Memorandum submitted by the English Regional
Development Agencies
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
AGENCIES
1. Introduction
England's nine Regional Development Agencies
(RDAs) were set up eight years ago to promote economic prosperity
throughout the UK. The overall mission is to make sustainable
improvements in the economic performance of all English regions.
To this end, each RDA leads the development of a Regional Economic
Strategy (RES) along with a wide range of regional partners, including
local businesses, government, universities, community and volunteer
groups. Since their foundation, RDAs have created (or safeguarded)
nearly 800,000 jobs; aided the creation of around 60,000 new businesses;
and brought over 12,000 hectares of brownfield land to life. RDAs
have also brought some £8 billion of private sector funding
into regional development.
2. Regional context
RDAs are responsible for working with partners
and employers to grow the regional economy—by promoting
employment, business growth and competitiveness and by enhancing
the development and application of skills. The newly revised Regional
Economic Strategies provide a clear vision to transforming regional
economies through building on assets and tackling areas of underperformance.
The RES is based on both sound evidence and consultation with
regional employers, sectors, funders, providers and agencies.
It has a clear focus on increasing GVA and diminishing the differential
in GVA between and within regions.
The difference in economic growth and productivity
in each region is related, to a large extent, to the number of
people in employment and the productivity of the labour force
and its sectors. In order to reduce the gap in GVA, regions need
to improve total productivity and get more people into employment.
RDAs are fundamental in driving this forward, encouraging innovation
and enterprise through their business support role, and with it
the need for higher-level skills. There is a strong economic case
for considering business and skills together as the drivers of
productivity. The implementation of Leitch and delivery of the
stretching targets therefore have to be seen within the wider
productivity agenda.
This means working with companies to invest
in innovation and sustainable production alongside developing
the managers and leaders, and investing in individuals to develop
higher-level skills.
RDAs work effectively with sectors and clusters,
and recognise their value as both growth sectors and high employment
sectors. RDAs are working hard to ensure that the articulation
of the skills needs from these sectors and the work of the Sector
Skills Councils are brought together more effectively.
Increasing economic activity rates and ensuring
that the region's workforce can support a rapidly changing economy
will require regular re-skilling, up-skilling at all skills levels
and providing the opportunity to work to all that are willing.
The development of these skills is cumulative, and therefore the
impact can be seen over time, not as a quick fix.
3. Where the regional tier adds value
The Leitch review seeks to create a skills system
that meets the need of individuals and employers. Employer investment
in skills or recruitment of staff occurs as a result of a desire
for improved business performance, with skills and employment
being examples of derived demand. Given the derived nature of
skills demand, it will be essential to engage businesses and harness
business support and enterprise services in order to drive up
employer demand for skills. RDAs are in a strong position to respond
to the Leitch challenge by raising demand for skills and to spur
the creation of a demand-led skills system.
RDAs are already working with supply and demand
side organisations within each region. Major progress has been
made and each region now has:
— A clear statement of skills priorities,
based on detailed knowledge of business demand and aligned to
economic priorities set out in the RES.
— An integrated approach to business
support and skills brokerage through management of Business Links.
— Local/ sub-regional priority setting
where economic boundaries show this is appropriate and cities
or sub-regions have the capacity to do so. (eg city skills and
employment strategies / boards)
Developing plans for skills provision, linked
to employment and business support, should continue to be based
on regional priorities:
RDAs can ensure skills can be linked into the
competitiveness agendas, in a way no other body is able to do.
As a result the collective impact on productivity is maximized.
Working at the regional level:
— The evidence base is sufficiently
robust to allow hard choices to be made.
— It is an appropriate level at which
to share best practice, generate synergies, and with this, commission
activity to benefit regional productivity.
— It is also the best level to prioritise
investment, align funding and allocate grants to ensure greatest
impact and lack of duplication.
— There are existing partnership arrangements
which enable the strategic direction and delivery of skills priorities.
These recognize there is a regional labour market which needs
to be addressed, and also make links to local, sub-regional and
city region labour markets.
— The regions have been recognised
with the decision-making and distribution of European funding.
— There is a proven track record in
terms of delivery.
RDAs operate regionally but can ensure that
local and sub-regional action to address specific labour markets
are linked to regional economic priorities and are not operating
in isolation. They can also ensure that wider travel-to-work areas
are taken into account. Nobody else is in a position to do this.
4. Regional strategic framework
At the present time, Regional Skills Partnerships
provide a platform for the skills priorities for the region identified
from the RES, driven forward by a range of delivery partners.
Regional Skills Partnerships are not separate entities, they are
genuine partnerships made up of all the key partners. In looking
forward, these could be enhanced further in a number of ways.
There is a clear need for a partnership approach,
led by the RDAs, to work across the full range of the skills agenda—drawing
together the interests of employers, individual learners, training
providers and funders, local authorities and other key organisations.
Each region should have the flexibility and
accountability to decide how best to ensure its skills priorities
are met. Consideration should be given as to involvement of the
newly formed Regional LSC Councils, which are presently being
defined and will perform a specific role and function.
The regional level should not duplicate what
happens at a sub regional or City Region level, but should ensure
connectivity between these, and the RES. The region also needs
to provide connectivity to the national lead and drivers.
5. Sub regional and local level delivery
In order to ensure a market driven approach,
delivery and engagement is best done at the most appropriate spatial
and economic level, determined by local labour market and employer
demand. Already, "local areas", Cities, City Regions
and potential "Multi Areas" have articulated their skills
and employment needs around retention and recruitment, based on
the needs of their employers and individuals within the locality.
A number of Employment and Skills Boards are
already being set up to respond to the priorities for that locality
and to ensure that partners are clear what needs to be delivered.
They are responding to the market and to economic need. A clear
set of deliverables should be achieved, based on the area they
serve and the overarching contribution they make to the regional
economy.
However, they should not be seen as governance
structures. The National Commission in setting up its network
of Employment and Skills Boards, needs to ensure it does not either
duplicate these, or proliferate a series of Boards at a spatial
level which does not properly represent the natural labour market,
or increase bureaucracy through licensing.
There needs to be coherence and synergies between
these, and a feeding back of intelligence into the regional level
to ensure overall impact on the regional economy.
QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
6. 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?
In general terms, RDAs welcome the key features
identified in the proposal document and in particular the strong
response to Leitch in raising adult skill levels. We have provided
comments on the Leitch Report through various fora and, very recently,
on the latest draft of the Leitch Implementation Plan. Our key
recommendations to the drafting team are to ensure that the plan
reflects the need to upskill at all levels, and for businesses
to make effective use of skills, if productivity is to improve.
The demand for skills is derived from the needs of business and
the economy. People need to be in jobs that use their skills effectively
if productivity is to improve. We need to generate employer demand
for skills, and provide them with support and advice on how to
change their business strategy and work organization to make best
use of these skills.
RDAs see there being a number of essential elements
that form an integral part of a successful implementation plan
for Leitch. These include:
— Employer engagement (in widest sense
from awareness through to full buy in—culture change).
— Excellent shared understanding of
the market (ie employer needs, the drivers behind these and supply
response).
— Responsive, effective demand led
skills system (again culture change).
— Excellent relevant advice and brokerage—for
employers and individuals (adults and young people).
— Public funding focused on highest
priorities/areas of greatest market failure.
— Appropriate measures of success.
— Robust, flexible partnerships at
national, regional and local levels.
The Leitch Report provides a national picture
of the UK skill needs, but does not look at a sub-national level.
Hence there is a risk that the impact of demographic changes,
which vary across regions and areas of the country, will be misunderstood
and result in policy errors. We suggest as a starting point the
differential impact of demographic changes across the country
is mapped and due consideration given to how these affects different
spatial levels.
It is also necessary to recognize the importance
of Leitch in pulling together all the 14-19 developments with
wider skills issues and this reinforces the need to have employers
engaged at all levels. The whole process should focus on producing
a seamless progression in terms of promoting skills for employment
from school, into work-based provision, FE HE and into the workplace.
The Leitch Report recognises that most of the
people that will constitute the workforce in 2020 are already
in employment. The Leitch report also identifies that the workforce
will need to update their skills as the economy changes. Hence
there is a mismatch between the government emphasis on skills
investment in young people and the needs of the existing and ageing
workforce. Further implications are as follows:
— Where demographic trends will lead
to reductions the number of young people entering the workforce,
skills requirements will need to be met increasingly from the
existing (adult) workforce.
— It will be important for vocational
and academic qualifications to develop individuals' employability,
both by qualification design and delivery responding to employer
need and by developing broader generic employability skills and
experience in the learners.
— Many current and former workers will
need to retrain to take up job opportunities as part of the ongoing
economic restructuring in the regions. The focus needs to be on
the current workforce and on upskilling as well as retraining.
Current interventions and targets will not achieve the step change
needed to be globally competitive in 2010.
7. Are the measures that we have available
to assess the success of skills strategy robust?
We recognize the need to apply performance measures
that are at the same time appropriate and tangible. However, in
our view the measures currently used to assess the skills strategy
are relatively crude and not totally appropriate—in particular
they focus on the supply side and use qualification based as proxy
for skills development. This needs to be balanced by demand side
indicators, eg employer demand for/investment in skills. We need
to progress both the supply and demand side if we are going to
achieve the tripartite model visioned in the Skills Strategy.
There is a need to measure the impact of the
Skills Strategy on improving wider economic performance, with
intermediate measures reflecting the extent to which firms are
adopting higher value-added production strategies, and improved
take up and use of skills eg increases in the numbers of jobs
that use higher level skills and increased employer investment
in skills.
Consideration needs to be given to how the system
might be made more effective and sophisticated, without making
it overly complex. Care need to be given in selecting measures
to avoid elevating a statistic to indicator/performance measure
status, as this can lead/distort actions and behaviours which
render it inappropriate for its chosen purpose.
We endorse the value of qualifications as a
universal measure for achievement against level indicators and
competencies. The emerging qualifications framework will still
be the best benchmark against which employees can be judged.
NATIONAL POLICY/ISSUES
8. Are the Government's priorities for skills
broadly correct—for example, the focus on first "level
2" qualifications?
A full appropriate Level 2 should be the minimum
aim of any national skills strategy if we are to achieve the step
change in productivity. However, in specific sectors additional
Level 3 targets are critical to ensure that the appropriate intermediate
skills levels are achieved. Some flexibility in funding is, in
our view, needed to support the attainment of these priority skills.
The first full Level 2 is also an appropriate
priority in terms of supporting the employability of individuals.
However, in our view what is funded is too rigidly tied to full
qualifications and the restriction in terms of first full Level
2 ie with the changing economic climate the individual who needs
to retrain at Level 2 will not be able to do so at the public
expense with subsequent impact on their employability There is
a significant challenge implicit in the demand led system where
the public purse will only support very specific predetermined
priorities. Leitch places its focus on the utilisation of public
funding on basic/lower level skills with the aim to achieving
the "pull through" to intermediate/higher level skills
development via funding from other sources (including some public
sector—first Level 3, for example)—but with the level
of public funding tapering off as the benefit to individual/employer
increases. The failure to expand the Level 3 offer and absence
of support for vocational provision at Level 4 is a significant
constraint on the future productivity of businesses. This, together
with the suggestion that learners must commit to full qualifications
to receive public support, is likely to limit individual choice
and the available provision, as providers mitigate further risk
through the pursuit of mainstream funding.
9. How do other targets, such as the "50%
into HE" fit with the wider skills agenda?
This target needs to be considered alongside
the Leitch recommendation that 40% of adults qualified to Level
4 (the 50% target is for 18-30-year-olds). In addition, we recommend:
— more sophisticating targeting to
link to the Government's aspiration to strengthen the vocational
route into HE: It is worth noting that in its current PSA consultation
DfES are proposing an emphasis on Level 4+ science qualifications
under the skills PSA, and capturing post 16 participation in physical
sciences under the increasing educational attainment PSA; and
— targeting particular subject areas
to incentivise skills development in relation to economically
important subjects. GCSE targets, for example, Maths, English
and Sciences are very important.
It is arguable (given the detailed international
analysis contained in the Leitch Report and the demography of
the UK) that the 50% into HE target should be redefined as 50%
of post-19 citizens available for employment should be engaged
in HE or higher level skills development.
10. What is the extent of joined-up working
between Government departments, particularly, the DfES and the
Department for Work and Pensions?
We welcome Leitch's proposal to bring skills
and employment much closer together through a universal IAG service,
New Deal for Skills and closely aligned JCP and LSC provider networks
and services. This alignment is vital if we are going to get more
of the economically inactive back to work through skills training.
In our experience there are excellent examples
of collaboration between Government Departments, between Departments
and other partners, national and regional. These include examples
of LSC and JCP working together to develop a Regional Skills and
Jobs Plan, the new Skills for Jobs initiative and regional single
approved JCP/LSC providers list. There have however, also been
inconsistencies in the way different departments collaborate regarding
"skills" policies at the regional level—eg DWP
and DEFRA continue to pursue policies that do not appear to join
up with other departmental approaches; by contrast there are also
some tensions (still) between DfES and DWP in relation to skills
and workless agendas. The inflexibility of JCP budgets and schemes
can also impede progress.
11. Do current funding structures support
a more responsive skills training system? How could they be improved?
In our view, no. The activities of a host of
agencies operating in each region, including the LSC and JCP,
are directed by national funding and targets rather than regional
priorities. This results in a fragmented regional target framework
that acts as a disincentive to collaboration to achieve regional
economic aims, which limits the success of Government achieving
the Regional Economic Performance 2 Target—ie to reduce
the gap in economic growth rates between the regions. The current
funding structures are geared to deliver national PSA targets
on full qualification achievements rather than responding to the
needs of individual learners and employers.
Rolling this down to the delivery level, most
FE colleges are highly reliant on LSC funding, and therefore are
primarily focused on achieving LSC set targets that relate to
qualification achievements. Public funding for colleges does not
extend to supporting responsive delivery if it does not lead to
a full qualification. Research shows that the majority of employers
do not want to embark on long term skills programmes such as NVQ
frameworks. FE providers offer a limited range of CPD/short courses
to business and delivery fragmented. Despite employers asking
for this kind of provision at all skills levels, the FE sector
maintains focus on full qualifications up to Level 2.
We support the new approach proposed through
Train to Gain. The funding system is based on employer demand
"triggering" a pull down of funding to support delivery
of the skills programme agreed with the employer. This is a major
step forward.
We recommend that a proportion of Train to Gain
programme funds are ring-fenced to support business-driven skills
provision eg short courses, CPD and leadership and management,
bite size qualifications. This, and the national roll out of the
Level 3 and 4 Train to Gain pilots to provide a full skills offer
employers will really value.
This would really help gain the confidence of
employers in publicly supported skills programmes, and lead to
their participation in apprenticeships and full qualifications
in the long run.
The LSC are in the process of implementing new
funding processes for the FE System that are linked to college
business planning where colleges/providers can reflect the local
demand for skills where this has been expressed through dialogue
with businesses. It is perhaps not the funding system but the
economics of running course in colleges that create inflexibilities,
while delivery in the workplace can increase flexibilities.
Government should require national bodies to
set plans based on regional economic priorities, rather than seeking
to fit regional activity into previously set national targets.
This will ensure that national plans and investment decisions
reflect the economic needs of the regions and therefore its national
economy, rather than economic development activity having to be
massaged to fit nationally set targets or programmes. This is
particularly important for skills.
Leitch made no explicit mention of the regional
interface and regional economic demand. Leitch's proposals for
a new Commission for Employment and Skills need to be flexible
in order to take account of regional and local circumstances.
The initial Regional Funding Allocations exercise has been a good
starting point in joining up economic development, housing and
transport funding; but it has excluded skills funding which is
needed to deliver enhanced economic performance.
12. Is the balance between the public, employers'
and individuals' contribution to learning appropriate?
The principle is right. The challenge now is
to develop a more robust learning culture in the UK. We need to
promote the benefits of investing in skills development to employers.
The current approach is too "broad brush", leaving individuals
and companies with real skills needs unable to access public funds.
Funding formulae should link to the needs of employers as articulated
through the SSAs.
Perhaps tax relief for individuals and businesses
investing in training should be explored or schemes piloted. The
introduction of the new Learning Accounts will help in this respect.
RDAs should retain the option to fund skills
development outside of Government targets to help to meet economic
skills needs and stimulate local markets.
SUPPLY SIDE
13. 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?
Yes, we need to merge functions and processes
into fewer bodies with clear accountability. The key intermediary
bodies should be Train to Gain (businesses) and IAG (individual)
services to streamline access into provision—these should
be heavily promoted. Management information from these services
should inform provision (only happening in part in relation to
Train to Gain). In this way the supply side could be market driven
and possibly would need less regulation.
Potential benefits include:
— skills development addressing local
economic need (if delivered at the regional level);
— (longer term) efficiency savings.
There are risks, but we believe these can be
managed. They include:
— Inability to generate management
information of the quality required to support system—it
would have to be reliable, accurate and timely.
— Confusion to customers as result
of restructuring.
— Short term inefficiencies/discontinuities
from associated retraining, redeployment, possibly redundancies.
14. What do national and regional agencies
currently do well? How are bodies such as the Regional Skills
Partnerships working?
RDAs have clear role in bringing together partners
to agree a common vision for their region through the RES. RDAs,
through RES's, are unique in promoting a long term view of people
and skills in the context of the wider economy and social framework.
Supporting this, mechanisms such as RES implementation
plans have been developed with all key partners to identify how
they will assist in delivering the RES. RDAs should work with
the new National Commission for Employment and Skills and the
Local Boards to ensure grounding with the RES and RSPs. RDA involvement
in business support, and increasingly innovation, puts us in an
ideal position to drive up employer demand for skills. The integration
of skills brokerage with other business support facilitates this.
In regions where the RDA is responsible for delivering a combined
brokerage service (ie Train to Gain and wider business support)
there is the greatest potential to join up brokerage services
into a coherent whole.
In turn, RSPs are supporting regionally agreed
priorities, and aligning plans and funding to address those priorities.
This joint planning and working ensures appropriate targeting
of funding and reduces duplication. RSP working is characterized
by goodwill and common commitment.
The introduction of a regional tier in the LSC
structure is to be welcomed. At the regional level the LSC is
starting to create a demand led system focusing on customer choice
through the development of the regional commissioning plan. However
it is early days to judge their performance.
There is still scope for national and regional
bodies to collaborate further eg LSC research driven at the national
level (eg NESS) and the regional analysis of this data. Regional
bodies can identify what will make a difference at the regional,
subregional and local levels which in a region dominated by SMEs
is critical for the economy otherwise provision doesn't met needs.
15. Does the LSC need to be the subject of
further reform?
The LSC would benefit from a period of time
to implement and embed the current round of changes. A culture
of partnership working rather than a contract culture needs to
be developed within the LSC. We have good examples of RDA-LSC
partnerships developing and this needs to be encouraged.
Alongside this there is a need to reform PSA
targets to support the shift to a truly demand led system—there
is too much focus on funding qualifications because of their need
to meet the PSA targets.
There is a need to clarify the role and purpose
of the LSC regarding their economic development function(s).
16. What is the typical experience of a college
or other provider who wants to put on new provision in response
to local employer demand?
In our view, the main consideration will be
who is going to pay—this will dictate the experience. In
our experience, colleges and providers usually do this in spite
of, rather than supported by, public funding structures, or when
regional partners focus their discretionary funding on employer
responsiveness.
17. Do we need to consider any further structural
reforms in terms of which institutions provide what kind of learning?
We see many examples of universities, colleges
and other training providers working well and further developing
their employer engagement activity. One key aim needs to be to
encourage training providers to deliver, on a consistent basis,
high quality, specialist training aligned with industry clusters,
regional priority sectors and travel to work partners. This is
needed to ensure that specialist skills networks are capable of
meeting the needs of regional economies, and supporting RES aspirations.
Also we need to provide more scope for providers to develop programmes
for new growing industries eg environmental technologies, which
do not readily fit in with the traditional areas of learning.
We feel that the Government needs to implement the reforms outlined
in the FE White Paper before considering any further structural
reforms ie specialisation, employer responsiveness, meeting community
need.
High levels of specialisation work better in
urban areas, but in the rural communities access to general provision
is the norm. If rural communities are not to become the poor relation
in provision then colleges in rural areas need to develop specialisms
that reflect the needs of the local labour market or provide progression
routes into specialist provision. With any specialist system there
needs to be "escape routes" for those who need or want
to change direction, traditionally we are not very good at this.
In terms of the 14-19 agenda, reforms are currently
being introduced to develop more collaboration in the training
and education process more collaborative, in order to meet the
demands of the Diploma entitlement. Further reforms at this stage
will over burden the emerging Gateway Provision at local levels.
These collaborative consortia need to be part of any structural
reforms to ensure an easily accessible local learning environment.
DEMAND SIDE
Employers:
18. What should a "demand-led"
system really look like?
We welcome the priority for developing a demand-led
skills system—this is essential to achieving the Leitch
ambition. Such as system will feature:
— Employers and individuals being supported
in making informed decisions about skills investment via a range
of mechanisms.
— Assistance for employers to help
identify what their current needs are—in our experience
even the big companies have little idea of what their skills needs
will be in six months let alone 5+ years.
— The employer being clear about what
provision is available to meet their needs.
— The provider responding quickly and
responsively to employer requests. Training being delivered in
a way that suits the employer, at a time, place and quality acceptable
to meet the business need.
— If an employer approaches a provider
who cannot meet their needs there is a simple and clear referral
system to match their needs to a suitable provider. To be truly
demand led this system must be able to respond to all employer
skills needs, not just requests for qualification-based training.
— Employers, employees and the public
sector should pay their fair share; as indicated above there should
be clarity about what the public purse pays for.
There may still be the need to develop provision
in areas of particular regional need to tackle market failures
arising from businesses pursuing low skills trajectories as part
of a wider strategy for priority sectors. Employer needs must
also focus on the long term needs by growing future workforces
low in the supply chain and the Diploma framework will help to
encourage this. However, this must be flexible enough to meet
the employers changing demands.
19. Do employers feel like they are shaping
skills training—for example through Sector Skills Councils?
In our view this is likely to depend on their
size and sector. Also not all employers relate to the sectors
as defined by the footprint of the SSCs. There is scope to raise
awareness of SSCs and improve SSC engagement with employers significantly
for many SSCs. Big multi-national companies probably have good
relationships with the SSCs and have a significant say in the
shaping of skills training. However, the SSA is designed to articulate
the needs for the sector as a whole. We feel that there needs
to also be more direct intervention and support to individual
(particularly smaller) companies.
Employers wish to develop relationships with
their suppliers, and shape provision at a local level. Clearly
this needs to be cascaded into SSCs to ensure that national qualifications
and frameworks are well informed.
In our experience, employers believe that the
system is complex, impenetrable and slow to respond and change.
They feel there needs to be an acknowledgement of the fact that
qualifications are not always what they want.
Rather than add further regional SSC resource,
the existing networks and infrastructure should be more effectively
utilised to "inform" the strategic drivers of the SSCs.
SSCs need to work through partners, cluster organisations and
bodies to shape the agenda, not feel that they need to duplicate
the local level working.
20. Do employers feel closely involved with
the design of qualifications?
In our experience, no. SSCs do clearly work
with groups of employers to shape the qualification to meet employer
need. However a small employer who does not engage with an SSC
would see no relevance to the processes set up by SSCs to shape
and approve qualifications. Also employers will be less inclined
to get involved in this process if their need is not qualification
based.
The 14-19 Diploma development is a good example
to how to shape qualifications via employer engagement but generally
employer groups have found this process challenging because of
a lack of experience in this field.
21. Should employers be further incentivised
to take up training? If so, by what means?
Training needs to be seen by employers as business
expenditure investment with a tangible return on the bottom line
rather than an overhead or discretionary cost (or as a "product"
that is pushed at them isolation of wider business support).
Consistent with the Leitch vision, we recommend
seeing how the "pledge" works out and if this does not
achieve the desired results then we should explore the training
levy route. We cannot afford to fail on this one.
Courses meeting recognised skills gaps in high
value areas—eg mathematics and engineering etc should be
incentivised (eg no tuition fees, golden handshakes etc) to encourage
take up—though clearly this may relate to individuals rather
than employers.
22. What is the role of Union Learning Reps?
Their role is to act as the intermediary between
an employee and their employer to represent their training and
learning needs. They have an important role in stimulating demand
for learning which may not in the first instance be employer related.
They therefore prepare the ground for further learning in the
workplace. The union learning reps will also help source the training
and identify any funding opportunities.
23. What roles should employment agencies
play in facilitating training?
Learners
24. What is the typical experience of someone
looking for skills training?
Assuming the individual knows what it is they
need and are looking for, most will look locally and use personal
recommendations to identify providers. They may try one or two
avenues, but if those with whom they speak cannot help them (due
to funding restrictions, target groups etc) people may give up.
For the less aware the experience appears pretty
daunting, characterized by:
— Being unsure where to go for help.
— Being signposted and re-signposted
without much satisfaction.
— Sometimes given partial advice by
a provider if they go directly to them.
— Facing lack of clarity re support
for course costs.
— Lacking information on what the prospects
are after completing the course.
— Facing a lack of flexibility in delivery.
— Experiencing bureaucratic and confusing
processes regarding enrolment.
There is little accessible support for adults
over the age of 25 that are facing a change of career / re-training
etc. The process is very frustrating and time consuming, particularly
for those made redundant.
Leisure / pleasure skills and learning will
often be pursued during the evenings or weekends, and may be informal
or non-formal (ie not necessarily leading to a qualification).
Having a one stop shop for assessment, identification and signposting
could provide a much more coherent and accessible experience.
25. What information, advice and guidance
is available to potential learners?
There are pockets of good practice and many
services providing either one of or a combination of, information,
advice and guidance through both public and private sector channels.
The three are different and require different resources to deliver.
Examples of provisions include: Union Learning Reps, Connexions
(for under 19s), Next Steps, Learndirect, individual institutions,
HE Careers service, Sector Skills Councils, Job Centre Plus, LSC,
independent guidance counsellors. Many of these operate independently
of one another. There is often therefore unnecessary duplication
of effort and materials. Sources of information and advice include
the prospectus, learndirect phone line, the college offering the
course, friends and family.
Many publicly funded services provide support
for those who fit within the Government target groups (those without
their first full Level 2 qualifications or with numeracy and literacy
needs) but services are advertised as wider more inclusive services
which causes confusion amongst other groups of individuals. It
would be helpful to have "gatekeeper" brokers for individuals
who can carry out an initial assessment to understand individual
needs and then signpost them to the most appropriate support such
as careers advice, skills / training provision and, who can advise
on what funding / services are available to the individual concerned
and what would need to be paid for by the individual themselves—a
one stop shop for IAG.
We support the principle of a universal entitlement
to IAG set out by Leitch. We believe that we should be making
a strong reality of the proposals for adult IAG with some sensible
funding behind it. It could be argued that adult IAG has been
inadequately funded and inappropriately delivered for years and
that has led to a less than efficient use of training resource
as well as a missed opportunity to engage potential learners.
IAG services and resources should be coordinated
at regional level, informed by the vision set out in the RES,
and including up-to-date economic and labour market intelligence.
Intermediate and higher skilled labour markets often operate at
a regional level. The regional level provides the best balance
between efficiency, consistency and detail considerations when
coordinating LMI.
26. What is available for those with the
very lowest skill levels, who are outside of education, training
and the world of employment?
Again, there is much support for those outside
education, training and the world of employment, but much of it
is not joined up—meaning that individuals are at risk of
exclusion during transition periods or progressing from one level
of activity to another. For many who have are furthest away from
the labour market, the journey to sustainable employment or engagement
in the labour market is long and requires significant and consistent
support.
Research in some areas has identified that there
is very little in the way of support for older people (45+), particularly
those who do not claim benefits, to (re-) engage with the labour
market and employment. Whilst the recent age legislation will
help in this area, much IAG and support work is aimed at those
already in the workforce or under the age of 25.
A much closer, integrated and local approach
to service provision is required with more flexible funds to support
individuals' needs (demand).
Due to reductions in ACL budgets and other sources
of funding for the voluntary sector, there is a potential concern
around sources of funding for initial engagement in learning and
employment focused activity that does not lead directly to a job
outcome or qualification.
27. What is the role of the new Learner Accounts?
What factors should be considered in their design and implementation?
We welcome the proposals for Learner Accounts
to encourage demand from individuals. The role of Learner Accounts
should be to provide individuals with an incentive to update their
skills, whilst giving them relevant support and choice and encouraging
more people to take greater responsibility for their own development.
They should promote an increase the uptake of learning, putting
the money in the hands of the customer, albeit means tested.
Factors to consider include:
— How individuals will influence /
inform the design and delivery of their learning?
— What support (Information, Advice
and Guidance) will be provided to help individuals make informed
choices?
— Who will qualify (and who will not).
Will this scheme be open to everyone or specific groups (eg those
who have not yet achieved their first full Level 2, Level 3 etc)?
— What criteria will there be regarding
what funds can and cannot be spent on?
— Will there be a refund / exchange
mechanism for the provision which does not meet the individuals
initial needs and objectives or quality standards?
— Can the learner account be combined
with other learning discounts?
— Who will administer the accounts—what
will the role of the individual actually be?
— How will provision be rated/feedback
obtained (eg what is in demand, but not provided by the accredited
learning providers; (e-bay style?) rating by individuals on the
provision)
— Will some individuals be able to
access support via Train to Gain and their Learner Account?
— Consideration should be given to
match funding / double credit in areas of regional skills shortage
to incentivise people to take qualifications in areas of market
need. Similar boost for disadvantaged communities?
— They should not be open to fraud,
and not be driven by qualifications.
APPRENTICESHIPS
28. What should apprenticeships look like?
Apprenticeships should offer/include the following:
— They should be a partnership between
the employer, employee, learning provider and Government.
— Apprenticeship programs should have
a high value for both employers, learners and parents.
— They should have excellent standards
of training (competence and knowledge based) both within the employer
and the education establishment. Such standards would provide
the best exposure to actual real-life experiences within the employer
environment with the educational support at a time and place most
suitable for the apprentice and employer.
— They should be Level 2 and Level
3, available for 16+ including adult apprentices.
— Those following a young apprenticeship
course should feel that they can progress to Level 3 training
certain in the knowledge that provision exists in their vocational
area. Funded apprenticeships offered at the young apprenticeship
level should be determined by the regional skills priorities.
— The apprentice, having completed
the training, should be able to carry out the role to a high standard,
unsupervised.
— Skills learned by the apprentice
should be transferable and recognised as excellent, particularly
within that sector.
29. How close are they currently to this
vision?
There is still a fair amount of work to do:
— Apprenticeships are not viewed in
the same light as the traditional academic route.
— More employers need to see the value
of apprenticeships and sign-up to the programme.
30. 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?
There are currently over 180 apprenticeships
available across a multitude of sectors. However, a key constraint
in some areas and sectors is the lack of suitable employer placements.
We would support increasing the numbers for both apprenticeships
and adult apprenticeships as long as there is enough employer
support to make these worthwhile for the apprentice. For example,
in the engineering sector (SEMTA footprint) there is a significant
interest for Level 3 Adult Apprenticeships that are delivered
to meet the needs of the business not, therefore, in line with
normal FE terms.
31. What is the current success rate for
apprenticeships?
Success rates of course vary considerably and
we are currently in the process of addressing the really poor
provision.
32. What can we learn from practice in other
administrations with apprenticeship systems—ie., Scotland
and Wales?
QUALIFICATIONS
33. Do the qualifications which are currently
available make sense to employers and learners?
No. There are still too many, the picture is
too complex and people do not understand:
— what qualifications exist;
— what they are/offer in terms of learning
objectives and outcomes—and so what they "qualify"
the individual to do;
— how they relate to each other regarding
equivalents (old vs new, level vs level etc) or
— what progression routes are available.
There is often insufficient analysis of the
long-term impact of new qualifications before they are rolled
out nationally, and there is insufficient "accessible"
information in the public domain related to what qualifications
are available and what they mean / stand for.
34. Is the Qualifications and Credit Framework
succeeding in bringing about a rationalised system? Is there a
case for further rationalization?
It is too early to say whether the QCF will
succeed in rationalizing the system.—We look forward to
being updated on progress. Our current view is that there remain
too many different bodies involved in designing, accrediting and
inspecting.
Work underway within the 14-19 reform is creating
more qualification choices and confusing matters further eg the
new Specialised Diplomas use GCSEs and A levels as modules / elements
within them.
There is evidence that Level 2 and Level 3 qualifications
are generally far narrower that those in Germany. Also within
the UK vocational qualifications of the same type and level can
vary hugely in learning hours. For example, official figures quoted
by Ewart Keep indicate that 650 notional learning hours are required
to achieve a Level 3 in Animal Care, compared with 1,220 notional
hours in construction, 1,475-2,400 notional hours in IT and 3,900
notional hours in engineering.
Our feeling is therefore that further rationalization
is likely to be required. This must be transparent and easy to
understand. Clear communication is critical.
June 2007
| 
