House of Commons - Re-skilling for recovery: After Leitch, implementing skills and training policies - Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee

Re-skilling for recovery: After Leitch, implementing skills and training policies - Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee Contents

5 Training providers

159. Missing from Leitch's triangular division of responsibility for delivering the skills agenda was a major element of the supply side: training providers. However, the policies and changes brought in make significant demands on further education, higher educational and private sector training in responding to the new arrangements and in gearing up to meet challenging targets for expansion of their activities. At the regional level, this involves greater collaboration between groups of HE and FE institutions and greater engagement with a broad range of partners locally and more widely.

Role of Higher Education in the Leitch agenda

160. The tradition by which HE has seen itself as set apart from the skills and training agenda has broken down in recent years with institutions developing ever closer links with business. The Government recognises this development but wants to push it further and faster. It argues that "Higher Education institutions have been increasingly positioning themselves as agents for economic and regional growth and are identifying their areas of competitive strength in research and teaching; the goal is for businesses and universities to work together and learn from each other how to generate and exploit innovative ideas."[308]

EMPLOYERS AND HEIS

161. HEFCE is supporting this programme through building a regional dimension into certain of its funding streams, such as the transforming workforce development programme, employer engagement pilot projects, the Lifelong Learning Networks and the three Higher Level Skills Pathfinders.[309] HEFCE also publishes annual regional profiles of HE in England.[310] The Government argues that this gives HEFCE a "strong regional dimension, working with regional stakeholders to support HE institutions … in making the most effective contribution to their area or region, through building on existing regional relationship structures and being regionally-responsive".[311] The Higher Level Skills Pathfinders, for example, are led by regional university associations in the North West, North East and South West and "are clearly RES [Regional Economic Strategy] driven".[312] HEFCE has recently completed reviews of both Lifelong Learning Networks and the Higher Level Skills pathfinders and is "considering the lessons learned for the future development of effective regional and sub-regional partnerships to promote employer and employee engagement".[313]

162. On employer engagement, HEFCE explained that "Our 2008-11 funding settlement includes at least £105 million to build employer engagement capacity and achieve targets for growth in the numbers of working people starting employer co-funded provision (5,000/10,000/20,000 entrants over three years)".[314] As of April 2008, HEFCE had committed £44 million to 22 HE providers over the next three years, with sufficient proposals in the pipeline to double the number of projects.[315] However, the HEFCE Chief Executive was upbeat in his evidence, telling us that "we are on target probably to exceed" 20,000 students on employer co-funded programmes by 2010-2011, with 34 HEIs engaged in programmes so far.[316] HEFCE's memorandum explains "In projects we have approved since September 2007 our expectation is that, after three years, most of the providers will be able to generate sufficient revenues from employers for their operations to be financially sustainable with a HEFCE contribution set at half its normal funding rates (sometimes referred to as '50% co-funding')."[317]

163. When asked whether universities were being responsive enough to the skills agenda, Chris Humphries, Chief Executive of the UKCES, told us: "No, I do not think they are. I think they have only just very reluctantly and very recently understood the need to sort of have a better focus on this".[318] Other evidence suggests that this varies between institutions and employers. The EEF indicated that "A forthcoming EEF survey will show that some employers are working effectively with HE institutions to upskill their workforce. Others report a number of hurdles to working with HE, such as uncertainty about what universities can offer and a lack of experience in managing such relationships."[319] The Alliance of SSCs believed that "HE is much better at engaging larger business than smaller businesses […] and this is an area that needs developing".[320] The CBI has recently produced a report, Stepping Higher, which stated "Employers and universities can both help to improve partnerships and programmes. Government can play its part too."[321]

NON-CONVENTIONAL COURSES

164. One particular area of concern to employers is the pace of the response of HE to the demand for non-conventional courses. The Alliance of SSCs argued that "HE must also more effectively meet the needs of non-traditional learners, who may be in employment. This may require work-based learning and accreditation, short courses, e-learning, accreditation of prior learning and credit-based learning."[322] The ABPI also reported that a key problem for their sector is that the provision of part-time local education, especially part-time foundation and honours degree courses in chemistry and biosciences, is often inadequate.[323] This is an important issue which affects individuals as well as employers, with non-traditional students (ie non-school leavers, those seeking to develop, change or return to careers and those out of the workplace) requiring flexibility in provision on many levels and a demonstrable understanding from HEIs of their needs.

165. Providers have accepted the need to develop alternative courses and we note that in the white paper Higher Education at Work, DIUS boasts that:

For the first time, we now have a clear timetable and prospect for nationwide credit arrangements to be in use in higher education. By 2009-10, HE institutions should have credit-rated their main provision and be publishing details in the descriptions of the programmes they offer. This more consistent and transparent approach to the use of credit will encourage learners and aid progression.[324]

If this comes to fruition, it will meet the needs of both employers and learners and could have a highly beneficial impact on the Leitch agenda and on lifelong learning more generally. However, there remain wider difficulties in the cost of devising and running courses for industry and in the lack of experience within HE of doing so. The University of Central Lancashire concluded that:

We should look to expand the provision of work based learning, as a viable solution for those in employment to access new skills and training. A large number of employees will be unable to leave the workplace to train full-time. Real life work projects could form part of a portfolio for achieving qualifications. However, there needs to be greater recognition of the upfront costs and challenges in this area. There is a need for DIUS/HEFCE to share more of the risk with HEIs on this activity.[325]

Similarly, Million+ pointed out that work-based learning has hidden costs to institutions: "Costs will include course development, delivery, mentoring and supervision costs and assessment/Quality Assurance (QA) procedure costs. In-company accredited training is likely to incur all of these costs areas".[326] UUK argued that "If employers want to exert a greater influence on course provision, there needs to be a mechanism whereby they can test student demand, and share the costs and risk involved in developing provision where student demand is untested."[327]

CO-FUNDING COURSES

166. The sustainability of co-funded courses is a further concern. Energy and Utility Skills told us that "Our experience with our HE strategy shows that numbers have proved difficult to maintain and consequently programmes have had a short life, perhaps two to three cohorts".[328] HEFCE also questioned the sustainability of employer-facing operations based on a model of 50% HEFCE funding and 50% revenues generated by employer-customers. It pointed out that this "requires the development of a critical mass of new and repeat employer customers; and well managed service delivery operations, underpinned by effective costing, pricing and marketing mechanisms",[329] and called for research in this area:

There is more opinion and anecdote than hard evidence on the willingness of employers to pay for the 'right' higher level skills products. We shall be monitoring and evaluating the success of our provider projects in generating co-funding revenues from employers, whether private or public sector; and we shall look for variations in performance by economic sector, employer size, occupational groups and geographic location.[330]

167. It is important also to recognise the tensions caused by applying the principle of employer-led demand to universities. Universities are autonomous institutions which value their independence: the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University recently made the headlines by proclaiming that "As institutions charged with education, research and training, our purpose is not to be construed as that of handmaidens of industry, implementers of the skills agenda, or indeed engines for promoting social justice".[331] In evidence to us, UUK similarly argued against the supremacy of employer demand in HE: "A primary aim of university courses should be to encourage the development of skills such as critical thinking and analysis rather than simply reflecting current employment needs which are almost certain to change."[332] Finally, the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) has also spoken up for the student in this debate:

A move towards employer-led demand in higher education as proposed by Leitch is, in principle, a move away from student demand as the main determinant of what is offered [by universities]. There is a risk that what employers want will often not be what students want—especially where courses depend on attracting students who are not employees of an employer-customer. This process can be taken only so far. Students are the ultimate customer: without student demand, courses cannot run.[333]

168. Moreover, the reluctance to engage may not be wholly on the side of the universities. The Government is clearly disappointed by the response of employers to the Higher Education at Work white paper: "Many employers express their demand in their graduate recruitment activity and early responses to Higher education at Work confirms that as the employers' preferred way of building up a highly skilled workforce. But we will not meet the Leitch targets for Level 4 and above if employers do not engage more seriously in providing their existing workforce with high level skills."[334] The Centre for Enterprise, which has conducted research into higher level training conducted by business, concluded that "the majority of these businesses [which were not interested in conducting higher level training] reported that they had not undertaken higher level skills training because they saw no benefit to their business in doing so", although all of them had undertaken some training at other levels in the past twelve months and so had well-developed training cultures.[335] The CFE warned that such businesses "can only be tackled as part of a wider economic development strategy, in which HEIs play a role alongside a much wider cast of characters".[336] Raising awareness of opportunities and providing finance would not be enough.

169. We asked witnesses for evidence that employers were willing to co-fund higher education on the scale necessary to implement Leitch. HEFCE offered us their latest survey of income to HE from employers which indicates a total of £1.5 billion came from that source in 2005-06, although this includes everything from Continuing Professional Development to knowledge transfer to short course provision.[337] Professor Eastwood found "abundant evidence, in employers' willingness to co-fund and in the premia they are prepared to pay for graduates, that they are making a contribution to the overall cost of delivering higher education".[338] The CBI report Stepping Higher noted that given the fact that the number of 18-20 year olds in the UK would decline by more than 12% between 2012 and 2020 universities had "a business interest in attracting more students from the workforce."[339]

170. We note, however, that the current average level of co-funding is around 30% of the cost of a course, not 50%.[340] When asked for other countries where there was significant co-funding, DIUS admitted that "There is very little comparative international evidence available on employer involvement in the delivery of higher education … or on employer co-funding of HE/Level 4 training".[341] The Department offered data from the OECD on the proportion of HE that is privately funded which showed that "the UK is slightly above the average", with some countries having "a much higher private share".[342] DIUS cautioned against too heavy a reliance on this data because of definitional differences and missing data. We therefore find it difficult to share DIUS's optimistic conclusion that "Even though we cannot say how much of this share is attributable to employers it does indicate that there may be some scope for increasing support from private sources", as applied specifically to co-funding from employers.[343]

171. The role of HE within the Leitch agenda, in particular its relationship with employers, appears to us to be a major point of weakness within the implementation of the Government's policy on skills. Recent years have seen considerable increases in the number of students going to university and acquiring level 4 skills which should make the Leitch target of over 40% of the adult workforce holding such qualifications by 2020 challenging but within reach. However, there are doubts about whether industry co-funding of 50% will be forthcoming in the quantity required to meet annual targets of 20,000 places; as HEFCE's own memorandum acknowledges in setting its objectives for the next three years, one of which is "Testing the policy of employer co-funding to get beneath the welter of opinion and anecdote to establish hard evidence on the willingness of employers to pay for the 'right' higher level skills product." The current economic downturn may make this level of employer investment even harder to attain.

HEFCE: A REGIONAL ROLE?

172. We believe that HEFCE has a key part to play in resolving this situation. Its efforts so far have pointed in the right direction and it has the right vision: "what we need is varied and appropriate provision and what we need is high quality provision".[344] However, its projects and programmes have been small-scale. It must go further, faster. In particular, we believe that HEFCE should develop a more robust regional machinery. At the moment, HEFCE works through regional consultants who in turn work with regional HE associations and so through to the RDAs and other regional players.[345] It is also funding "Higher Level Skills Pathfinders" in three regions to explore shared strategies for HE provision and workforce development skills between HE providers and employers.[346] However, HEFCE told us that it could not "foresee a situation in which it would be possible or appropriate for us to incur the running costs necessary to operate regional offices".[347] If the level 4 target is to be reached, then the relationship between HEFCE and the regions has to be sharpened. DIUS should ask HEFCE in its Annual Grant Letter to develop its regional activity, and HEFCE should be required to quantify its activities in its Annual Report.

STEM GRADUATES

173. In a recent CBI survey of 600 employers 128 (24.9%) replied that they had encountered problems recruiting STEM skilled graduates.[348] We note that in his recent speech the Secretary of State for DIUS highlighted STEM skills as the type of "specific and often high-level skills" which form one of the four fundamental building blocks of his skills strategy.[349] HEFCE's 2008 Grant Letter from DIUS stated "I hope the Council will develop an integrated programme to raise demand for STEM and, where there is evidence of demand, ensure that within available resources there are sufficient student numbers to meet it, encouraging employers to co-fund provision wherever possible. I also encourage the Council to continue to play a full role in the work of the joint DCSF/DIUS STEM high level strategy group."[350]

174. DIUS has promised to publish an analysis of the labour market demand for STEM skills. We hope that HEFCE will be explicitly enabled to build upon this analysis to encourage and deliver provision of STEM higher level skills. We also ask HEFCE to provide us with an update of the work it has done during 2008 on developing STEM skills in response to the tasks set in the 2008 DIUS Grant Letter.

CONCLUSION

175. There is also a role for UKCES which has already identified as one of its responsibilities "to monitor the extent to which the HE sector can meet employers and employees needs to access high quality, high level learning, optimising the use of technology and maximising opportunities to fit learning around the demands of work, family and community."[351] We believe that to fulfil this role effectively, UKCES will also need to look at the attitudes of employers towards HE and recognise that raising awareness of HE opportunities and increasing employer demand is not solely the task of the HE sector but requires greater commitment from employer organisations as well, as has been acknowledged by the CBI.

Role of Further Education in the Leitch agenda

176. As the Government described it, "FE Colleges and providers are crucial to delivering the Government's ambition for world class skills locally, regionally and nationally, and the creation of DIUS and its sponsorship of the FE system has enabled a greater focus on FE as a route to achieving these goals".[352] The importance of FE can be demonstrated by the extent of its contribution to vocational training. There are 369 colleges in England which educate and train 727,000 16-18 year olds and enrol over 2 million adults every year, accounting for 48% of those who gained vocational qualifications in 2006-07.[353] The RDAs agreed that "FE is the cornerstone for many of the building blocks outlined by Leitch".[354]

177. For FE, Leitch followed the Foster Review of the role and purpose of colleges, concluding that a clearer mission was required, which for most colleges should focus on economic development and skills.[355] Further proposals to strengthen the focus of FE on skills and employability and to provide a more responsive service to individuals and employers were set out in the white paper Raising Expectations: enabling the system to deliver. The Government sees these proposals as ensuring that "FE is equipped to deliver the Leitch agenda, including setting out a clear role for the further education sector in developing regional skills strategies."[356] UKCES has undertaken to monitor these changes: "Commitments to progressive self regulation for the FE sector are an important post-Foster development and the UK Commission will need to be aware of how this process is impacting on quality, success and responsiveness to employer and learner needs."[357] To support the skills agenda, the Government has invested heavily in the FE College estate, supporting the development of networks of vocational excellence. It is committed to spending £694m in 2008-09, £820m in 2009-10 and £850m in 2010-11 on buildings and facilities in the FE sector.[358] While this capital building programme is long overdue and to be welcomed, it has been heavily influenced by the Government's wish to reform FE with a strengthened focus on skills and employability.

178. The evidence suggests that FE has responded well to the Leitch Implementation Plan, though arguably given the changes to funding streams it had little choice in the matter. One witness from the LSC argued that "we have got an enormously responsive FE system nationally and certainly that is my experience regionally", although he added that "It is fair to say that some of FE still has not woken up to the reality and the challenge of a flexible system".[359] On the other hand, Professor Unwin argued that the FE sector is already demand-led and has always been so.[360] Like other witnesses, however, she had concerns about the impact of recent Government policies on the ability of the FE sector to respond to demand, suggesting to the then Education and Skills Committee in 2007 that "at local level … providers [are] being prevented from being responsive by DfES regulations around funding. What we need to do is facilitate much more the dialogue between employers at local level and their providers and get them working together, without centralised restriction on what they can do".[361] Not surprisingly, the Association of Colleges expressed similar views:

Much government regulation of the further education system is complex and results in unnecessary micro-management, wasting hundreds of millions of pounds and sapping the morale of governors and staff in colleges. The performance of colleges on any measure—success rates, inspection results, satisfaction levels—shows that regulation could be reduced.[362]

179. Mick Fletcher, an education consultant, argued strongly that further moves towards demand-led provision would work against the policy of having strong independent institutions that engage in a market with individuals and employers:

we are moving towards a system where increasingly we design at the centre what it is that we think people need and we provide it for them through a variety of intermediaries. The role of providers, colleges, is downplayed; even the word provider I think is instructive in this respect … I think that is what worries me most about what is going on in respect of Leitch implementation, the view that our provider infrastructure, and particularly our colleges, is made up simply of disposable providers to be cast aside if they do not deliver this week's version of policy.[363]

180. Other witnesses were clear that there was still much work to be done. The RDAs argued that "FE has some clear capacity issues. It needs to increase its flexibility around leadership, HR practices, provision, overhead costs and funding models in order for the sector to respond effectively to business. FE needs to create the demand led skills delivery needed by employers that will enable UK productivity and skills levels to meet the Leitch ambition."[364] This view was supported by employers. The Alliance of SSCs told us that in the case of FE funding, "The Government is moving in a demand-led direction, but is moving slowly in order not to destabilise FE colleges and it is not clear when a fully demand-led system will be in place." It believed that "More rapid change is necessary".[365] One reason for this was that "There are significant gaps in the ability of FE colleges to meet [sectoral] needs both nationally and in specific areas. A faster move towards a demand-led system will incentivise colleges to meet these needs."[366]

181. We note that there could be further changes ahead. UKCES observed that:

In a broader context, the role of the FE system in the progressive integration of employment and skills services may be significant, as the aspiration for a growth in the percentage of adults of working age who are active in the labour market will require provision of specific training and opportunities for recognising new skills for the returners to the labour market and those leaving the benefit system. Groups targeted by recent policy interventions, such as lone parents and Incapacity Benefit claimants may be new customers of the FE system. These reforms may also bring new providers into the FE sector. Therefore, the relationship between a broader and increasingly self regulating FE sector and an aspiration to integrate the FE service into the wider employment and skills system could be an important one.[367]

182. We were told by Dr Collins of the Association of Colleges that "there are various ways in which we can help employers see the value of what training means for them and also to help them assess the training needs that they have got."[368] But he added that FE felt "constrained by some of the particular funding streams such as Train to Gain for not being able to move into other areas where there is demand."[369] This prevented colleges from being able to respond to the needs of the local area.[370] The Association of Colleges wanted the Government "to give the colleges the freedom to spend that money [from the underspent Train to Gain budget] where it will make best impact in the local community, and that may be for more social cohesion, the development of ESL work for people who have moved into the area, et cetera".[371]

183. We note that all those submitting evidence agreed that FE has a central role to play in the regional and local delivery of Leitch and that its performance has continually improved over recent years, with success rates (in terms of course completion) rising from 56% in 1999-2000 to 77% in 2005-06.[372] Beyond the immediate Leitch agenda, the Government told us that "within the FE system, we also want to recognise the particular role that colleges have to play—as leaders in their community—not just in education but as institutions that can respond to the needs of communities; helping businesses and individuals to adapt and prosper".[373] We believe that to enable FE colleges to fulfil this role properly, it is necessary to treat colleges not as competing providers in a skills supply chain but as key strategic partners in local and regional communities, with a leadership role in developing realistic local economic strategies. The Government's commitment to "reduce bureaucracy and promote greater self-regulation" in FE[374] also needs to be matched by greater flexibility in funding. FE colleges should be accorded sufficient ability and autonomy within Train to Gain to devise the courses needed in their areas and should be encouraged to develop a truly responsive employer engagement process.

FE/HE regional collaboration

184. An important part of the Government's agenda is to increase links between FE and HE. At the moment, 150 colleges provide HE and around 190,000 students are taking HE options in FE colleges.[375] In response to a recent Written Answer DIUS asserted that "we are satisfied that there is good co-operation and collaboration at national, regional and local level between providers of further and higher education."[376] The evidence we received was much less conclusive.

185. The LSC, a major partner in this agenda, stated:

We believe that FE and HE collaboration can be further developed, for example, through a clear and collaborative focus on employment related higher level skills including Foundation Degrees, with the joint capacity to stimulate demand and growth at level 4.

We have begun discussions with HEFCE and UCAS about extending the availability of Higher Apprenticeships at Level 4 and attributing tariff points to Apprenticeships for entry to HE.

We are exploring new approaches to collaboration—in National Skills Academies, through FE colleges and HE institutions working together to become recognised awarding organisations in the QCF; through collaboration in the delivery of the new Diplomas, through credit accumulation and transfer across the sectors.[377]

HEFCE has also invested £103 million in 29 Lifelong Learning networks (LLNs) to improve the opportunities open to learners with vocational qualifications for them to progress into and through higher education.[378] The LLNs cover 120 universities and 300 further education colleges, and also link to employers.[379] HEFCE's three "Higher Level Skills Pathfinders" are exploring shared strategies between HE providers and employers.[380]

186. These networks are clearly necessary: one LSC witness told us that:

lots of HEIs can carry on doing what they have been doing, fantastic work sometimes, but there has not been that same pressure on them to shift the resource and to change what they deliver, so they still deliver foundation degrees in a fairly traditional way, they do not deliver them in the workplace, they do not make them look like Level 4 apprenticeships, which is where we would like to get to so that you can get progression, even if you go into work at 16, through the apprenticeship programme all the way to degree level. They have not made that shift, and I think we have got to get that level of change and I think they need a bit of pressure to make that.[381]

187. The OU concluded from its involvement in all three Pathfinders that "they have operated quite differently and have demonstrated different levels of engagement with the further and higher education sectors. This seems to us to arise from a lack of clarity as to how the two sectors should be working together to deliver the Leitch agenda".[382] Taking a broader view, the Lifelong Learning Networks in the Yorkshire and Humber region argued that beyond individual institutions, structures were not in place to enable effective collaboration:

There is no national, regional or sub-regional body that takes an overview of the planning and delivery of education and skills at Level 4 and above. While, in common with other English Regions, Yorkshire and Humber has a regional universities association, this is not inclusive of the wealth of HE in FE provision that is strategically important across the region. The current framework tends to weaken the ability of HE providing institutions to act collaboratively and for employers and employer representing organisations to find a single point of contact to meet their skills needs.[383]

Finally, Professor Fuller quoted research from Professor Gareth Parry at the University of Sheffield and Professor Ann-Marie Bathmaker at the University of the West of England on the FE/HE interface:

One of the findings that they have come across is that in some cases there are very constructive partnerships developing between FE and HE colleges in a locality and progression pathways being articulated and so on for top-ups in higher education for courses that have started at FE level. On the other hand, there are also new competitions emerging between universities which are competing for similar kinds of students to the FE colleges and as the FE colleges become more confident and able to deliver higher education in FE and develop their reputations, they are less likely to want to let them go and see themselves moving on to wanting to deliver the whole of the Bachelor's degree. There are new rivalries developing at local levels and I am not sure how helpful those are.[384]

188. There is much work still to be done in enhancing HE/FE collaboration which will mean working through the difficulties over the difference of outlook, such as whether an institution regards its market as local, regional, national or international. We are also concerned by the evidence we received about the development of competition, rather than collaboration, which may well stem from a lack of clarity over the roles of HE and FE and their place in the agenda. In particular, there is an evident need for a closer focus on progression. One witness wrote of the critical importance of FEIs and HEIs finding "more ways of working together to create imaginative and appealing educational pathways that offer a seamless transition to those learners who wish to escalate through to degree level and beyond following a more vocational route".[385] We believe that HEFCE and other parts of the Government need to address these issues as a matter of urgency and we recommend that the Government review research on FE/HE collaboration and commission clear guidelines on how to ensure its effectiveness at the regional level, including a greater focus on progression.

Joint funding of FE/HE?

189. There is a significant discrepancy between the funding available to HE and that available to FE. Some have argued that this difference has to be addressed if the two sectors are to work together more effectively. For example, the SSCs claimed that "Bringing the funding regimes for FE and HE closer together would assist joint working" but that instead "The funding changes proposed in Raising Expectations could make joint working more difficult, because FE under 18 will be funded separately from FE over 18".[386] The Council for Industry and Higher Education questioned whether the announced demise of the LSC and its replacement by a new Skills Funding Agency (so far as adult learning is concerned) might be an opportunity for all higher level learning to be funded by HEFCE.[387] A paper by the CfBT Educational Trust also suggested the possibility of merging the administration of the funding streams for FE and HE into a single Adult Skills and Higher Education Funding Council.[388]

190. There is an appealing logic to the idea of a single FE/HE funding agency but we have not taken sufficient evidence to identify all the undoubted difficulties which such a move would create. A single funding agency, even one operating two distinct streams of funding, would no doubt lead to irresistible pressure for a different model for the FE sector with less central direction than at present. We conclude that this is an idea whose hour has not yet come but one which should not be dismissed as without merit.

Private sector providers and in-house training capacity

191. Much of the evidence that we have taken in this inquiry has suggested that, in order to achieve the kind of large-scale improvement in both investment in skill and qualification achievement required, the capacity of education and training provision will need to increase quite considerably. This suggests that, besides improvements in the output of the mainstream education and training infrastructure (FE and HE), there also need to be concomitant developments in the training capacity within employing organisations. For example, if the goal of a much higher formal accreditation of workplace learning is to be delivered, then firms need to have in place a training capacity (individually or collectively organised) that can both design and deliver good quality workplace learning opportunities and also marshal the expertise to enable it to be assessed and certified. We urge DIUS, UKCES and the SSCs to work with bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development to explore how the role, standing and capacity of the training function within employing organisations can be strengthened and developed.

192. If the agenda is to succeed, then there will also be a greater demand for private sector providers of training delivered in or out of the workplace. The quality of this type of provision will be crucial as will the capacity of the training industry to respond to the increased demand for its services. We are encouraged by surveys such as that undertaken by the CIPD which show that employers rate private sector training providers more highly than other sources of training (with 63% describing them as good and only 3% as bad)[389] but while much research has been conducted into the role, capacity and performance of FE and HE, we are not aware of a similar audit of private sector providers. We recommend that DIUS commission an audit of private sector training providers to ensure that its plans for the implementation of Leitch are based on accurate calculations as to capacity and capability in this sector.

308 Ev 109, para 6.11 Back

309 Ev 108, paras 6.12-14 Back

310 Ev 161, para 4 Back

311 Ev 108, para 6.13 Back

312 As above Back

313 Ev 164, para 31 Back

314 Ev 163, para 24 Back

315 Ev 163, paras 25-26 Back

316 Q 296 Back