Examination of Witnesses (Questions 700-719)
PROFESSOR FRANK
COFFIELD AND
MS LEE
HOPLEY
4 JUNE 2007
Q700 Fiona Mactaggart: When I discovered
that the two witnesses would appear together I thought that perhaps
the clerk was trying to play a joke on me. It seems to me that
in very fundamental ways you disagree. Professor Coffield would
argue for more compulsion on employers. In his lecture in December
that was one of the things he suggested might assist—correct
me if I have it wrong—whereas that is anathema to the employers
federation. To summarise it, the federation argues for a market
and Professor Coffield argues for equity being more of a driving
force. It seems to me that there are some real conflicts in your
evidence, but you concur on one important issue, that is, the
muddled landscape, in the language of the federation, which is
summarised by the chart that has been produced. There is a muddled
landscape. I think you may argue for sorting out the muddle in
different ways. I have heard Professor Coffield say that we should
not change anything but do we want the music to stop now? I think
one does want to change some things. Can you deal with the critical
changes that are necessary to make the landscape less muddled?
What would you get rid of?
Professor Coffield: I want to
correct you on the question of compulsion. The one thing that
I like about Leitch—I do not like much about it—is
the pledge of employers. I think that we need a half-way house
to give them time finally to put their house in order. I studied
the TECs and remember Geoffrey Holland saying that they were the
last throw of voluntarism. We have been through all that; we have
had 20 years to try the TECs and it has not worked. This is the
last chance for the employers to put their own house in order.
I think that they are entitled to that and to be told that Government
will act by 2010 if the SMEs do not move. We have wonderful employers
in this country but they are islands of excellence in a sea of
indifference. It is that sea of indifference and cultural changes
in this country that are incredibly difficult to deal with. I
would give the employers the extra time and only then would I
move to compulsion.
Q701 Fiona Mactaggart: Is that the
only change you would make, or are you answering the first part
of my question? I should like you to answer the whole of it.
Professor Coffield: I think the
sector is crying out for a period of consolidation. Any more changes
risk meeting the major targets that Leitch has put in front of
the sector. I think that it would cause more harm than good to
go for more structural change.
Ms Hopley: As to compulsion, there
is a range of factors and constraints that firms face when accessing
training. For example, the Chairman kicked off the session by
giving the example of a large construction company that could
not find its way round funding or accessing training. Imagine
that being done by a firm of 25 which does not have dedicated
HR or training personnel. It will be incredibly difficult just
to find what one needs. The last thing one wants to do is to send
someone off to do a part-time or nine-month qualification and
end up not meeting the objectives. That will be incredibly off-putting.
I believe that Train to Gain has a valuable role to play here
and it could help to smooth some of the complexity for smaller
firms and help them access the best form of training. There are
also issues around stimulating demand, particularly in relation
to smaller firms. From a manufacturing point of view that is where
organisations such as the Manufacturing Advisory Service can step
in. They are well regarded within the industry. It looks at things
like generating productivity improvements. The next step on from
that if one wants to sustain those productivity improvements is
to consider whether some training in x, y or z would
be appropriate in order to gain benefits from some productivity-type
intervention and refer them to a skills broker. The same could
be said of things like the Design Council or the Carbon Trust,
for example, when making investments in energy-efficient equipment.
But I think that the landscape needs to be sorted out and there
must be a supply of information and advice for small and medium
size companies, ensuring that the training that is required is
available. Leitch picked up on the whole predict-and-provide approach
before. It has not delivered that in every case. Even the LSC
mentioned earlier that it was moving away from trying to predict
what employers need and then provide it. It is becoming more of
a funding body in response to demand. Before one starts to talk
about compulsion one needs to get smaller firms in the main to
train better and ensure that the training required as part of
a business strategy is there.
Q702 Fiona Mactaggart: You referred
to something else which I thought was in common between the two
bits of evidence, that is, the need for a stronger connection
between skills in the economy generally and productivity. I thought
that was a uniting factor in both sets of evidence. Ms Hopley
has given one example, but I would be interested in any other
examples of how that could be done. I think it is quite important
for us as politicians to assist if we can in order to create a
stronger demand for appropriate skills.
Professor Coffield: My example
is that I think there needs to be more clarity in policy about
what some of this training is for. Some of it is clearly for equity.
In the research we have been doing we have met many employees
who have never been trained in 20 years. They have had no training
whatsoever and yet they are doing important and dangerous jobs,
for example street lighting. Suddenly, they now have to do health
and safety, which is all to the good but does not improve productivity.
I think we should be clearer that some courses are for reasons
of social equity, for example young people coming from school
without basic qualifications in English and maths. That is a deep
failure of the school system that should be put right. On the
other hand, we must not forget that a large part of the training
should be about improving the quality of training and the goods
and services that we are producing. That is another type of training
altogether and that is what will drive up productivity, not social
equity training. The two are constantly confused in policy.
Q703 Fiona Mactaggart: Do you concur
with the evidence given to us by the Engineering Employers Federation
that, "Key skills should no longer be a compulsory component
of frameworks; instead, we believe that the Government should
ensure"—I would love to know how—"that those
leaving state education have key skills at least at Level 2"?
We are trying. Looking at both sets of evidence I have a feeling
that there is a slight sense in which others should do other things
and you will do these things. Professor Coffield, one of the themes
of your evidence is that teachers should be left to teach, for
which I much support, but you are saying that we should get rid
of all this fluff; we need to teach and learn, whereas you, Ms
Hopley, say that you should be allowed to do the stuff that you
want to do. In a way, our job is to try to make sure that all
the other bits are done. How will we do that?
Ms Hopley: You are referring to
the basic issue of skills and that is where the pledge comes in.
Qualifications up to full Level 2 are now paid for through Train
to Gain. Employers will be given the opportunity to sign up to
the pledge. Clearly, it is unacceptable that there are people
in the workforce with inadequate numeracy and literacy skills
which will also be a problem for employers. If they need to build
on those with other skills, not necessarily full qualifications,
that needs to be remedied. There is a question as to whether or
not that should happen in the workplace. Clearly, people should
not be entering the workforce without basic numeracy and literacy
skills, but it happens.
Q704 Fiona Mactaggart: Should it
prevent them getting employment?
Ms Hopley: Obviously, I am not
saying that. I guess it comes down to what employers are willing
to pay for. Employers are willing to pay for higher-level skills,
less so to rectify to failings of the school system. Training
paid for by the public purse is available, but there must also
be a demand from individuals because sometimes they are unwilling
to admit that they have a problem or that it is embarrassing;
or they do not want to do it on their own time. I do not think
we have quite got the balance between the individual's responsibility
and the responsibility of the employer in the workplace.
Q705 Chairman: Professor Coffield,
Ms Mactaggart is making a serious accusation.
Professor Coffield: What accusation?
Q706 Chairman: I think she is saying
that you are flaffing around a bit in terms of the evidence you
have given. On the one hand you do not want anything changed;
on the other you do. You have your cake and eat it.
Professor Coffield: There is one
thing that I do want changed, and could be changed. This sector
suffers desperately from a number of young people who come from
schools with poor qualifications, or no qualifications.
Q707 Chairman: But all the evidence
given to this Committee is that it is improving year on year.
Professor Coffield: But you are
still left with about 45%. Because you are concentrating on those
who can get qualifications you neglect those who cannot.
Q708 Chairman: We on the Committee
know that they do not all get five A to Cs, but you cannot extrapolate
from that that 45% are not fit to go into employment.
Professor Coffield: I did not
say that; those are your words, not mine. I am saying that they
are leaving without decent qualifications. Their English and mathematics
have been neglected by the schools.
Q709 Chairman: To settle it, are
you saying that 45% leave without decent qualifications? If they
do not get the A to Cs they do not have decent qualifications—full
stop?
Professor Coffield: They do not
have good qualifications in the basic skills. If you look at any
FE college they come in with serious deficits. One of the things
that we need to build into the system is the foundation learning
tier. A very useful, thoughtful suggestion, which incidentally
came from the LSCs, is that there is not enough investment in
young people coming in at 16 and 17 to bring them up to standard.
They do not need to be at Level 1 and Level 2; they need to be
at Level 3 to stand a chance in employment in future, and yet
here they come in at Level 1 from schools. Our research shows
that the FE colleges do an excellent job. One of their great successes
is that they turn young people back onto education who have been
turned off it by 11 years of neglect in schools, because they
will never get to the Cs in schools. I do not blame teachers;
it is an indirect consequence of government policy. The significance
that is attached to those targets means that teachers cannot deal
with everybody and so they concentrate on driving up those Ds
and Es who can become Cs. It is the people underneath that, the
Ds, Es and Fs, who will never become Cs and are neglected. We
need targets for them, and that is a serious problem for the future.
If you look at the other figures NEET numbers are not going down.
The Government was very successful in early years but they are
now beginning to creep up.
Q710 Fiona Mactaggart: Dealing with
that very point, you have just proposed a change, which I would
support, but what you have done is what politicians do, ie you
have identified a particular problem area which is a group of
young people who are capable of being well served in FE. Not all
of them get into FE but it is clear that the further education
sector is rather good at dealing with this class of young person.
Professor Coffield: But no one
else wants to teach them.
Q711 Fiona Mactaggart: What you are
saying is that we should have targets for them. That is exactly
what you have criticised the Government for doing when faced with
a problem like this. I am not trying to trick you, but that is
what politics is like. One says that in order to tackle one bit
of the problem one takes a bunch of people who are good at dealing
with it and give them that job and one probably needs to name
the job in order to make sure it happens. That is what you have
done and yet in your paper you say we should not do that; they
should decide it for themselves.
Professor Coffield: I do not think
I said the second part of that at all. What I ask for is more
equity for this section of the community. Suppose we begin to
treat the group I describe as well as higher education students
and fund them at anything like the same level. People who teach
in FE get less than those who teach the same subject in schools.
People who teach in adult and community education get less than
FE; people in work-based learning get less than others. There
are deep inequalities in the system. I ask for some of those inequities
to be treated. The DfES's memorandum to this Committee says that
when resources allow it will do something for this group. I do
not think that is good enough; I think we should move quickly
to invest heavily in this area and drive down the NEET group as
quickly as possible.
Q712 Chairman: You describe a situation
that we all know about: for far too long young people in the education
system have not had their needs and potentials recognised and
serviced, but to be fair here is a government that has increasingly
promoted post-14 education for young people to get out of school
and into work-based learning and FE. You can go to the average
FE college and find hundreds, if not thousands, of 14-16s. This
is not a government that is doing only the same thing; here is
a government that has changed quite a lot of policy in order to
liberate those 14-16s sitting at the back of the class who may
not be academic scholars but may have a lot of potential in other
directions.
Professor Coffield: I give you
that point. It is true that this Government has paid more attention
to this sector than any government previously, and the investments
are significant. All I point out is that in the FE colleges that
we have visited for the past three years there is still a major
inequality between the investment that goes into those who aim
for higher education and those who go for Levels 1 and 2.
Q713 Chairman: But the per capita
spending on FE has increased faster than in HE, has it not?
Professor Coffield: It is certainly
not as high as it is for schools. There has been a 46% increase
in real terms for FE since 1997; it is 65% for the schools.
Chairman: I referred to HE where spending
has been much more modest.
Q714 Fiona Mactaggart: The gap between
HE and FE has narrowed but it is still very significant
Professor Coffield: Yes, but one
can point to another gap which is the gap between FE and schools.
FE people do not really compare themselves with HE but with people
who do similar work in schools, and there is still an eight per
cent difference in salaries between them. Again, the Government
says that it will deal with that when resources allow. If you
wanted to change the atmosphere in FE colleges and bring with
you the goodwill of the whole sector I would make that a major
item of policy.
Q715 Fiona Mactaggart: Does your
research tell you that goodwill produces learning achievement
among students?
Professor Coffield: I think this
Government has been very good at saying they will do a deal with
people—nothing for nothing, something for something. One
part of the deal would be equalised salaries and the other side
would be major changes in teaching practices and investment in
the development of teachers in FE. I think that could be a very
good deal. You invest in them in return for more continuous professional
development.
Q716 Fiona Mactaggart: I think I
was asking a slightly different question to which I do not know
the answer. Do we have enough understanding of what produces real
gains in achievement by learners in FE? Do we know what it is
that really makes the difference in their achievements?
Professor Coffield: I will give
my answer and whether or not it is right I leave you to judge.
I think that what makes a difference is good quality teaching;
it is the quality of the staff and their commitment to students
to give them a second chance and turn them back on again to education.
In our research FE is full of people who are deeply committed
to that and overall they do an excellent job. Of the youngsters
we have interviewed the thing that has turned them round is the
deep respect they have received from their tutors. That has made
them respect themselves and the teachers and they begin to learn.
It is that high quality relationship between tutor and student
that has turned them round.
Q717 Fiona Mactaggart: Yet the higher
paid teachers in schools did not give it to them?
Professor Coffield: The higher
paid teachers in schools are concentrating on those who can get
As, Bs and Cs because they have targets to meet.
Q718 Mr Chaytor: I want to ask about
the concept of a demand-led system. First, Ms Hopley, do you assume
that this is a given in terms of the future of the training system?
Second, what do you understand it to be, and how would it be different
from what we have currently?
Ms Hopley: I believe that the
Leitch review was quite clear on the need for a demand-led system.
I do not think that that means exclusively employers; individuals
also have a role, but it must be underpinned by informed customers
who understand what is available and what is best for their business.
I do not think that is necessarily what we have at the moment.
That brings me back to my point about SMEs knowing exactly what
type of training will help them achieve their objectives. I think
that the recent consultation on funding of a demand-led system
was promising and something of which we were broadly supportive.
There is a need to move away from predict and provide where lots
of labour market forecasting and manpower planning are used to
try to determine what provision should be made. Even as an economist
I recognise that quite often forecasts are wide of the mark. There
are particular difficulties with this type of labour market forecasting
which looks broadly at what types of jobs will be needed in the
future but says very little about what training is needed to underpin
that provision. To put more purchasing power in the hands of informed
customers will lead to a demand-led system which in part will
be through Train to Gain. I believe that learner accounts which
are to be rolled out later this year, hopefully after a successful
pilot, will have a very important role to play from an individual's
point of view.
Q719 Mr Chaytor: But in terms of
employers the criticism over many years has been that they have
been dissatisfied with the publicly available provision through
the colleges. Why have they not been more proactive in either
seeking out provision through private providers or delivering
it themselves on site?
Ms Hopley: A lot of the training
that employers access comes through private providers, less so
through FE colleges. Lots of large companies with the clout to
go in and the critical mass of people for whom they want training
do that. I think it is more difficult for a small and medium size
companies. Too often they are presented with a menu of provision
and they can either take it or leave it and that is not always
what is necessary. Sometimes maybe a Level 2 qualification may
not be stretching or demanding enough but perhaps Level 3 is initially
too much but that is all that is on offer, so employers are given
the choice to take it or leave it or find a private provider who
is willing to do that. It is difficult for a small and medium
size company essentially to develop training as well as everything
else.
| 
