evidence is primarily concerned with
the needs of adults that have poor literacy and/or numeracy skills,
usually referred to as "basic skills". It is important
that these adults who have benefited the least from the compulsory
education system are not neglected in a strategy to improve the
education and skills of the nation. At present those with significant
basic skills needs are being neglected in favour of adults with
marginal, if any, basic skills needs.
2. My focus is on the scale of need in respect
of adults with poor basic skills and the target audience for the
Government's Skills for Life strategy, the national strategy aimed
at reducing the number of adults with poor literacy and numeracy
skills.
3. My concern is that the target audience
for the Skills for Life strategy has been expanded to include
everyone over the age of 16 years who does not have the equivalent
of a GCSE A*-C in English and mathematics [a Level 2 qualification]
and that this expansion of the target audience is unhelpful and
cannot be supported by the available research evidence. I would
not argue with the need to increase the skills of adults or that
Level 2 is not the appropriate level to aim for. However, seeing
all adults without a Level 2 qualification as having poor literacy
and/or numeracy skills is confusing and unhelpful. It is more
about making it easier to reach targets than reducing the number
of adults with significantly weak basic skills.
4. The impact of this expansion of the target
audience—what has been called an aiming for the "low
hanging fruit" policy—is that resources are spent on
those with few if any basic skills needs to the detriment of the
minority of adults that do struggle with the basic skills most
take for granted.
5. Moreover, the emphasis on funding linked
to qualifications gained means that the needs of those adults
some way away from gaining a qualification at the appropriate
level are being neglected in favour of adults with insignificant
needs many of whom could acquire the appropriate qualification
with little or no teaching.
6. I am also concerned that the approach
to assessing the success of the Skills for Life strategy is the
number of qualifications gained rather than the number of adults
that have improved their literacy and/or numeracy skills to a
generally acceptable standard. Clearly using qualifications gained
leads to double counting. Furthermore, there is some evidence
that adults who had few if any difficulties with literacy and/or
numeracy but have taken the National Tests in Literacy and/or
Numeracy are counted as "no longer in need" in claims
made for the success of Skills for Life. I find it perverse that
some basic skills teachers have actually taken the same Tests
as the learners they are teaching!
7. My long held and often expressed concern
is supported by the recent report by the National Audit Office
[NAO] that found that the data system for assessing progress towards
achieving the aim of the Strategy to "increase the number
of adults with the skills required for employability and progression
to higher levels of training through improving the basic skill
levels of 2.25 million adults between the launch of Skills for
Life in 2001 and 2010, with a milestone of 1.5 million in 2007"
is "not fit for purpose". It was one of only five Government
targets of the 53 reviewed by the NAO that was awarded a "red"
traffic light symbol.
BACKGROUND
8. For many years, the UK Government returned
a 1% figure to UNESCO as the best estimate of the number of "illiterate"
adults in the UK. In this context, "illiterate" was
taken to mean adults who could not read or write at all.
9. In the early 1970s a number of voluntary
organisations became concerned about what was referred to as "functionally
illiterate" adults—people over 16 years of age who
did not have the reading and writing skills required to deal with
modern life. In 1973, the British Association of Settlements [BAS
now BASSAC] suggested that there were at least one million adults—about
3% of all adults—in the UK who could be described as "functionally
illiterate". [The BAS estimate was based on an extrapolation
from the regular surveys of the literacy skills of school leavers
undertaken by Start and Wells between 1948 and 1972].
10. During the 1980s and 1990s the Basic
Skills Agency—then known as the Adult Literacy and Basic
Skills Unit [ALBSU]—undertook a number of surveys to try
to estimate the number of adults with poor literacy [and later
numeracy]. Initially these surveys were based on self-report,
where a sample of adults was asked about their basic skills. Self-report
suggested that about 13% of adults thought that they had poor
literacy skills.
11. Later surveys by the Agency were commissioned
using two age cohorts, one group born in one week of 1958 and
another group born in one week of 1970. Other surveys were commissioned
using a representative sample of the adult population. These surveys
used so called "real life" tasks to assess the basic
skills of those in the survey, although self-report was also included
in most of the surveys.
12. Typical examples of these "real
life" self-report tasks were being:
— shown a page from Yellow Pages
listing plumbers and being asked a question such as "which
plumber is available day and night"?
— shown instructions for a medicine
and being asked a question such as "what dose should be given
to a child"?
— asked "what change would you
get from £20 if you had spent £17.89"?
— asked questions about a train or
bus timetable.
13. These various surveys suggested anywhere
between 15% and 19% of adults could be said to have poor basic
skills, although very few were "illiterate" in the classical
sense of not being able to read or write at all or "innumerate"
in the sense that they could not understand or handle numbers
at all.
THE INTERNATIONAL
ADULT LITERACY
SURVEY [IALS]
14. In 1997, OECD commissioned a study of
adult literacy and numeracy in 14 countries led by Statistics
Canada. The Office of National Statistics led this work in the
UK. This study, known as the International Adult Literacy Survey
[IALs] used similar but different "real life" tasks
to those used in earlier surveys. OECD divided adults into various
levels of performance. The lowest level was identified as those
adults with poor basic skills.
15. The results from a selection of countries
are shown in the chart below.
16. These international surveys have to
be interpreted with a measure of caution. Some languages have
a greater sound/symbol relationship in comparison to English,
although this does not explain the very significant differences
between countries in numeracy. Of the countries included in the
IALs survey only Poland had more adults with poor basic skills
than us.
17. The IALs survey with its estimate that
approximately seven million adults in England had poor basic skills
was used to inform the work of the Moser Committee which was established
under the Chairmanship of the then Sir Claus Moser in 1999. However,
increasingly doubts were expressed both here and in the United
States about the reliability of the IALs survey. A number of experienced
commentators, of who I was one, thought that the methodology used
had led to an over-estimate of the number of adults with poor
basic skills.
18. This concern centres on the method used
to assign adults to different performance levels and the reliability
of so called "real life" tasks, particularly as many
of these tasks rely heavily on prior knowledge rather than say
reading skills and seemingly similar tasks are not of the same
ease or difficulty. For example, use of Yellow Pages or
a bus timetable increases significantly the chance of getting
a task right.
THE SKILLS
FOR LIFE
SURVEY
19. In 2003 the DfES commissioned further
research into the scale of need. This research undertaken by BRMB
International[1]
came up with the results shown in the chart below.
| | |
| | |
| LITERACY | |
| Numeracy | |
|
| | |
| | |
| Entry Level 1 or below | 3% |
1.1m | Entry Level 1 or below |
5% | 1.7m |
| Entry Level 2 | 3% | 0.6m
| Entry Level 2 | 16% | 5.1m
|
| Entry Level 3 | 11% | 3.5m
| Entry Level 3 | 25% | 8.1m
|
All Entry level or below | [16%]
| [5.2m] | All Entry level or below
| [47%] | [15.0m]
|
| Level 1 | 40% | 12.6m
| Level 1 | 28% | 8.8m
|
| Level 2 | 44% | 14.1m
| Level 2 | 25% | 8.1m
|
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
20. In all of these various surveys there is considerable
overlap between literacy and numeracy with a significant percentage
of those with poor literacy skills having poor numeracy skills
as well and vice versa. However, literacy and numeracy are very
different from each other and should not be seen as the opposite
sides of a "coin".
21. The DfES survey expressed this in a chart similar
to that shown below.
22. The DfES equates different levels of performance
by adults in literacy and numeracy assessments with recognised
terminal examinations usually gained at the conclusion of compulsory
schooling. Thus, Level 2 is described as the equivalent of a GCSE
Grades A*-C and Level 1 as a GCSE Grades D-G in English and mathematics.
This is at best a crude equivalence as GCSE assessment works in
an entirely different way to the assessment of literacy and numeracy
skills using "real life" tasks or assessment tests.
In fact, it is less than helpful.
23. The Moser Report, whilst accepting the need for better
research into the scale of need, recommended that the target for
a national strategy to improve basic skills should be at or below
Level 1 in literacy and at or below Entry Level 2 in numeracy.
[2]Based on the most recent
DfES BRMB survey this would target 16% of adults for literacy
and 21% for numeracy, although there would be considerable overlap
between these groups. In total this would be just under seven
million people between the ages of 16 and 65 years.
24. The Skills for Life strategy, however, targets all
adults that do not have the equivalent of a Level 2 qualification
in English and mathematics. Thus the target for Skills for Life—a
strategy subtitles as the "national strategy for improving
adult literacy and numeracy skills" is just under 27 million
adults in England. Moreover, whilst claims of progress in respect
of the strategy give the impression that it relates to seven million
adults it, in fact, relates to a much larger number.
What does performance at different levels mean?
25. It is worth summarising briefly what performing at
Level 2 in literacy and numeracy actually means. [3]
LITERACY
At Level 2, the adult reads from texts of varying complexity,
accurately and independently (complex books, text books, reports,
training manuals etc). She/he writes to communicate information,
ideas and opinions clearly and effectively, using length, format
and style appropriate to purpose, content and audience (eg a complex
letter, essay, report).
26. Even Entry Level 3 performance is not undemanding.
At Entry Level 3, an adult reads more accurately and independently
and obtains information from everyday sources (eg popular newspaper).
She/he is able to communicate in writing information and opinions
with some adaptation to the intended audience (eg a short formal
letter, note or form).
NUMERACY
Level 2
An adult can (among other things):
— Carry out calculations with numbers of any size
using efficient methods.
— Calculate with money and convert between currencies.
— Find one number as a fraction/percentage of another.
— Use a calculator efficiently for any calculation
(including %, brackets).
— Put numbers in formulae (words or symbols) and
work out results (eg for areas, miles to kilometres, in cooking).
— Calculate with units in different systems (eg
using conversion tables, approximate conversions such as 100g
is a little over three ounces).
— Estimate, measure and compare length, weight,
capacity (eg compare nutritional information on food labels).
— Work with scale drawings (eg scale plans, distances
from maps).
— Collect and show data in tables, charts diagrams
and graphs—choosing scales to fit the data (eg changes in
exchange rates, baby's weight over time).
Entry Level 3
An adult can (among other things):
— Add and subtract three digit whole numbers.
— Work with multiples (eg number of items in five
crates with 16 items to a crate).
— Estimate answers to calculations (eg it doesn't
make sense—it must be bigger than that!).
— Work with fractions (eg 1/3 off, 50cm is 1/2 a
metre).
— Add, subtract money using decimals (eg check a
till receipt, bank statement, pay slip).
— Understand two-digit decimals in practical contexts
(eg measuring in different units).
— Use scales and keys on bar charts—compare
two bar charts (eg to do with work, food etc).
— Show information in different ways so it makes
sense to others.
27. The "anyone below Level 2" target audience
for the Government's strategy is even more perverse when seemingly
so many of these adults, of all ages, have recognised qualifications.
28. For instance, according to the DfES Skills for Life
survey, almost six in 10 people with five A*-C grades at GCSE
only had Level 1 skills in literacy. [The level that would only
get them a D-G at GCSE]. About one in eight of those with five
A*-Cs did not seem to have the literacy skills required to get
a GCSE at any level. At A Level the picture was much the same
with more than 50% of those with A Level qualifications only having
the literacy skills for a D-G at GCSE. In fact, one in 10 of these
adults apparently had such poor literacy skills that they would
not be likely to have gained any qualifications. Furthermore,
almost one in three of those that had a degree only had the literacy
skills to get a D-G at GCSE. These are adults of all ages so this
is unlikely to be evidence that qualifications have been made
easier. It is more likely, in my view, that the Skills for Life
research methodology is flawed.
Why is this important?
29. Over estimating the scale of need and expanding the
target audience to include four in five adults is important for
a number of reasons. Firstly it suggests that the school system
has been turning out millions of young people with poor literacy
and/or numeracy skills for many years when there is, in fact,
little evidence that this is the case. This then becomes received
wisdom with even as experienced a commentator such as Digby Jones
claiming recently that "... 11 million people cannot add
up" and saying this is a "disgrace". There is no
evidence that this is the case.
30. Furthermore, it goes against common sense and what
adults actually think about their literacy and numeracy skills
as shown below.
31. Second a country which such a high level of people
with poor basic skills is likely to deter international investors
when they learn that we have a "national strategy for improving
adult literacy and numeracy skills" that has as its target
82% of all adults because by implication this is the number of
adults that need help.
32. Thirdly because the focus on Level 2 means that providers
have to target adults able to reach the level required fairly
quickly to the detriment of adults with rather more serious basic
skills deficits. Yet, evidence from Bynner and Parsons suggests
that disadvantage is heavily focused on adults with the very poorest
basic skills.
What needs to be done?
33. In the short-term, the Skills for Life strategy needs
to be refocused so that it is genuinely concerned with improving
adult literacy and numeracy skills among adults. This means setting
as the target for the strategy, those adults who perform below
Level 1 in literacy and below Entry Level 3 in numeracy. Whilst
it may be desirable to have a Level 2 target, this should be separate
from a target focused on improving adult literacy and numeracy
skills.
34. This re-focusing will involve some adjustment to
funding mechanisms and a review of funding against qualifications
as operated currently by the Learning and Skills Council. Rather
funding should be linked to participation and progress but not
inextricably tied to qualifications, particularly as some adults
will require a considerable amount of time to reach the level
required to gain a recognised qualification.
35. As recommended by the National Audit Office and by
the Leitch Report, assessment of progress in respect of Skills
for Life should not be assessed by using qualifications gained.
The Leitch Report usefully suggests replacing assessment through
qualifications gained with "a Skills for Life Survey every
two years". Leitch goes on to make the point that this is
"a fundamentally different target, based on measuring outcomes
in the population rather than the outputs of the skills system.
Progress will be measured by tests of actual skills among adults,
rather than through attainment of qualifications".[4]
36. This is a sensible recommendation but it is not without
some pitfalls. In recent years there has been substantial criticism
of the methodology used to assess the basic skills levels of adults
both in the UK and in other industrialised countries, particularly
the United States. Leaving aside where the cut-off point between
good and inadequate literacy and numeracy is, the concern is centred
on the difficulty of grading different real life tasks effectively
and ensuring that tasks at the supposed same level are equivalent.
It's also apparent that the difficulty of some types of task changes
over time.
37. It is also difficult to avoid a significant margin
of error in these adult population surveys unless very large numbers
are used. An example of this was the supposed drop in the number
of adults with poor literacy from seven million to 5.8 million
between the International Adult Literacy survey [IALs] and the
Skills for Life survey and claimed in a hastily withdrawn press
release from the DfES that this showed that the Government's strategy
was working. In fact, the two surveys had been conducted some
years apart, used different tasks, with different numbers of adults.
Not surprising that the results are not the same.
38. So whilst Leitch is right to suggest that adult population
surveys would be a lot more reliable than using qualifications
gained to assess progress, a considerable amount of work is required
to ensure the reliability of adult population surveys and their
comparability survey to survey. Only when this has been done will
we be sure that claimed success is the same as real success.
February 2007
1
The Skills for Life Survey, DfES 2003. Back
2
A Fresh Start, DfES, 1999. Back
3
The Skills for Life Survey, DfES 2003. Back
4
The Leitch Report Back
| 
