Consultation questions
If you prefer you can also download the Consultation Response Form (Word doc 561KB) and return it to skills@bis.gsi.gov.uk
Principles for a skills strategy
1. We welcome views on these principles and whether there are others we should consider.
2. How can we further simplify the skills system, including the number, roles and responsibilities of the many organisations working in the system?
3. In view of the current fiscal deficit, what areas of public investment in skills could be reduced and where could private investment be increased? What are the main constraints on changing the balance between public and private investment and how could these be overcome?
A respected and credible training offer
4. How could the Apprenticeship programme be improved? What can be done to increase the proportion of apprentices progressing to Level 3 and beyond? What and how should employers contribute to Apprenticeships?
5. We welcome views on how best to support people who might in time benefit from an Apprenticeship but who do not currently have the skills to begin one.
6. We welcome views about progression from Level 3 Apprenticeships into higher education, including whether there is demand for Higher Apprenticeships at Levels 4 and 5
7. How should we ensure that training leads to real gains in skills, knowledge and competence and not just the accreditation of existing skills?
8. How can we incentivise colleges and training organisations to offer a flexible and cost-effective ‘needs-led’ offer for people who are out of work or at risk of becoming unemployed?
9. How can we encourage colleges and training organisations to make the transition from learning to work as smooth as possible, enabling progression in the workplace, as well as to further learning?
10. How can we better promote enterprise education in further education colleges and throughout the training system?
Funding and entitlements
11. Should Government continue with an entitlements based approach? How can we ensure that Government money is targeted where it is needed most and where it will achieve most value.
Helping individuals and employers choose the learning they want
12. How can the learning market be made to work more efficiently, effectively and economically and to be more responsive and accountable to demand by individuals and employers, while also delivering value for money?
13. We welcome views on how best to ensure employers are able to shape the skills system to meet their needs.
14. We are interested in views on what more might be needed to make the system responsive to employer needs.
15. Which qualifications have most value for employers and learners? Which do not have value? How do we evolve the Qualifications and Credit Framework so that it focuses on the former and removes the latter?
16. How can we improve the accessibility and quality of careers information, advice and guidance services for adults?
17. We welcome views on the vision for lifelong learning accounts, and their potential usefulness.
18. We welcome views on approaches to informing learners and employers including how better information can be made available while reducing bureaucracy.
Giving colleges and training organisations the freedom to respond
19. We welcome views on our planned measures for simplification and freeing colleges and training organisations.
20. How can we enable colleges and training organisations to be more efficient and responsive to the needs of employers, learners and their community but without adding new layers of control by local bodies?
21.What mechanisms could we use to hold colleges and other training organisations to account for their performance in responding to employers’ needs and for prioritising training that adds real economic value?
Incentives to train in priority areas
22. Do we need a framework that will enable and encourage employers and individuals to invest in training in priority areas and for colleges and other training organisations to provide appropriate courses?
23. Should we promote training innovation, particularly in rapidly changing or wholly new areas of the economy? If so, how might we do this?
24. How can we ensure employers can access high quality labour market information?
Encouraging a more productive workforce
25. What would enable businesses to use skills as a driver of productivity and business improvement?
26. We welcome views on ways in which businesses can be encouraged to increase the UK’s leadership and management capability to create better run and more highly performing businesses.
Reinvigorating adult and community learning
27. How could we encourage the development of productive partnerships with third sector organisations?
28. We welcome views on new ways that colleges could be used to support the community.
29. How could adult and community learning be reinvigorated? We especially welcome ideas for how businesses and others could be encouraged to engage in supporting local community learning to help create local ownership and momentum.
Measuring success
30.We welcome views on those indicators of success that would be most useful to you or your organisation.
To ensure effective participation is to ensure that impartial careers advice and guidance is available to all – not likely to be the case for much longer in view of cuts to careers advice and guidance in the pubolic sector.
The other issue is finance. I often have clients who want to return to education at 19 ( having not been ready/seen the value of this at 16/17), only to be faced with having to pay course fees that they simply cannot afford. Anything that can be done to enable such young people to AFFORD to return to study would be really beneficial.
Simplify IAG services with one all age guidance service. No need for Matrix accreditation but proper ofsted inspection based on what IAG providers do not on what learning providers do!
Those furthest from the Labour Market can be brought up to the levels needed but through proper support not coersion and certainly not from the sort of back to work programmes we have had in the past. Maybe an all age Connexions service to run alongside the IAG/Careers service.
Q4
Apprenticeships and progression routes can be improved if funding for 19-24 age groups are more available including adult apprenticeships. Having worked in the sector for a number of years this type of funding is always limited. However the employer contribution is also a barrier for progression and many providers do not adhere to this requirement to charge the employer but support the 50% funding from their 16-18 provision. This limits smaller providers in being able to expand their business by promoting Advanced Apprenticeships and restricts the employer enagement
Normally speaking the employer wants to train their staff to higher levels but only if the employer has a training budget. In the South East we have the highest number of SMEs that can not support the cost of training with a 50% fee. We have to take into consideration the criteria of the role to obtain the qualification and the productivity of the trainee. This is a big investment for any SME.
Perhaps it would be better for the employer to be means tested by their turn over to establish if they could afford to pay 50% of the training.
Further because at present the employer contribution is not mandatory large training organisations make no charge at all and restricts the smaller provider in being able to offer the same to increase their progressions to L 3.
Q5
Programme Led Apprenticeships in some occupational sectors are of great benefit as they allow the young person a taste of what the chosen occupation offers. In child care especially the PLA works well as legislation dictates that the ratio of staff must be qualified this means that for a 6 month period the PLA has a placement and can upskill before they become an employed apprentice and can be counted in staff ratios.
Most providers have employer links that could accept PLA often the best way for employers to recruit staff why can’t JCP consider this method for the unemployed and network with employers and training providers to assist the young person. All of the unemployed projects at present normally do not provide placements. Recently I have worked with a provider who is attached to a local college. They have assisted the college by delivering 2 units from the EYC NVQ and also provided placements this has resulted in the learner becoming employed and progressing on to L 3. the partner is now on the project and looking for a placement.
Q4. I believe that Higher apprenticeship programmes have the potential to transform Higher Education in the next ten years. The universities will find it impossible to survive without partership with business, and business will have the opoortunity to further shape the courses ubniversities offer. We have built five Foundation degrees, and incorporated them into Higher apprenticeship programmes: and each one has been crafted to best suit the community we needed to build, including the incorporation of business-as-usual training where appropriate.
From the business point of view, higher apprenticeships offer:
• Better retention. Even in these early days it is clear that our HAs are more likely to stick around than graduates
• Better performance. We’ve already shown that apprentices perform more effectively than adult recruits.
• Lower cost. HAs are prepared to join the business on a lower slalry level, and with more realistic salary expectations).
• A workforce which is prepared to roll its sleeves up, and undertsands the industry from the shop floor level (classic apprenticeship benefit).
From the individual’s point of view a higher apprenticeship is a better route than traditional university because it offers:
• A proper career, with a decent salary, and real career prospects
• A good qualification (FD) with the opoortunity to develop to Honours status (all our FDs have a ‘top-up’ option)
• No student loan!
• A full understanding of the technology, philosophy and commerciality of our business
Offering the best of apprenticeship philosophy and high quality university learning, I believe that, In time, Higher Apprenticeships will rival traditional university attendance.
Working with my SSC e-Skills UK I am conducting a ‘Higher Apprenticeships v Graduates’ study. I would welcome partnerships from other sectors!
Q.25
What would enable businesses to use skills as a driver of productivity and business improvement?
Answer:
Better leaders and managers who recognise the importance of engaging and developing their people as the lifeblood of business. Britain’s businesses need to be better run – then they will recognise how important skill development is. Start by developing the leadership and management skills of the SME business leadership community.
Q.26
We welcome views on ways in which businesses can be encouraged to increase the UK’s leadership and management capability to create better run and more highly performing businesses.
Answer:
UK SME’s need to be sold, not told the value of leadership and management development. Funding helps, but compelling, innovative, engaging, cost-effective, value for money, learner-centric programmes are required. This is why most don’t go for the IoD training or other high-brow business schools. They are perceived as too expensive – or, “not-for-me, because I have built my business from scratch and I’m not going back to school”. Ask them!
99.9% of UK businesses are SME’s and desperately need leadership and management development to understand how to grow through the development of their people.
Although I work for the UK commission, I’m answering as an individual. I joined the UK commission only four weeks ago, but have worked in the employment and skills sectors for the last 16 years.
Q2: Simple:
1 – Get rid of Connexions – all they do is signpost everyone somewhere else anyway
2 – Make schools employ a properly qualified and experienced careers guidance person; not a teacher pushed into it because no one else wants to do it.
3 -
Dear Andy,
Noticed your comment and agree whole heartedly with your points. Whilst typing, I wondered whether you are the same Andy Ellis I worked with at Forward Trust in the late 90′s?
Regards,
Tony Kerley
i dont think you should get rid of connexions as we help young people with wont they want to do in life young people think all we are here for is comdon but we are not we guide young people in to education, work health and lots more you should go in connexions and see what they have to offer in the long run it help me in now tranning to be a youth work and i volunteer in connexion to help my community better..
Simple proposals to abolish Connexions are not the answer. Ideally we need to develop an approach in which young people recieve an integrated approach to careers education and guidance. The need is demonstrated by the large number of false starts in “college or sixth form provision” at age 16 or in higher education at age 18+. An integrated approach would build on the successes amongst the wide range of measures adopted by schools and colleges – many developed jointly with employers and their organisations (and unions) with a significant input of robust independent careers information and guidance. Schools and colleges are providers and thus (notwithstanding the professionalism of many staff) will always find it hard to convince people of the unbioased nature of advice offered. Many staqff in schools and colleges do not have the time needed to develop good links with the whole range of employment and career opportunities open to young people. The overarching aim of the activity would be to equip every young person – by roughly the age of 18) with the ability to establish their career direction and evaluate the relevance of different employment and education opportunities. Too many young people – especially in recessions – take the wrong turn and the money is unlikely to be available for second and third chance options. I am unconvinced by the need for adult and young people’s servcies to be provided by the same institution in every locality. In previous recessions adults with good work histories needing reorientation tend to resent being placed alongside younger people – many without strong work habits.
Question 26:
Working as a Business and Leadership Coach I have found the Leadership and Management Grants for companies of 5-250 people an excellent way to encourage increased capability in this area via coaching. I have experienced that in half of cases companies will go on to commit to more training and development plus in many cases due to company performance increasing it leads them to recruit more staff. In all cases I have seen increased results for the business – accumulation of new business and sales, productivity improvements and hence an increase in growth and profits. I believe the scheme should continue, if not an element fully funded, then perhaps simply matched funding. Government support adds credibility and recognition to the need for Leadership Development, many companies would not enter into it without this tangible backing.
Any funding available to empoyers should be through a “one stop shop” – we spend too much time and effort pursuing funding, often unsuccessfuly.
The QCF should be the only system for referencing the level of a course or qualification – we, for example, have been talking to business schools who have referred to some of their programmes as “HE Level X, Y or Z” – since we are used to NVQ levels (and now the QCF) this has not been helpful to us.
If an area of learning is important to an organisation, like ours, it must, surely be important to the UK economy – it is frustrating to have to bend the criteria (for funding particularly) to fit our circumstances – the alternative is either to be unable to afford all the training and learning we need or to train in what are, for us, the lower priority areas.
Our experience, and something that the Government needs to think about, is that the best training and the best trainers are always found outside of the education system and are seldom accredited or Government funded. They operate, by their reputation, on a freelance basis. Second in quality comes our own in-house training. We usually prefer these two options, for quality and effectiveness, and, therefore, have to do so at our own expense. It seems unfair that we almost always get financial help (for which we are deparate) with sub-standard provision.
Question 16
If all firms & businesses had an open day once a year, the public – those at school, those out of work, those looking to change jobs etc could visit, see the set up & talk to staff about” their job ” in the real world.
Question 23
The best people to promote training are those that have been on the courses – get them to visit groups/establishments to say how they have benefited from the training.
Question 29
Offer regular workshops in the community covering all subjects to encourage & inspire people. First one free, then maybe a reduction to book on the course there & then. Invite local business managers – could this be provided in their workplace ?
hello i was wondering if there is any money i can get for what i am doing. im doing a level 2 in youth and community worker i volunteer in connexions and a youth centre aswell and was wondering if there is any money i can get im 19 years old iv been told because it a volunteer that i cant but im doing what i would if i was at college but just doing on the job and course work at the same time please help me many thanks Delia.
Q. 3. Abolish the Institute for Learning. It is absurd that state-funding is provided for what is essentially a self-serving lobbying body. Colleges have the Association of Colleges and teachers have trade unions to lobby for their interests. The IfL’s ‘policing’ of teachers and their professionalism is nothing more than an exercise in smoke and mirrors that produces wordy, and meaningless, reports of ‘achievement’ and ‘satisfaction’.
Q. 7. If training is to deliver real gains in skills and knowledge it must move away from measurement and accreditation of ‘competencies’ based upon micro-tasks. While it is often best to breakdown tasks/skills in order to explain their purpose and operation, these micro-tasks should not be used to measure competency, let alone skill. Learners need to be introduced to the holistic view. Furthermore, we need to make much more room in the curriculum to develop analytical and problem-solving skills, rather than teaching disconnected fragments (euphemistically called ‘competencies’) by rote.
Q. 10. See response to Q.7. Enterprise skills can only be learnt by the development of analytical and problem-solving skills.
Q. 17. There is a very real danger that the lifelong learning account will become nothing more than a bureaucratic paper-trail that is deceitful to the learner, meaningless to employers and a costly burden on training and education providers.
Q. 27. Administrative burdens are the major constraint on closer involvement of the third sector: the non-transferability of CRB-clearance being perhaps the most obvious example.
Q.29. Reinvigorating adult and community learning, and working with partners, would be easier if we training and education professionals discarded some of the florid and exclusive language. The jargon developed over the past twenty-plus years often leaves ‘outsiders’ (people returning to learn, community groups, businesses and employers) confused or even patronised.
One of the main aspects missing from these Consultation Questions is the issue of gender. Women make up roughly half of the workforce, yet are often working in lower-paid positions than men. Some sectors are still very male-dominated. By under-using women as an economic resource, the economy suffers. The question needs to be: how can we encourage and support women to improve their skills through training?
The Gender-IT project has found that women want to have access better career guidance and advice about every sector including ICT.
Q16
The career options available in the ICT sector are frequently not known, both by careers guidance practitioners, students and adults. More comprehensive training and up-to-date knowledge is needed for career guidance professionals. Educating the public about the different career paths skills and training can take them is also very necessary.
The gender-IT project is a two-year initiative co-funded by the European Union’s Lifelong Learning Programme, under the Leonardo da Vinci Action.
Q26
I believe that managerial and leadership skills development is vital across all sectors if we are to deliver real sustainable innovation. To support this we have introduced innovative new accredited programmes that help develop ‘Intrapreneurial’ Managers where we work quickly to develop the right attitudes and skills in addition to just imparting knowledge, as so many traditional academic programmes only do. Only 1 in 4 UK managers have an appropriate qualification for their role. We must improve this and question the way these are delivered if we are to improve our managerial and leadership skill set and lead our way back to economic growth.
Firstly, organise the questions. There are far too many to get good quality responses.
Apprenticeships need better organisation and support from training providers. There needs a better system for small businesses to recruit good apprentices both from the schools and colleges and from within the sectors of industry.
Clarity of objectives would be good. There needs to be more information about the attainment required for each level and there should be some core similarities between levels to make the qualifications transferable across different industries.
Within these questions is the implication that higher level apprenctices will achieve well, but there must also be recognition that apprentices of lower ability have a very major part to play within all sectors and should be encouraged to join and be part of the system.
1. Principles are fine, but a bit wooly.
2. Have one national body with regional representatives (like the LSC – but could be called the YPLA or SFA). Have one national body to support the development of the industry (training/education – LSIS is good) take out all other buracratic paper producing bodies.
3. Fund training – skills leading to employment for the unemployed. Fund continuous training/skills within employment for e.g. the first 12 months to a level 2. fund a level 3 for all employed. Above this to be privately funded.
4. Employers already contribute by employing and upskilling on the job and allowing ‘downtime’ for other training and assessment. Apprenticeships can be improved by allowing some customisation into the framework. The cost of the Apprenticeship certificate is too high – it should come automatically with the final certificate of the framework. It is a huge cost per learner.
The constant capping of contracts for WBproviders means we cannot deliver higher levels as the funding does not support this.
5. A simple employability programme with work tasters, relationship building and personal presentation skills, interview skills etc. for up to 13 weeks will increase learners opportunities to gain employment on an apprenticeship programme. Don’t encourage unemployed apprenticeships or ‘fake’ apprenticeships like the Apprenticeship companies where the learner is employed by the provider and ‘placed’ with an employer. This is very short term. A proper pre-apprenticeship programme, where providers rely on job outcomes with apprenticeship as the main source (or up to 50% of the income) would be a big influence to achievement.
6. Demand can be created in face to face situations with employers and learners, however, cost is always an issue during difficult economic times. Useful to encourage employers to link development to higher levels to their salary structure and/or management progression/succession planning.
7. Very important to accredit existing skills, to encourage lots of individuals who have never ‘succeeded/acheived’ in the past to continue learning. Funding opportunities being available for them to carry on to higher levels is important. If providers are satisfied that they can continue training then they will encourage learners from day one to think of progression. currently capping and uncertaintity of contracts/funding, creates a week by week/month by month attitude.
When employers see enhanced performance by effective training, they naturally want to continue training their staff.
8. Ask us for open tenders to which show innovative methods and let us ‘prove’ we can do it, rather than arranging prescriptive ‘bidding’ opportunities which are more about the quality of the bid writing than the actual performance benefits.
9. Allow a six to 8 week induction into work place, where learners can be assessed and can asssess their suitability for the chosen career path – don’t penalise the provider for a learner wanting to change programme or course during this time (pay a training allowance during this time). Allow up to six months for learners to transfer between programmes without the provider being penalised – i.e. success rates. Don’t count these learners -if they move to another career option in employment, as early leavers.
10. Utilise a vocational qualification linked to employers with employer feedback forming part of the requirement for assessment.
11. Yes i think the entitlement based approach seems to work.
12. Link it more to jobs and incentivise the employer to become involved.
13. Some flexibility in the apprenticeship frameworks would help. When employers want specific skills for their staff, this could be funded instead of e.g. a technical certificate that might not be appropriate or functional skills which are not yet ‘ready’ for employment. Key skills were only meant to be a sticking plaster until the eduction system was back on track, now it seems we as WBL providers, are to continue delivering what appears to be improving in schools now. We should be conscentrating with employers to enhance performance in the work place, to make people outstanding in the jobs/careers. To improve the economy. Schools/Education system needs to focus on the ‘education’ of young people.
14. Reduce buraucracy – improve performance in work place, reduce eligibility criteria, so an employer can put all of work force on to a programme – that way there is buy in by whole organisation, and training can link to salary, succession planning etc. and not be seen as a separate entity that only the unqualified take part in! Make it competitve, make it attractive, make in pay for the employer. Let the employer use this as a ‘tool’ to improve his business, not be seen as ‘something he/she is doing for the benefit of the learner’
15. Employers value NVQs when they improve performance in work place and are up to date. they value specific qualifications, e.g. fork lift truck, H & S, food hygiene, and specific training courses which are not necessarily acredited, e.g. appraisal skills, telesales and sale. they don’t always value, technical certificates (except where they are common to the industry), key skills and functional skills.
16. don’t separate young people and adults. have one organisation fully skilled and working in partnership with the SFA/YPLA and Higher Education system.
17. Don’t feel they are of benefit to anyone, more buraucracy – lots of misunderstanding, lots of ‘targeting’ by unscrupulous providers – waste of money and very expensive to administer. Didn’t work in the past.
18. National Advertising on TV for apprenticeships was very costly – and as a provider we did not get one referral. However, capping of contracts also would have meant that we would not have been able to deliver the expectations that were being raised.
Most providers attract their own learners by attending careers events, and job centres and use their own advertising/web-sites to atrract learners to vacancies. Ensure that information of what is on offer is available through the national/regional SFA/YPLA and national /local job centre (equiv)
19. Give us contracts that we can deliver and rely on (what we ask for) then measure our performance quarterly- reconciling as we go. Reward over performance – don’t penalise it!!! We can grow the learners, enhance achievements to higher levels, encourage employers etc., we need some freedom from bureaucracy to be able to do it. We need some freedom to do our job and not have to be constantly fighting for payment and giving up weeks at a time for audits and OFSTED inspections. We don’t need to keep unneccesary documentation for years and years (once a year is finally audited we should be able to destroy records). Currently we are renting buildings to store documents!!!
Freedom for providers who of ‘good/excellent’ with OFSTED should be allowed. All new providers need to ‘jump through the hoops to get there’ allo electronic signatures. currently we have a whole team of 12 inputting data that could be electronic!!!
20. If the apprentices are employed then this will automatically bring the efficiencies to the local community, people and employers. Incentivise all programmes with a job outcome related payment. Don’t allow/fund unemployed apprenticeships.
21.Apprenticeship qualifications include training as well as assessment. If the NVQs are developed and supported by the industry and learners achieve these qualifications (which are externally verified), then training is valued. Providers who do not carry out effective support and training with learners, struggle to engage/continue to engage employers – this would quickly show in achievement rates and in employer engagement. The training and the framework needs to be industry specific and not be the panacea for improving the education system in English, Maths and IT. These should not be part of the framework, but if identified as a need = then can draw down additonal funding.
22. The current economic climate will not carry employer contributions at lower levels of training and could have an adverse affect when encouraging employers to employ young people or longer term unemployed. Levels 4 and above should be funded by the employer/employee.
23. Training Innovation in rapidly growing sectors needs to be thought through by the sector – and the sector needs to address this. Once we start to prescribe without knowing the need, we will create a lot of negativity towards training. Providers of training are good at going out there and generating interest in all types of industry. An incentive to a provider for every new employer or every new start in employment would help as this is a very costly aspect of our business.
24.
24. it is available on web-sites and if job centres and YPLA/SFA have this information they can be informed by providers where they can access directly.
25. Encourage employers to use the qualifications as part of their own staff development programme, to create their own ‘talent pool’s and to align with their salary bandings.
26.
26. Have a funding pot for providers tor employers o bid into to attract organisations to develop their management team and their management processes. Could be a package, e.g. a Nationally recognised certificate which could describe the company as ‘meeting nationally recognised Management standards’ – This could happen if all managers achieved the appropriate managment level qualifications. (it could be developed a bit like IIP and have maybe three levels. the final assesments could link to management qualifications and/or training undertaken and linked to business plan and achievement and/or year end accounts. Publicity linked to achievement of the 3 levels would need to be encouraged and badged.
27. Allow unemployed to gain a training allowance when on a third sector programme and in a work placement. This would enhance the employment opportunities for the longer term unemployed as these are often the individuals who have totally got out of the way of working, turn up late, cause problems etc. and are difficult to keep in employment.
28. Colleges could be open at weekends (some parts are) but more need to be open for weekend and evenings to allow participation by all. Some of this can be off site at local community centres and or at local Third sector institutions.
29. . Currently some businesses do quite a bit for their local community and this is not always publicised. A lot link with schools and providers and work with the local community in this way – acting as work placements, supporting enterprise in schools, mentoring and coaching, carrying out interview techniques and giving talks as well as ‘tasters’ in the work placement. Maybe building up case studies on this and encouraging providers and schools to post these on the web-sites to promote this.
30. Indicators for success for us as a WB provider, is about:
a. getting young people and unemployed into jobs, preferably with continuous training.
b.Achievement of learning plan
c.Improvement in performance in the work place.
d. Employers coming back to us for ‘more’
e. learners gaining promotion and recruiting thier own apprentices through us.
f.
With respect, this is very supplier-led: ‘we can teach – let us do it’ seems to be the message. Learning is surely what learners and teachers wish to achieve, not merely the delivery of courses. The social context of education and training has become subservient to notions of ‘delivery’.
Agreed, learners and teachers wish to achieve learning, suppliers stating their ability to deliver is only one side of the story. However, it is worth remembering our country is best served if all learning is put to good use. Unless we bring UK leadership and management skill up to leading European standards, we will struggle to reap the benefits of increased applied learning in the workplace. Increase L&M skill = better run businesses = growth = more jobs = more opportunity for learner and teacher to apply the learning. Better leaders and managers is the key
Q2 – Have one national industry specific body.
Q7 – Make funding directly available to the employer to be able to spend where they think it best suits their requirements.
Q11 – It’s too easy for learners to drop-out without any consequences. Funding should be offered to all those with limited means, but they must also make a committment. A carot and stick approach: free if you are prepared to learn and achieve, but you have to payback through reduced benefits if you fail to attend or achieve. This would stop those that can’t be bothered to get up in the morning and attending on a regular basis and allow training and learning to be more effective to those that do want to learn. Too many of the young and unemployed see funded FE courses as as way of keeping the benefits office off their backs – whilst their in education they are off the unemployed register!
Q12 – It’s all very well giving qualifications for each and every Unit studied, but this does not help the learner or the employer. Qualifications should be specific with a beginning, middle and end. Learners should not be allowed to “cherry pick” the bits they want to do. This is not allowed in the workplace. Giving out too many bits of paper (certificates) for each and every minor unit undertaken gives the learner false expectations – they think they are qualified when they are not. But it also devalues the worthwhile qualifications in the eyes of the employer.
Q13 – Larger employers are well served and able to participate in meetings to set and review the NOS and qualifications, but the SMEs are not, particularly those employing less than three. They have their views and are often in more need of training at all levels, but are less able to participate because of time and financial constraints.
Q14 – Reduce buraucracy and allow some funding for SME employer to participate in the process. The SSC Industry Boards are only filled with the larger employers and are missing out on the SMEs voice.
Q15 – Levels 2 and 3 job specific
Q16 – One stop shop for all regardless of age
Q17 – Buracratic and costly and meaningless to both learners and employers.
Q18 – A National Register of all training on offer, both public and private training providers. Much of the best job specific training is done by private training providers, with better facilities and expertise.
Q21 – Training needs to be industry specific.
There is a crisis in training the next generation of upholsterers and soft furnishers, the type of training being funded as well as the loss of existing courses. Businesses want new staff with a certain level of practical skills, but some of them simply aren’t big enough to do the training themselves. From my position as Director of Training for the Association of Master Upholsterers & Soft Furnishers there are a lot of people wanting to join the industry.
Proskills, the skills council that looks after the furniture and furnishings sector, indentifies that the total size of the Furniture, Furnishings and Interiors Manufacturing sector in the UK is around 120,000 people in 12,200 companies. The industry consists mainly of micro companies, with around 80% of organisations employing less than 10 people. Only 5% of companies have over 50 employees, but between them they employ 47% of the workforce. These larger companies are well served with the modern apprenticeship scheme. But these figures do not include one-man-band businesses or those self employed, which form the major proportion of the upholstery and soft furnishings sector.
The most common skills gaps in the Furniture, Furnishings and Interiors Manufacturing industry are those relating to technical, practical or job-specific skills.
There are pronounced differences in the approach to training between large, small and micro companies. Larger companies are more likely to carry out training. However the financial cost of learning is the most common barrier to training, particularly the SMEs. A one-man operation does not have the time or resources to teach someone who is totally “green” without it affecting their own productivity, but given someone with good basic practical skills they can move them on and develop them into efficient productive employees with skills that will serve them for the rest of their lives.
So what’s the problem? It’s a Catch 22 situation: if courses don’t fit the very strict official requirements, they don’t get funding (one of the issues at Herefordshire College of Technology). But there’s just no funding available for the master craftsman who wants to pass on his skills on a one-to-one basis, despite the fact there are craftspeople out there who would be willing to do this; and plenty of people wanting to do the job! As the Heritage Crafts Association said in a recent press release: “Such craftspeople are not interested in NVQs, quangos, priority provision or endless paperwork – they just care about their skills and want to pass them on.”
For those who have found trainee positions within larger companies there are courses to attend on day release or in blocks in order to obtain qualifications in modern foam upholstery techniques, some of which might attract funding via schemes like the Modern Apprenticeship scheme, but traditional craft techniques are not supported. What is available varies around the country depending on regional priorities.
But there is virtually nowhere currently where young people can get funded pre-employment training to the level of skills that smaller businesses, not in a position to do their own training, require.
Today’s accredited courses tend to place the emphasis on acquiring skills in units – you don’t have to necessarily complete a full course to get a qualification – you get interim awards for each module as you go along. It’s meant to be an incentive to students but it actually misleads them into false expectations. They think they’ve got a qualification after a few weeks or months when actually all they may have learnt by that stage is the most basic of skills, which is no good to an employer. So when they go for a job saying ‘I’m qualified’ they’re just not to the level required.
The City & Guilds Technical Certificate in traditional craft skills are good practical skills based courses, but since they were dropped by the London Metropolitan University two years ago, there are few places running them. Herefordshire College of Technology is the latest to end their craft courses as they didn’t fit into any of the available funding “boxes”.
The AMUSF developed its own training qualifications around six years ago – which are now taught in a number of small, privately run training centres around the country (Hertfordshire, Cornwall, Wales, Cumbria, Leicestershire & Shropshire). It’s a good practical skills based course, which seeks to deliver what upholstery businesses want. But they are not accredited on the QCF – Qualification Credit Framework – and as such are not eligible for government funding. These courses are excellent for those already working in upholstery businesses. They also attract many students not employed in the industry who would like to be, but because of the lack of funding, they are inevitably highly motivated and usually older – 30 plus. Because of this, some upholsterers are reluctant to take on older graduates – they can see their motivation as a threat, where it should be an asset. These older more motivated students are often career-changers looking to start new businesses or mothers looking at their long-term future and wanting a career in something that they can fit around childcare. Many of my past students have gone on to work for existing upholsterers or have started their own businesses, some of which are also employing other graduates.
The AMUSF along with the Worshipful Company of Upholders and Proskills are talking to New Bucks University, about developing the AMUSF traditional upholstery qualifications into accredited ones, which might mean more colleges can take them up, but there is still no guarantee they will attract government funding. Hopefully, in the process of being re-worked to fit required standards they won’t be spoiled. These courses have been developed by the trade for the trade. A member of the AMUSF recently commented that he wanted someone who could stitch well and produce beautiful work that his customers wanted. As long as they could read the end of the tape measure, he would be happy.
Traditional upholstery is still a valid craft, which takes time to learn and master, but it is not a dying craft. Traditional upholstery produces furniture that will last at least a generation, unlike much of the modern foam upholstery that can have a life span of between 1 and 10 years depending in its quality, and that ends up in landfill.
The Association of Master Upholsterers & Soft Furnishers, along with other associations with traditional skills training interests, would like to draw to Government’s attention the current mis-match between what’s being provided and what’s needed in terms of accredited training courses and press for more training funding to be directed straight to employers to choose what’s most relevant for them.
WENDY SHORTER
DIRECTOR OF TRAINING FOR
THE ASSOCIATION OF MASTER UPHOLSTERERS & SOFT FURNISHERS
August 2010
Since 2007 I have been working with various education services (LSIS, SSAT, LSN, etc) on development of 14-19 Diplomas.
As an employer in the justice sector, I simply wish to add my support for the fantastic range and depth of these composite qualifications and hope that they develop further.
I and many other managers throughout the country have long argued for an education that combines functional skills in english, maths and ICT, with subject specific, work-based learning and personal and professional development.
There is scope to adapt and combine this approach with apprenticeships. Employers will become engaged if they understand how this will impact on their future employees and how “work-ready” they can be.
I apologise if this is not the correct forum to be presenting this, but I strongly believe that composite qualifications are the way forward and have seen the results, not just in terms of statistical analysis, but the personal development of learners much better equipped to survive and flourish in their chosen working environment.
Kind regards,
Daniel.
Q.26 While I am an associate with a coaching organisation, I am responding as an individual. Preparing leaders for their new roles and managing the business risks for the organisation through a comprehensive transition management plan that addresses the particular challenges of leadership would be a good start. Organisations and professional bodies have recognised for some time that the transition into a leadership role can be a particularly challenging one. Leaders themselves have also reported deficiencies in support for such transitions, as has been evident for example through published Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development (CIPD) leadership surveys (refs. 1,2 & 3) . A structured transition management plan would address issues such as assessment of leadership competences and potential in candidates, shared accountability for the success of leadership appointments, performance agreements for the leadership role that take account of the impact on the rest of the organisation and internal/external stakeholders as well as productivity and bottom line profit targets, to name just a few obvious areas that should be given attention. The focus of the plan should be on the critical first 3 to 4 months of a new leadership role. Coaching of new leaders through this critical period can provide some of the greatest leverage to ensure an effective transition for the individual and the rest of the organisation. The UK already has a good range of executive and leadership coaching professionals and organisations that can provide that key support. One way of accessing their skills would be for BIS to create an online portal to provide a “one stop shop” access point that UK organisations could go to when they need to develop and/or appoint new leaders. Professional organisations such as the Association for Coaching could also have a role to play in “pre-qualifying” coaches and organisations to be listed on the portal.
References:
1 CIPD. (2003). Reflections: Trends And Issues In Career Management; Experts’ Views On The 2003 Managing Employee Careers Survey Findings. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/onlineinfodocuments/atozresources.htm
2 Development Dimensions International (DDI). (2007). Research insight: Leadership transitions; Maximising HR’s contribution. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/maneco/leadership/_ldrshptrns.htm
3 CIPD. (2009). Learning And Development: Annual Survey Report 2009. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/lrnanddev/general/_learning_and_development_09
I work for a charity that engage 16-25 NEETs through football and help them progressing into long term employment, education and training. We also run educational programs offering community coaching and employability qualifications.
I think that organisation like NSA should consult high volume employers on what kind of skills the new recruits should have before taking up employment – These organisations should then develop in parthership with the employers the learning material (curriculum). We basically need to re-assess and decide what qualifications should be delivered for a particular profession and cut all the “useless ones”. Qualifications should be deliverd withing structured training programs including guided learning hours as well as health and well-being, sports, team building activities, confidence boost workshops but most of all work experience in order to really prepare the students for work.
The organisation that develops the learning material should then consult the Training Providers and advise then on what qualifications best suits the needs of the labour market. The organisation should also rate the Training Providers assessing and monitoring the quality, the originality and standard of delivery.
An umbrella body should be set up to link employers and training providers – new partnerships should be formed to deliver courses that ends in work placements, job interviews and apprenticeships. I believe that the private sector (id est the employers) could financiate part of the training programs with the promise of securing the hire of committed and fully trained recruits. The Traner Providers should keep on engaging with the students once they start their work placement to guarantee retention. Employers could fund the intervention costs of the training program while the Govt. could fund the actual costs of the qualifications. The employers would constantly invest in training (and this might be a big commitment for some companies) but would also secure free labour force for a month (during the work placement phase of the program) – After a month the employer should offer a job interview to the trainee and give him/her the opportunity to start paid work.
This is my vision. I can see this model working for entry level jobs (in this case community organisations and social enterprises could be the training providers give their ability of engaging with the “hard to reach”) – but would also work at high level. I will attend the conference on Monday the 6th of September. Regards,
Elisabetta Ognibene
Q19 invites views on freeing colleges and training organisations. Yet the document highlights some of the tensions. Para 48 talks of the need for collaboration and sharing , which fits some models of peer review and development. However Para 34 in talking of an impartial information system ‘will also create greater competition between colleges and training organisations’
Recognising and rewarding the credit based units of QCF will free up providers to be innovative for both learners and employers. Enabling providers to be learning organisations through peer review and development (and incentivising this) will drive up quality and standards
I wonder whether the complexity entailled in the credit based system will make an already incomprehensible system worse. Many many employers want people who have the basic work habits and a sufficent grounding in relevant skills from whioch they can develop to meet the specific job requirements. In too many field the formal qualification systems try to do too much – especially for people at the start of their career in an industry or profession. Get the basics right and the rest will follow.
Q26:
Most owners of UK SMEs spend all of their time working IN their business and no time working ON their business. They need to be encouraged to take time out to view their business from the outside and to define (or redefine) their goals (long, medium & short-term), recognise the obstacles to achieving the goals, assess the resources that they have / need to overcome the obstacles and, above all, agree the strategy and take the actions required to achieve their goals.
Most owners would benefit hugely from having a coach / mentor who has been in business themselves (ie has been there, made the mistakes and learned from experience).
A coach / mentor is not just another consultant; they are a sounding-board, a business friend, an outside pair of eyes & ears with the experience to help the ambitious owner to see where change is needed and how to manage that change, and, also to hold the owner accountable for taking the actions that the owner themself has agreed to take.
Q 26: We welcome views on ways in which businesses can be encouraged to increase the UK’s leadership and management capability to create better run and more highly performing businesses.
Owners and Managers of Britain’s SMEs are at a distinct dis-advantage to Executives in larger operations: they seldom have any colleagues or experienced independents to whom they can turn to for advice.Whether in good times or in bad, this tends to force Managers to be introverted and to focus on day to day issues rather than taking a broader view.
In addition SME owner managers tend to assume that such outside support is money not worth spending.
However the intervention of an experienced business coach/mentor can have immediate and dramatic effects on the performance of individuals and in particular,of their business. The current grants available to SMEs through Train to Gain have been , to my personal experience, of the greatest value to SME owners and such financial support must be encouraged to continue
After ten years of working with companies as a consultant in the SME sector, I would wish to comment upon the need for assistance to business owners and managers in the SME sector. (Question 26) Most small businesses are formed by one or a small group of individuals with a good idea forming a small company to exploit the idea. Many of these people are highly skilled in their area of expertise. Many come from larger companies where they have received specific training. What this training does not prepare them for is the managerial and leadership skills that they need in running their own business or working in a small team. Whereas there is much good training for such people in the mechanics of running a business the area so often neglected is helping them to build the necessary leadership skills. Many of these business leaders can ill afford time away from the business and often the best way to help them is through business coaching and leadership development. Many ‘coaches’ are offering themselves to this sector. There needs to be an emphasis placed on Business Coaching for both individuals and small teams. Such coaches have demonstrated that they are able to bring significant improvements to businesses which is demonstrative and measurable.
I am responding in my personal capacity. I am currently a non-executive with a large college, a NHS Primary Care trust and a Probation Trust. Previously I have been a non-executive with RAF training and the Fire Servcie College; and a senior civil servant responsible for skills policy. I also chaired an awarding body until recently.
Turning to the questions:
1. In general the principles seem right given the Government’s broad approach to economic and social policy. While agreeing with some move back from Government direction there needs to be a clear focus on ensuring that the taxpayer gets good returns on the investments made – returns not just in terms of employment but the other questions of social and community policies. Personally I would have made explicit reference to the “rehabilitation revolution” (and the links with the offending learning consultation) and to the aging society. In the latter context an explicit statement about the engagement of the “baby boomer” generation in learning as they near retirement would be helpful. Also there is a good deal of informal learning in the public health dimension of the NHS / local authority work on health priorities. This might be better integrated into a coherent policy. Finally increased coherence with DWP policies would be helpful as would a clearer exposition of the links between state funded skills investments and the training activities of professional and regulatory bodies.
2. The system is too complex and has mushroomed to the horror of some of us who were involved in earlier versions of the skills infrastructure. Some of the points I made under quetion 1 apply here too. There is a difficult balance between the loss of momentium created by further reorganisations and the extent to which each additional body wants to make an impact by directing or controlling delivery organisations, learners and businesses. I would not want to see any major early reorganisation. Better to concentrate on the substance of the policy with a clear sighted view of the ways in which learners (and employers / volunteer mangers) can be put in the driving seat.
3. The balance between public and private (employer and individual) investments in skills is a product of both economic and cultural factors. On the economic front human capital theory has much to tell us. It highlights the issues of risk, availability of resources and who benefits from skills acquisition. Succinctly in the current economy the risks seem to me to be greater forboth individuals and businesses than in the past – largely because the vaguaries of the recruitment and promotion systems in most organisations mean that confidence in reaping the benefits is lower than in the past. Equally the private sector remains short of money to invest in anything other than essential skills (including those mandated by government through occupational regulation and professional bodies). Now the reductions in public spending create a suimilar impact on public service organisation (in health, education and the criminal justice system from my current experience). Traditional fears of “poaching” seem to have reappeared for some employers. At the heart of the problem no business will invest in training with a longer term payback if they have real doubts about the survival of the business in the medium term. Culturally both employers and individuals remain of the view that government should fund significant parts of training (recognising that private spending is already significant) in part becase of past rhetoric about the impact of a trained workforce on reducing welfare, healthcare and other public budgets.
1. Briefly there of issues of creating the mindset in which apprentices want to progress beyond level 3 – and employers want their best people operating at level 3 to move upward (and perhaps outward). The core employer contribution remains the opportunity for apprentices to be employer on real practical work in their chosen field and all that means for work habits, social skills an dthe like – as well as more narrowly defined vocational skills.
8. Traditionally there were too many jagged edges between the JSA benfit led approach and college based training – in particular in respect of the “availability” criterion for JSA. Its one of those wicked issues where abuse could easily occur.
10. Probably we have over identified enterprise education with self employment – and working in SMEs. We should perhaps emphasise enterprising behaviour at every level in the design of qualifications and learning programmes including those in universities.
11. The entitlement approach has strengths in terms of equity and value for money; but real weaknesses in termsof handing control to learners. Is there a case for progressively moving towards a learner led approach with only a modicum of cnetral control? Is there a broad parallel with the issues of where NHS cash is spent on different treatments. Should the SFA be asked to develop a NICE type approach where some investments of proven value for different clients are covered automatically – and others of more dubious (or unproven) value be limited in some way or excluded from public funding – provided it can be done without too much bureaucracy)?
12 This is a hard question. Two of the issues are about information and cash. On information for young people we need to rethink the approach adopted as part of every child matters. It seems to me that we desperately need a coherent approach to careers education and guidance for young people – such as that envisaged by the review carried out in 2004. Essentially this means drawing together the many steps taken in schools (and a lesser extent colleges) to help the occupational development of young people with the traditional role of Careers Srervcies (now Connexions). There is need for a coherent overarching vision of young people being equipped to with the skills and knowledge to navigate their way through the complexities of higher and further education and employment worlds. This may be enabled by changes to the school curriculum and awards at this level. Some improvements are in prospect for adult guidance (which hopefully will engage properly with JC+) and these should be allowed to bed down before further changes. In both areas an independent component separate from employers or providers is essential.
The money market does not work well for intangeable assets like skills and education. Learning accounts may have a role but I am not convinced they can be done without bureauracy or significant risks of fraud..
13. We should keep and reinforce the accountability and independence of Sector Skills Councils – with a real influential voice in decision making. Could SSCs nominate members to some of the larger colleges?
19. There is still too great a tendency to want to control colleges through targets and budgets in too much detail. The notion of self regulation of colleges was sound but derailed by the AOC and its problems in reconciling the interests of independent Governors and Chief executives. Clear thinking about the actual risks of giving colleges real freedom and sensible mitigation strategies would help – in place of knee-jerk reactions when things go wrong – as they inevitable will.
21. On accountability it might be worth looking at the NHS Foundation trust model and notions of “membership” and elected governors found there. Bringing this together with “Free school” concepts and the “Big society” might be worthwhile especially for larger colleges. Policy should be more sceptical about college mergers.
27 -29 This is really important in terms of health promotion, reducing crime and the aging population.
First there is alot of learning in these areas undertaken as by-products of other government programmes often without adult learning expertise. Too often a retired primary school tecaher takes the lead when we know primary and adult learning are so different. Can these be bought together in some way to apply good adult learning skills to these state investments. However this must avoid the teacher knows best model often called good practice. How can we combine both an entrepreneural income generating focus of the most successful (financially) colleges with the ability to work with the sometimes disorganised and organic approach of the third sector?
Before any decisions have been taken it is important to take into account the following: the number of full time employees or full time posts equivalent in many Adult Learning Centres. Take the case of Poole Adult Learning where 40 full time equivalent manage 168 tutors employed by the hour, many just working two or four a hours a week for six weeks. It is a very expensive service for what it offers. Before Poole became a unitary authority, two people managed the whole county of Dorset. It is essential the government has a look at the figures, taxpayers money has been squandered as if there was no tomorrow.
Working mainly with SMEs, coaching and mentoring management teams and individuals, I find that there are three main problems in getting them to invest in their own development:
1. They are too involved in day-to-day task and people management issues to step back and consider how they are leading their business;
2. They have the perception that “training” is for their staff rather than for themselves and is essentially “remedial” rather than “enhancing”;
3. The return on investment is not easy to quantify in the timescales that they desire (relatively short-term.)
So how could government help each of these?
1 & 2. These are “cultural” and need promotion of examples of good results – case studies and SME role-models – and leading by example within all of – central and local – government to help change the atmosphere re management development. Promote development not just training – too easy to “go on a course” and not implement changes.
3. Seed funding linked to achieved outcomes and matched by SMEs themselves. Money without obligations is not as effective.
I would add a cultural point about some SMEs – especially the most innovative ones. Too much of the education and skills system is overly rigid and highly structured. This sits uneasily with many SMEs who thrive on breaking out of such structures and systems. Equally in some cases these firms are writing the “standard texts” for the future and so the formal learning systems tend to be lagging behind.
3. When people have been out of work and out of education for a long time, anything that inspires them to start being more active and start learning again is worthwhile. My organisation runs short practical courses to help people do just that and many progress to volunteering, work or qualifications.
5. Supported volunteering is a good way to help people get ready for entry-level employment.
4, 7, 14 etc Good employers know what training will help their staff do their jobs, and what they need in order to progress within the organisation and take on more responsibility. This may sometimes be technical training, management training or even driving lessons. The part of TtG in which employer contributions to training were matched by TtG, and the Training Grant incentive for taking on certain unemployed people were good ideas but not easy enough to access and the training incentive was only offered in certain “stages of claim”. The whole business of stages of claim for unemployed people restricting access to support into work needs to be removed so that anyone who is out of work can get any of the help available when they want it.
15 varies depending on the industry – some value vocational qualifications while others still don’t.
27 Consistency of approach, including a consistent commitment to fund, understand value of the work done in the community, recognise that community organisations which are registered training centres are professional and can conform to the Quality standards, share resources if you are a College (especially when they are scarce!)
2) We could reduce the skills system by cutting out the middle people and working with the users Working at grass roots would simplify the system and save money
by trying to place them in jobs after the training working with the jobs centre closely so that the student gets the job they want and the job centre can provide this service plus the employer would be happy with a more motivated person in their team
3) the main constraints on changing the balance between public and private sector is that the private sector cannot afford to make mistakes they have to be sustainable so therefore planning carefully on long term finances make a difference Public sector works with groups funded and voluntary that tend to have a limited timescale to their activities due to funding implications and can be working with similar or new groups who then repeat lessons that have already been learnt what you need is an organisation that can store valuable work that has already been done and signpost it to new groups so there is no replication of work and consultations that have already been carried out this will save money in the long term
4) By the time any student is Level 3 they should be working in the industry and be able to have first hand experience of it from this programme and if they go on to higher levels then the employers or with the help of government should pay the student to give them an incentive to further develope their skills as quite often they have to finance this themselves even down to buying a uniform and the products as FE have limited funds due to cut backs
5) there should be more apprenticeships for learning difficulties students who cannot go on to Level `1 as they cannot read and write and their experiences should be more vocational otherwise you will end up with these students not doing anything and getting in to trouble
7) At the moment i think that colleges are under pressure to gain accreditations instead of skills this could be addressed through sponsorship schemes, apprenticeships and more hands on vocational training taking place in the work place which would encompass the real world.
9) giving them some funding so they can place their students in appropriate working centres
10)By offering more courses and giving those successful enterprises a voice in further education to show and tell how they became successful and maybe working with the said persons
11)not sure what you mean by entitlements do you mean unemployed people
12)By the students gaining placements in the industry for which they would be studying for
13) Have mentors that are attached from college and industry working with the students in placements and then having feedback from the mentors and students on how this could be improved
14) ask the employers what is needed they will vary from industry to industry Make a set list for colleges to guide their curruculum on A good college would be working with employers anyway
15) qualifications that are practical for the job on hand
16)By not getting rid of connexions but improving their access to employers and students so they can effectively match their needs Make sure they are highly qualified and have people skills as well so they have a true understanding of what is needed. Some people that the government are making redundant have this so it seems like a waste of valuable people resource
18) Talk more to each other
21) have award schemes and publish them
A lot of useful points here but probably too rosy a view of the private sector andits motiavtion. It was not clear to me whether the comments were about skills aquisition guided by employers or by private sector providers of training.
A very important point about the balance between classroom and “shop floor” learning for people at different levels. Over the years we have seen many attempts to blend these forms of learning with some useful lessions for how to make it work well. We seem to lack the capacity to make sustained improvements in this area. The real constraint has always been providers with the capacity to learn from this experience and businesses with the scope to offer really good practical components in programmes. This is not confined to the UK – the US has similar problems and many EU countries have limited schemes for a limited range of occupations. The job market is the key to making progress – a recessionary economy with future cuts in the public services is not likely to produce sufficent opportunities in the immediate future. Maybe a stronger less constrained role for SSCs would help; so too would much less focus from Government and funding bodies on qualification outcomes.
Q3 Abolish the Institute for Learning – if a teacher lacks skills or is a not an effective reflective practitioner then a recording process is not going to support them, and the funding this body soaks up would be much better diverted into actual training and good quality CPD.
The basi idea of tutors and the equivalent in post 16 education is fine in principle. A few years ago I looked at the US syatem of Mandatory Continuing Education in a range of professions and this was highly variable. However there wer good examples of structures MACE giving real benefits to the community and to individual learners. Centrainly there is a case for reform but not abolition. The taxpayer and the learner needs assurance that “tutors” have the up to date knowledge and skills to deliver effective programmes.
At the risk of being controversial my experience as aCollege Governor was that the staff who resisted IforL were those judged by their peers and managers to be in most need of updating and upgrading – and whose results were towards the bottom end of the spectrum.
How can we incentivise colleges and training organisations to offer a flexible and cost-effective ‘needs-led’ offer for people who are out of work or at risk of becoming unemployed?
Answer: Use Train-to-Gain and other funding exclusively for employers to incentivise them to train and then Colleges would have to respond to demand. The heavyweight justification and paperwork should go along with insistance on IIP, and the focus should be on funding job creatin among younger and lower skilled workers. Only a limited fund should be available for management training and this should be segmented into 2 parts – team leadership leading to ILM level 3 and senior management leading to specific Marketing, Leadership and finance training in one bundle offered by a mentor leading to accreditation of prior learning and experience (APEL) for ILM level 7 qualifications. This would harmonise the need for good business mentoiring for senior managers with a recognised qualification.
Since I have worked in 3 Chambers of Commerce, 2 Enterprise Agencies and 2 Business Links as well as having been a multinational business consultant I know this approach works.
But it means less control by Public sector officers – which means a tolerance for occasional misdemenours for a great deal of money saved on bureaucracy.
In response to question 5 – we need to be able to support LDD & vulnerable young people who may need extensive support to get to Apprenticeship level – they maynever be able to achieve a level 2, so there must be something in place for these yp. Also more funding for training workshops to enable providers to deliver pre-apprenticeship programmes. There is too much emphasis on english and maths level 2, when we should be also assessing the young peoples practical skills.
4 and 11.The apprenticeship programme could be improved by allowing young people to engage fully at level 2 whilst still at school, if that is their choice ,with employer placements progressing onto full employment and possibly level 3/4. If time in school is fully and effectively utilised there will be less need for Post 16 entitlement.
7. Stop funding NVQ’s and place emphasis on VRQ’s.
22. Govt funding for tarining should partly be focussed on supporting socially useful, not for profit organisations to train their staff and volunteers, developing a market, giving equal opportunity to individuals and supporting the sustainabilty of vital organisations.
27. Working effectively with local VCS organisations should be a condition of colleges’ mainstream funding, as should fair franchising.
In the tourism and hospitality sectors one of the key issues is the level of customer service. Britain is not perceived as being the most welcoming of nations (nb this is perception – some respondents might not have actually been here). However, there is evidence to support this. Customer service skills are of course paramount in retail, transport and other sectors and consideration should be given to how much “reinventing the wheel” and duplication is neccessary. Much like management and business skills for micro (not even SME) business owners the question is how to achieve real change without establishing a cumbersome, overly qualification-led structure
I am responding as a former tutor and, later, a head of department in Adult Education, and present student in Adult Education and Trustee of an adult education centre.
1. We must also talk about ‘education’. ‘Skills’, however widely applied, limits the discussion.
2. Funding for AE should be from government, not local authorities, because of the unequal distribution of colleges and institutes across authorities.
3. Much of AE’s work is with the unemployed and disadvantaged and with the retired and elderly. This can never attract much corporate or other large-scale private funding. We should regard AE as, on the one hand, bringing vulnerable groups out of unemployment and benefit and into work, and on the other as creating a cultured and educated public — one, moreover, that would without it decline into senility and dependency and be a drain on health funding — that allows the arts (a major part of the economy) to flourish and, through studies in history, philosophy and literature, creates a real understanding of democracy, the ‘Big Society’ and so on. It is a vital contribution to society and must very largely be funded by government.
5. AE courses in literacy, numeracy, English for Speakers of Foreign Languages, computing and IT can introduce and ready people for apprenticeships — but only if the fees are very low or nil, i.e. if there is adequate government subsidy.
7. This can be achieved by education in actual classes, where learners and tutors can engage in lively discussion with each other, rather than relying on distance-learning, computer programmes and the internet.
8. Adult Education colleges and institutes have been doing this for decades and havevdeveloped excellent skills and best practice in developing negotiated curricula and teaching methods.
9. By providing high-quality part-time courses at convenient times, allowing people to continueto study, or study new subjects, while working.
11. Government should continue with an entitlements approach. In many cases the commitment for learners to continue with education comes from their experience of having started something that they were entitled to and took up rather than something they initially demanded andwere able and willing to pay substantially for.
12. See 8. above. Government funding of AE is, even at best, such a small proportion of the total education and training budget that reducing it is a false economy. AE works very well when adequately funded by government.
13. By actively taking part in the planning and monitoring of the negotiated curriculum at colleges and institutes. See 8. above.
14. By ensuring that funding is such that beginners’ courses are free or very low-cost to the learner.
15. Less quantitative and more qualitative assessments of the value of courses not leading directly to a recognized qualification must, taking on board the risk of subjectivity, be developed and applied.
16. Careers and curriculum advisers must be funded to spend time going into community centres, work-places and other off-site places to talk to potential learners and their employers. Short taster courses may in some cases be useful, too.
17, 18, 20. See 8.and 16. above.
21. As far as accredited courses are concerned, continual consultation between employers, education inspectors from government departments and college authorities, perhaps by a regular seminar twice or three times a year, would be good. As far as non-accredited courses (which, as I have said above, have an indirect but very important effect on the prosperity, the cultural and intellectual niveau and the health of our society), research needs to be carried out into better ways of assessing the value (in the wider sense) of such courses.
22. Frameworks are apt to lead to rigidity and uniformity. See remarks above about negotiating curricula and about consultation, seminars, etc.
23. By allowing ‘education’ an equal status to ‘training’, and letting its curricula develop in ways sketched above.
27. As soon as ‘education’ is valued alongside ‘training’ and ‘skills’, and funding is not tied to narrowly-defined skill-based criteria, this will happen.
28. See 3. above. A healthy, well-funded and supported adult education system is an integral part of an intellectually, emotionally and physically healthy society and the AE colleges and institutes can, and often already do, function as cultural centres.
29. In the 60s and 70s of the last century, AE was becoming very vigorous. To reinvigorate it once more requires a belief in the value of lifelong learning for the sake of learning as well as for the sake of marketable skills. Perhaps local industry could be given tax or other similar incentives to regard themselves as facilitators of such a broad conception of education and invest in it.
SKILLS FOR SUSTAINABLE GROWTH
Consultation response form
JULY 2010
Skills for Sustainable Growth response form
If you are unable to use the online comments boxes to record your responses, please complete the questionnaire below and send it to:
Atif Rafique
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills
1 Victoria Street
London SW1H 0ET
Phone: 020 7215 1910
Email: skills@bis.gsi.gov.uk
The Department may, in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, make individual responses available on public request.
The closing date for this consultation is 14 October 2010.
Name: Hugh Galashan
Organisation (if applicable):
Address:
61 Wyke Crescent
Wyke
Bradford
BD12 9AT
Please tick the option below which best describes on whose behalf you are responding:
General Further Education College
Sixth Form College
Charity or social enterprise
Training Organisation
Local Government
Individual
Large employer (250+)
Medium employer (50 to 250 staff)
Small employer (10 to 49 staff)
Micro employer (up to 9 staff)
Trade union or staff association
Other (please describe):
Principles for a skills strategy
1. We welcome views on these principles and whether there are others we should consider.
Principles are fine, but the detail that is required to bring these principles in to a cohesive offer is where the real interest lies. The devil is in the detail as the saying goes.
2. How can we further simplify the skills system, including the number, roles and responsibilities of the many organisations working in the system?
Have one national body with regional representatives (like the LSC – but could be called the YPLA, SFA, TEC, Training Agency, MSC). Seems that there is a new agency coincidental with new Government. A period of stability under one agency would be of immense support to the long term benefit of those working within the sector and allow longer term investment for the benefit of Learners.
Have one national body to support the development of the industry and remove many of the Quango’s that are in abundance. Recently according to the BBC there were 171 of them.
There are issues at Ministerial level in that the budgets for Learning can change dependent on age and level of programme.
3. In view of the current fiscal deficit, what areas of public investment in skills could be reduced and where could private investment be increased? What are the main constraints on changing the balance between public and private investment and how could these be overcome?
Investment of public funds should be allowed up to level 3 subject to the programmes and Learners being fit for purpose. Many programmes are enjoyed by Learners but are not useful in developing skills that would give a return on investment, these non-vocational programmes would fit in to the ACL budget and this budget could then be limited according to availability of public funding available. This would allow a reduction in public funding and a corresponding increase in private and individual investment in courses of choice.
The more vocational, work based and vocationally related programmes should be fully funded up to and including level 3. The type of programme would be beneficial to the economy as they provide a return on investment and subsequent wage returns as shown in chart 2 on page 10 of the consultation document. Those qualifications above level 3 would require support from the Employer or Individual as these are often progression on to higher end occupations which in themselves are required by the employer and individual.
All of the above should be funded based on reality, or fit for purpose. There are many young people embarking on College and Training Provider courses that do not achieve. This is often due to the initial guidance given.
A respected and credible training offer
4. How could the Apprenticeship programme be improved? What can be done to increase the proportion of apprentices progressing to Level 3 and beyond? What and how should employers contribute to Apprenticeships?
Employers already contribute by employing and up-skilling on the job and allowing ‘downtime’ for other training and assessment. Apprenticeships can be improved by allowing some customisation into the framework.
As shown in a study by Warwick University, the payback time for some Apprentice programmes is well in to the 3rd year, Engineering for example. The amount that an Employer should contribute could be linked to the occupational area so that those within a sector with a short payback time could make the most investment. The research link is below:
http://www.employersforapprentices.gov.uk/docs/research/Research_1_521.pdf
.
There is always a drive to increase progression and this is often perceived to mean direct progression from one course to another, or more specifically for an Apprentice (Level 2) to become and Advanced Apprentice (Level 3). There are many that start the Apprentice programme but at completion are not ready or in the correct type of workplace to progress at that time. However, with the reduction in funding at age 19, providers are almost forced in to making Learners move straight from the Level 2 to 3 programme. For many, there is a need for a period of consolidation required in the workplace before movement. This also applies to those wishing to move on to Level 4 provision which within some sectors is not a natural progression but indeed a leap in levels.
5. We welcome views on how best to support people who might in time benefit from an Apprenticeship but who do not currently have the skills to begin one.
There is an encouragement for unemployed apprenticeships or ‘fake’ apprenticeships for example when the Apprentice is employed by the provider and ‘placed’ with an employer, this is known as the Apprentice Training Agency (ATA) model. This is very short term. A proper pre-apprenticeship programme, where providers rely on job outcomes within the apprenticeship as a large source (or up to 20% of the income) would be a big influence to achievement.
The use of units of an NVQ and a Technical Certificate during a pre-Apprenticeship should be a minimum requirement and not just job-search workshops and soft skills development but these clearly also need to be part of the overall programme.
6. We welcome views about progression from Level 3 Apprenticeships into higher education, including whether there is demand for Higher Apprenticeships at Levels 4 and 5.
Demand can be created in face to face situations with employers and learners, however, cost is always an issue during difficult economic times. There could, as part of the final review, be a requirement for a programme exit review which includes unbiased input from ‘Adult Directions’ services who understand the sector.
There is demand for higher level skills but, as described in answer to question 4, it is the timing of this progression. For some Learners that complete their level 3 programme, it is a natural progression to move on to a Higher Level Apprenticeship or to Further and Higher Education. The unbiased input of professional is required at this time, and particularly where investment is required.
7. How should we ensure that training leads to real gains in skills, knowledge and competence and not just the accreditation of existing skills?
Although it is important to accredit existing skills, this method has been used extensively within the Train to Gain (TTG) programme and has not added real value to skills and knowledge development. However, at the time that the TTG programme came in to being, which followed an extensive Employer Training Pilot or ETP, there was a drive to meet Government targets and particularly at Level 2. The pricing of the ETP and TTG programmes did not allow for full time Vocationally Related Qualification (VRQ) programmes to be funded.
Using the banner of Framework Qualifications, implied in the title is a number of items which could include NVQ, VRQ and other essential (not necessarily key or functional) skills that are useful to the Learner and Employer. These Framework Qualifications are already in use as Apprentice Programmes but in order to meet the needs of Employers and Adult Learners, these frameworks need to be developed to ensure skill and knowledge acquisition.
8. How can we incentivise colleges and training organisations to offer a flexible and cost-effective ‘needs-led’ offer for people who are out of work or at risk of becoming unemployed?
There are at least 2 aspects to this, tendering and delivery.
Tendering is often a complex area to get in to and there are organisations who are good at tendering that cannot deliver. It is the person writing the tender that is good and not always the organisation.
Incentivised delivery should be reflective of what needs to be delivered. For example, if a number of starts are required, a payment for each person starting would incentivise the provider. If retention were to be a requirement or indeed an outcome, there should be incentives for this to happen.
However, flexible and needs led delivery would have to be of a size that fits in to a viable group size. If a group price were to be paid irrespective of size, this could be produced in a flexible and needs led way, but cost effectiveness would suffer. There has to be a realistic understanding that if class/group learning is to take place, there has to be sufficient funding to make this viable and particularly for discrete delivery.
9. How can we encourage colleges and training organisations to make the transition from learning to work as smooth as possible, enabling progression in the workplace, as well as to further learning?
A pre-Apprentice programme, correctly structured in a fully functioning training facility or an intermediate labour market approach would allow Learners to gain vocational skills in addition to the disciplines that would be expected by Employers. If this was linked to a training allowance with enhancements being provided for good timekeeping and attendance, productivity or other employer based targets, this would allow transition to what is sometimes a quantum leap from school to employment.
In addition, not imposing penalties on the provider for a learner wanting to change programme or course during this time would be helpful. Allow up to six months for learners to transfer between programmes without the provider being penalised – i.e. success rates. Don’t count these learners -if they move to another career option in employment, as early leavers.
10. How can we better promote enterprise education in further education colleges and throughout the training system?
Using the definition of enterprise education as, ‘Enterprise education consists of enterprise capability supported by better financial capability and economic and business understanding’. This would require a link between an understanding of business and a more vocational programme. For example, a young person can be trained as a plumber or hairdresser but they would not have the skills and knowledge to enter self-employment or to become an employer. This linking would require an addition to an apprenticeship framework or FE package and would require additional funding for this level of additionality.
Funding and entitlements
11. Should Government continue with an entitlements based approach? How can we ensure that Government money is targeted where it is needed most and where it will achieve most value?
Yes, the entitlement system works in that, for example, an apprenticeship programme cannot be entered if the individual already holds a degree, this ensures that the available funding goes to those people who need it. However, the limitations of entitlement should be explored further as, on the Train to Gain programme, only a first level 2 was the original entitlement. This level of limitation precludes individuals from gaining qualifications in new areas when they have a career change.
Helping individuals and employers choose the learning they want
12. How can the learning market be made to work more efficiently, effectively and economically and to be more responsive and accountable to demand by individuals and employers, while also delivering value for money?
It is often the economy of scale that is required to meet the criteria for this question in terms of value for money. However, a larger institution, such as an FE College, while delivering volume cannot respond quickly to the demand from individuals. Smaller providers, which are currently at risk of being removed due to the consultation on FE funding running parallel to this consultation, could respond in a timelier manner provided that there is a volume of work to be carried out.
13. We welcome views on how best to ensure employers are able to shape the skills system to meet their needs.
.
Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are independent, employer-led, UK-wide organisations designed to build a skills system that is driven by employer demand. There are 23 SSCs covering over 90% of the economy and they all work towards the following four key goals.
Reduced skills gaps and shortages
Improved productivity, business and public service performance
Increased opportunities to boost the skills and productivity of everyone in the sector’s workforce
Improved learning supply through National Occupational Standards, apprenticeships and further and higher education
Given the above, there is sufficient infrastructure to ensure that employers are able to shape the skills system they require if the needs of employers are known. However, consultation with employers tends to concentrate on the larger employer thus giving the impression that the needs of the majority of the workforce are being met by consultation with a relatively small number of employers. Given that the largest proportion of employees come from SME businesses, the needs of the employees cannot be met through consultation with large employers.
14. We are interested in views on what more might be needed to make the system responsive to employer needs.
Given the answer above, that system would and should work on a national basis. More locally, employers needs can best be met through meeting with the provider of training and not just picking things from a curriculum or set menu. The use of a needs analysis and through human intervention is required for both parties to discuss needs and solutions. Business Link can be beneficial in the promoting of the needs analysis but their knowledge of the training sector, from personal experience, is slight at best.
15. Which qualifications have most value for employers and learners? Which do not have value? How do we evolve the Qualifications and Credit Framework so that it focuses on the former and removes the latter?
Employers value the practical benefit of an NVQ when linked to a VRQ thus they improve performance in work place and the knowledge to be able to understand the work. They also value specific qualifications, e.g. fork lift truck, health & safety, food hygiene, and specific mandatory training courses which are not necessarily funded but are a pre-requisite to carrying out work within certain sectors.
Key and Functional skills do not have the same value for employers. Much of this is due to the perception of what they are, when an employer is asked if they would benefit from their new apprentices having key skills, the answer would no doubt be positive. But, if they were to asked to prioritise and then pay for an NVQ, VRQ, key or functional skills, this would give a true indication of the value that employers place on qualifications.
There is much debate about the levels of literacy and numeracy in the workplace and the benefit that improved levels can bring both in terms of work and life in general. If this level of learning is of such life enhancing ability, it is strange that this should not sell itself. It appears contrary to the advantages of this type of programme that they are often part of a larger programme and have to be forced on the learner. For example, those entering the New Deal Programme (a mandated programme) are screened and tested for basic skills. If the benefits of improved basic skills were to be widely marketed, there would not be a need to mandate people to this level of programme.
16. How can we improve the accessibility and quality of careers information, advice and guidance services for adults?
Careers and curriculum advisers must understand the complexities of the curriculum in terms of the widest offer. Many have come through the school, college, university route and do not understand the wider offer that included work based learning and Apprenticeships. The impartiality of advice is particularly important if the Government target of 1 in 5 school leavers entering an Apprenticeship is to be met. Coupled to this, the opportunity of moving forward to a limited number of university places has to be fully explained so that young people can make decisions about what is available for their future.
17. We welcome views on the vision for lifelong learning accounts, and their potential usefulness.
There has been a number of similar accounts that have had differing successes in the past. This has ranged from providers inflating prices to accommodate the value of the account through to Learners using the account for cash rebates.
The use of these accounts would further complicate and already complicated system. If the entitlement system were to be adopted, the use of learning accounts would be superfluous. If Learners want to learn, or employers want employees to learn, they either have an entitlement or they do not.
18. We welcome views on approaches to informing learners and employers including how better information can be made available while reducing bureaucracy.
The use of a one stop shop in terms of curriculum for both learners and employers would be beneficial. Currently, learners look towards the careers or next step service, employers are directed to Business Link.
Many years ago, the Training and Enterprise Council (TEC) staff had a full knowledge of provision within their area for both learners and employers. The TEC role was not to primarily and information service and there was inherent duplication with the other services. If all the information, advice and guidance services for training were to be combined, all employers and learners would have a consistency of information which could rely heavily on web and telephone based resources thus reducing the infrastructure costs in terms of advice centres.
Giving colleges and training organisations the freedom to respond
19. We welcome views on our planned measures for simplification and freeing colleges and training organisations.
There is another consultation running in parallel with this one that is asking for similar responses to this question and I would urge those taking part in this one to consider taking part in ‘A simplified Further Education and Skills Funding System and Methodology’.
A simple funding pot would allow all providers to respond to the needs of the local area and business needs. In addition, allowing access to all providers to all programmes would allow a fairer system as currently only FE Colleges can deliver stand alone academic technical certificates whereas a work based training provider can only deliver this as part of a framework.
20. How can we enable colleges and training organisations to be more efficient and responsive to the needs of employers, learners and their community but without adding new layers of control by local bodies?
The efficiencies can be obtained through volume but, as stated in the last question, the market is not open for the competition to take place on these volumes. For example, a private training provider may be delivering a programme as part of an apprentice framework to its own learners. A further education college could be delivering exactly the same part time course for customers. If both organisations were able to offer the same course, the more effective and responsive one would be in a better position. The current bodies in terms of contracting, inspection and qualification accreditation would remain the same.
21. What mechanisms could we use to hold colleges and other training organisations to account for their performance in responding to employers’ needs and for prioritising training that adds real economic value?
The Training Quality Standard (TQS) is a measure of employer responsiveness that has not been gained by many. By making this a part of the contractual process, the TQS system would measure the responsiveness to employers.
The training that delivers the most employer responsive solution should be those qualifications that are part of the SSC Skills Action Plan, Sector Qualification Strategies, Qualification Footprint or indeed other title that they use to show the skills gap within their industry. The myriad names attached to this question alone adds to the need for simplification further afield and not just within the skills and FE sectors.
Incentives to train in priority areas
22. Do we need a framework that will enable and encourage employers and individuals to invest in training in priority areas and for colleges and other training organisations to provide appropriate courses?
By being truly employer responsive this links directly with the priority that employers have for their own training needs. Similarly, the SSC have the role of articulating the training requirements of the industries that they serve and bringing the correct range of qualifications on to the database of funded qualifications.
.If the SSC, on behalf of its employer base were to prioritise the learning that was required of its industry, training providers would be able to respond to this demand in a prioritised manner.
23. Should we promote training innovation, particularly in rapidly changing or wholly new areas of the economy? If so, how might we do this?
The innovation around the specific training itself is already at the forefront of the providers mind in terms of resources and curricula, the SSC needs to develop a curriculum that encompasses innovations.
Many areas that require updating prior to innovation are the administrative aspects of training. Great moves have been made in terms of electronic data transfer and a corresponding reduction in paper based systems. This approach also needs to be taken on by the Awarding Bodies who should not just allow innovation in terms of examination and assessment but should specify advances in the methods used.
The area around functional skills is a retrograde step in terms of innovation. Moving from an on-line, on-demand system or assessment in use for key skills is being replaced by a paper based, hand marked examination system.
24. How can we ensure employers can access high quality labour market information?
Each SSC carried out research in to the industry. There are also other sites that carry out this research in terms of employment and trends by occupation and geographic area. There is no need to invent a new system, merely raise the awareness of the availability of this information.
Given the above answer, the majority of Employers are at SME level and do not look at research, they are more operational in looking at the day to day routines of their business in order to survive.
Encouraging a more productive workforce
25. What would enable businesses to use skills as a driver of productivity and business improvement?
Encourage employers to use the qualifications as part of their own staff development programme, to create their own ‘talent pool’s and to align with their salary bandings based on level of achievement.
Union representation also needs to be brought in to the equation as improvements to productivity can bring about a smaller workforce for the same amount of product.
26. We welcome views on ways in which businesses can be encouraged to increase the UK’s leadership and management capability to create better run and more highly performing businesses.
The introduction of business mentors has worked well with some businesses but the major concern is that when training is taking place, the business is not being run.
If funding were to be provided for leadership and management of smaller companies, this would also need to be provided in a way that does not impact negatively on the day to day running of the business. In schools for example, training days can be covered by replacement teachers and this is often funded. A similar system would be difficult to put in to pace in small organisations as there are no replacement staff that can cover for short periods.
Reinvigorating adult and community learning
27. How could we encourage the development of productive partnerships with third sector organisations?
There is much commentary on how FE Colleges open their doors to allow communities to use space for volunteering activities. Other training providers can also open their doors but this would need the cost recovering. There is nothing to stop a third sector organisation working with any provider for the use of facilities and resources other than the cost.
28. We welcome views on new ways that colleges could be used to support the community.
Colleges could support their community by supporting the aims which by which they were founded, this would be their incorporation. Colleges appear to have moved away from this and in to a competitive arena with other providers of both further and higher education.
By going back to their roots they would become a partner of choice for the communities for which they were intended to support.
29. How could adult and community learning be reinvigorated? We especially welcome ideas for how businesses and others could be encouraged to engage in supporting local community learning to help create local ownership and momentum.
Currently some businesses do quite a bit for their local community and this is not always publicised. A lot link with schools and providers and work with the local community in this way – acting as work placements, supporting enterprise in schools, mentoring and coaching, carrying out interview techniques and giving talks as well as ‘tasters’ in the work placement.
By publicising what is already being done, this would raise awareness of the role that is being played by so many employers and training providers.
Measuring success
30. We welcome views on those indicators of success would be most useful to you or your organisation.
The measure of success should be based around the aims of the programme. For example, if the aim is to move people in to employment, then this should be the absolute hard target measure. Other soft outcomes could be incorporated in to this type of measurement, for example, how many gained qualifications while on a programme towards the employment outcome.
There needs to be a parity or fairness of the outcomes. For example, a work-based training Apprenticeship is measured in terms of the achievement of the whole framework over the whole period of time, up to 4 years in some occupations. A college course of more than one years duration is measured one year at a time, this does not allow for fairness in comparison.
With a requirement of 1 in 5 moving to an apprenticeship, there needs to be a fair measurement so that those individuals or employers making a choice of their provider can use information in terms of data that is collected using the same criteria.
Do you have any other comments that might aid the consultation process as a whole?
Please use this space for any general comments that you may have.
Comments on the layout of this consultation would also be welcomed.
The consultation focuses very tightly on needs-led and employer-driven training. While there is obviously value in this approach, it should be recognised that these kind of vocational skills are by no means all that learners should acquire.
First of all, vocational skills tend to have a short half-life. In some industries, such as electronic design, companies want people trained to use particular design tools and software, but those tools have historically changed every 5 years or so. In this century, it seems unlikely that vocational training will be valuable for the learner’s entire career.
Other skills: basic skills of maths, writing, critical thinking, and understanding science have a longer life. Their value may be comparable or greater over a lifetime, even though they may have a smaller immediate impact.
Second, it is not healthy for training to focus completely on work-related skills. People also needs knowledge and training so that they can exercise their democratic rights and guide the nation well. An ill-educated voter is a long-term threat to national prosperity and safety. Voters need to have a historical perspective, knowledge of politics and economics, in addition to the above basic skills.
As an example of the vale of basic skills, I point to the US political experience, where Republicans are simultaneously complaining that the deficit is too large, and that tax cuts are needed, seemingly without a nod to basic arithmetic. One hopes that UK politics will not reach that pitch of selective presentation of facts and short-range valuation; the best way to avoid that may be to maintain some emphasis on general education for broadly valuable skills and knowledge needed by politically active citizens. One should not focus solely on work-related training.
Functional skills at level 2 in maths, English and ICT are NOT fit for vocational learners doing level 3 courses. They are academic qualifications that schools have been allowed to opt out of (even if they are “in the curriculum” they are not tested). The only group of learners that have to do them, regardless of whether or not they have GSCEs, are apprentices – not doctors, nurses, teachers, lawyers, etc. If they are that vital they should be explicitly taught and tested for all in school. If they are introduced as currently proposed, the success rates for apprenticeships will fall and many employers will not be prepared to support employees for the time it will take to try to get them to achieve. Or maybe they want achievement rates in vocational learning to fall!
Couldn’t find a better place to post.
Just to let you know, both of my businesses, and my family, and as many friends as I can convince, will no longer buy any products or do business with UK businesses, if the government removes the Holocaust from education curriculums. Although my family will still attend the London Olympics, we will now most likely stay on the French side of the Channel.
Remember the rule of unintended consequences. -art
Your concerns about the content of the national curriculum should be taken up with government policy-makers. A boycott of blameless businesses and people, totally unconnected with the contended issue is wholly unreasonable. Wasn’t that what the German NSDAP did with its boycott of Jewish businesses in the early 1930s? As you remark, ‘Remember the rule of unintended consequences’.
I entirely agree with Bob Hayes. Of course it is a matter of the setting of educational curricula and not of businesses. But it is still worth saying, over and over again, that what happened in Germany and Austria in the 1930s can happen anywhere, given the coincidence of certain economic conditions with the appearance of a relevant demagogue. The only way of avoiding such a possibility is by educating every child about what did happen and could happen again if care is not taken.
But in this context, I am profoundly worried about the move to academies and so-called ‘free schools’. What is to prevent a group of parents with a particular agenda, be it anti-semitism or racial prejudice of some other variety — or creationism, for that matter — setting up a school and setting the curriculum appropriately?
Principles for a skills strategy
Overall the stated principles provide a sound grounding for the proposed strategy. It is vital that the vocational route is seen to be a credible alternative to the occupational (NVQ) or traditional academic route (GCSE and A-levels) for individuals. This will not be an easy task given the media obsession with, for example, A-levels as the “gold standard” and the scorn that it places on the idea of equivalencies between vocational and academic qualifications that are the same level. There is a role for government to support the critical importance of value of credible, quality assured vocational training.
The supply of high quality impartial information will help individuals make informed choices on the training and qualifications that will suit their needs. This information will need to be easily and freely accessible and will need to show progression opportunities that can result from undertaking the training. The National Database of Accredited Qualifications (NDAQ), shortly to be replaced by the Register of Regulated Qualifications, is a useful source of information on approved qualifications- perhaps this could at least in part be the solution although it will need to become visible than it is at present. This is however only a list of qualifications. There will need to be some form of visible website that shows the benefits or “value-added” status of a particular qualification. It is important that this impartial information based on clearly researched data.
There is a danger in giving colleges and training organisations greater freedom in that this could lead to the development of qualifications that lack rigour and are inconsistent. For example a college in the SW and the NE may both develop a Level 2 qualification seemingly in the same subject area but with no commonality in content. If this pattern is repeated again and again there is a risk that employers will be confused as to the skills and knowledge obtained by different learners with, at least on paper, the same qualification.
One of the greatest concerns of employers has, in the past, been the lack of coherence in the market. Allowing colleges and training organisations freedom could move us back to this position. Colleges and training organisations have had the option to become awarding organisation through the Ofqual recognition process for a number of years and some have taken up this opportunity. If they become recognised through this approach they can develop their own regulated qualifications which they can award. The IAM feels that they should not simply be allowed to award qualifications without this regulation as this provides some quality assurance for the qualifications.
The skills system is, at least in part, complicated by the fact that there are two government departments responsible for the skills system- DfE and BIS. These two departments do not always have the same view on the importance of certain qualifications and have different priorities. Qualifications can straddle responsible governmental departments but the amount the qualification is funded can depend on the age of the individual and therefore the responsible funding agency. The separation of the LSC into the YPLA and SFA appears to have had no discernable benefits to the learner or employer or improved the value for money and actually appears to have led to even greater complexity, rather than a simplification of the skills system.
The skills system is also complicated by repeated changes in governmental priorities and initiatives that do not allow for any period of consistency. The expectation of immediate results both in terms of the development of new ideas and qualifications and the outcomes of these ideas has a negative effect on the skills system and has resulted in ill thought out and rushed products. If qualifications are to be successful the development process must not be rushed and they must be given time to bed-in.
In the current economic climate difficult decisions will need to be made on the priorities for public investment in skills and it will be equally hard to encourage private investment at a time when many businesses are by necessity having to make cuts in employment levels
A respected and credible training offer
Apprenticeships and A-levels should not be considered as the only mechanism of progression to Higher Education (HE). High quality, up-to-date, employer and college led vocational qualifications can equally provide a route to Higher Education. The IAM has developed business and administrative management qualifications at Levels 4 and 5 that provide the opportunity to progress to HE. The IAM has in place a number of agreements with universities to allow progression to second and third year degree programmes.
Funding and entitlements
This is a very difficult question to answer. Should everyone be entitled to the achievement of a Level 2 and Level 3 qualification?
Is the age limit of funding overly artificial and therefore should people over the age of 25 be entitled to a Level 3 if this will help them and the organisation in which they work progress and become efficient and effective?
Given the current economic situation the targeting of funding to ensure value for money is appropriate however it will important to define the term “value”. Is that value to the learner who might as a result of undertaking a qualification be able to move into employment for the first time or progress on to a better job or is that value to the employer in that a successful learner could help improve productivity and efficiency within a company?
Helping individuals and employers choose the learning they want
Employers need to be encouraged to work with the relevant sector skills councils and awarding organisations in order to shape the skills system to include accredited qualifications that match their training (employee) needs. Despite the best efforts of these organisations there remains a large amount of unaccredited training some of which is highly valuable. These training programmes could put forward for accreditation into the regulated framework and this would provide recognition to these training programmes. At the same time however employers need to understand the relevance of making use of existing National Occupational Standards (NOS) and QCF units and qualifications. This means that many of their training programmes could be mapped to existing accredited qualifications thus negating the need to develop new qualifications.
Employers often believe that their training schemes are better than another organisation in the same industry area. There is a reticence amongst some to use existing qualifications, which are based on NOS, and made up of QCF units as they feel that there training is the best. There should be further encouragement of employers to work with sector skills councils and awarding organisations to develop meaningful qualifications that are recognised across industrial sectors.
The IAM has already shown that awarding organisations can work with major employers to develop qualifications that can be placed on the regulatory framework that meet the needs of employers.
There are already over 6,000 qualifications accredited on the QCF. Many of these have only been accredited in the last year and therefore it would be a very difficult to make any meaningful judgement on the value, or otherwise, of a particular QCF qualification or group of qualifications.
However because of the deadline (December 2010) imposed by the previous Government to move qualifications onto the QCF some awarding organisations have not amended the content of the qualifications from when they were on the NQF. This is because they felt rushed to undertake the work. As a result it is undoubtedly the case that some qualifications are of greater value (because they have been updated) and are more relevant than others but it would be difficult to identify these at this stage.
It is very difficult to state that any qualification has no value as awarding organisations would not put the effort into the development of the qualification if these did not have some benefit. There are undoubtedly accredited qualifications that are more aimed at those who doing something as part of a leisure or personal activity rather than as part of their employment but these qualifications still have value and learners should be recognised for developing that skill.
The question of “value” therefore is very subjective. Some sectors such as construction and engineering have traditionally been seen by Government and funding agencies as of greater priority (and therefore value) than others. It may be time to assess whether these are the correct priorities. The latter part of the consultation refers to other priority areas and therefore perhaps this is where funding should be focussed.
Incentives to train in priority areas
The IAM has developed business and administrative management qualifications at Level 4 and 5 of the QCF (and shortly at Level 6 and 7 as well) which could be used by businesses to provide a sound understanding of business concepts. These qualifications cover topics such as administrative systems, operations, quality, people, finance, corporate governance and leadership and therefore could be very beneficial to many businesses as they would help to improve the leadership and management capabilities of those undertook the qualification.
Skills Consultation – Key views and concerns
How can we simplify the skills system?
Recently, a great deal of improvement has been made to simplify matters with the necessary documentation etc. However, perhaps still further bureaucracy could be reduced e.g. some of the current guidance notes are in excess of 80 pages. Could these be simplified by presenting in a bullet-point fashion? Generally, as an employer we would welcome the approach where we would work closer with our Account Manager, but this would be in place of some of the documentation we are currently required to provide.
How should we ensure that training leads to real gains in skills, knowledge and competence?
Assessment and training are unequivocally linked The training element of a qualification gives us, as the employer, the opportunity to ensure that industry best practice is included and encouraged as part of the learning content. Training is a key part of the whole learning experience and provides the learner with an opportunity to understand new concepts and provide a fresh insight into new ways of working that previously were not a consideration.
Should Government continue with an entitlement-based approach? How can we ensure that Government money is targeted where it is needed most?
This approach enables employers to deliver certain training that otherwise it would not be able to. Within Biffa the funding we have received has enabled the company to deliver a number of TtG schemes designed to raise the overall standard of work for many of our LGV drivers, supervisors and Municipal crew-members, and while it is difficult to attribute directly, these schemes have certainly contributed to the improvement in H&S performance of the company over the last 12 months or more.
The Skills Funding Agency needs to continue to listen and trust employers in their judgement about which schemes are best suited for the needs of their businesses and importantly, employers need to adopt an embedded and realistic approach to all of this.
How do we ensure that employers are able to shape the skills system to meet their needs?
Biffa enjoys good working relations with a number of awarding bodies as well as other industry bodies and the relevant sector skills council. In the past we have been consulted and had the opportunity to influence new awards and pathways. So, in the main I believe that businesses are quite happy with the current arrangements. Possibly, it would help if there was a more joined-up approach between the sector skill councils and the awarding bodies where sometimes politics and agendas get in the way of progress.
What more might be needed to make the system responsive to employer needs?
I feel that employers are already in a good position as there are so many qualification options for employers to choose between, that match the needs of their businesses. Moreover, there is now the facility for companies to design and gain accreditation for their own standards – tailored to business demands
Which qualifications have most value for employers and learners?
The qualifications that have most value are those qualifications which have a clear link with the needs and strategy of the business, and where the scheme is both realistic and embedded across many of the operating divisions within the company.
Qs 27 to 30
I work for Cumbria Adult Education but I’m responding as an individual.
Most ACL in Cumbria happens in very rural areas. It’s designed and delivered by a number of centres and is managed by the County Council. Being rooted in the communities it serves, it’s a very successful service. It’s responsive to local demands and interests so it provides the courses and classes people want. The de-centralised structure of the service makes it possible to deliver viable courses right across the county, even in small villages.
The service does form third sector and other partnerships but it has to be acknowledged that most organisations and businesses in the county are too small to support such activity. The most sensible opportunities for working together are often made impossible by some of the bureaucracy surrounding ACL – much of which could be cut with no detriment to the quality of the service and much cost saving.
In the past the county’s colleges have tried to provide a comprehensive service but it just doesn’t work – the service progressively and rapidly becomes centralised in a very few towns and on a few core subjects. It simply isn’t possible to run the service effectively from two or three places in this big rural county.
A national blueprint for delivery of ACL is not going to be a success everywhere. The likelihood is that rural areas will come off worse. Rural areas already suffer from a lack of facilities and Adult Ed is very important in the countryside. It changes lives, combats isolation, helps start off new “Big Society” initiatives, boosts health and employment, provides social glue. Please don’t impose a model of delivery that we know from experience doesn’t work here.
NCVO workforce development works closely with Skills Third Sector which has already completed a consultation response form, the contents of which we entirely support. In addition there some other comments we wish to contribute:
Q13 & Q14
We wish to emphasise the need to track LMI for the voluntary and community sector so that employers needs specific to this sector can be met – the workforce almanacs produced by NCVO / Skills Third Sector are a vital planning tool and it would be helpful if Government statistics which map learning provision and employers’ skills needs could identify the voluntary sector separately. E.g data around internships (Graduate Talentpool) was not analysed to identify this separate sub sector, work experience placements info for Year 10 students etc could be collected to identify voluntary sector employers.
Q15
Accredited training is of course valuable but employers also value relevant and accessible training which does not lead to formally recognised qualifications. It‘s important to recognise the diversity of need within the sector and the routes by which individuals will choose to develop their skills. An acknowledgement of informal and self directed learning opportunities as relevant and useful would be helpful.
There is an increasing use of online learning for accredited and non-accredited courses which solves some of the issues around time (flexibility) and costs (affordability).
Q16
NCVO provides IAG on voluntary sector careers through its Working For A Charity website. We emphasise the importance of volunteering as an opportunity to develop skills, change career paths and sample other jobs and this may be replicable across other sectors too. The provision of a “stand alone” service not linked to active job seeking (DWP) but more generic about career development which then links to specific sectors could be worth exploring and NCVO would be keen to engage with this. The current info on the direct.gov site does not identify voluntary sector jobs as a separate category which we would encourage. Partnerships with commercial job sites could be explored.
Q18
Individuals will always wish to exercise personal choice when finding the best learning opportunities to suit them and employers will ideally want to know the range of options which are available. Specific courses come and go and it’s hard to keep a current and comprehensive resource up to date – an opportunity to link key providers information through a vehicle such as Learn Direct with a sub set of voluntary sector information would be helpful.
Q27
Productive partnerships to share skills, develop leadership expertise, compare governance issues, shadow across public, private and voluntary sector employers would be of value to each.
Encouraging private sector managers to join trustee boards to develop their own professional skills as well as support voluntary organisations, shadowing initiatives such as those coordinated by NCVO where civil servants link with campaigning bodies and vice versa, mentoring schemes to match small with large organisations across sectors will all help enhance learning and understanding.
Q28
Colleges are part of their community and already will be engaging in delivering learning to support local employers. Students and teachers will live locally and are often informally involved in local voluntary initiatives running fundraising events etc. Developing schemes to encourage students to engage in setting up projects, fundraising, volunteering and becoming trustees would both enhance their learning and offer them a vision of what it’s like to be involved in the community. These organised projects could be part of an accredited learning programme or as an “extension” study which would be a valuable addition to their CV.
This response comes as part of the WOA
We are a small voluntary training organisation based in the heart of a deprived community and small orginisations like us must not be lost in this governement agenda. We are the grassroots of a community. It is extremely important that there is a stable policy and administrative framework for funding the third sector and also the importance of focussing funding on the most disadvantaged people. We hope this agenda does not favour large colleges and forgets the thid sector.
The consultation focuses on ‘getting people back into work’. For the Hard to Reach learners that most community projects work with, this is not always an easy solution and we must not forget that working with these kind of clients is not a quick fix. It can take many months of hard work to move them on. So many governement contracts penalize us if clients do not move into work within 13 weeks of starting a programme. If we really want to move people into the work place, no penalties please. We also feel we must protect the Adult Safeguarding Budget
Principles for a skills strategy
1. We welcome views on these principles and whether there are others we should consider.
The principles are sound and there are no others to add. The challenge will be putting these into practice and ensuring a balance between local and national priority. There is a real need to ensure that local growth opportunities and skills priorities are considered.
This is particularly the case in peripheral rural areas such as North Norfolk where factors such as access and connectivity play a major role in local skills development
To achieve a balance win terms of economic and social wellbeing in comparison with other parts of the country more skilled occupations need to be developed through innovative business creation and growth.
2. How can we further simplify the skills system, including the number, roles and responsibilities of the many organisations working in the system?
Consideration should be given to having a single skills system which incorporates the YPLA and the Skills Funding Agency and possibly HEFCE. This would help those FE providers currently working with the three funding agencies and could allow more innovative ways of funding across the transition points. It could also allow other providers, currently working with only one funding agency to access wider funding streams.
Clarification is needed on how the national system will work with the emerging LEPs to ensure that the LEP has an influencing role on what is delivered through the skills system and monitors that it meets local skills needs.
In the past local needs have been lost in a regional approach.
3. In view of the current fiscal deficit, what areas of public investment in skills could be reduced and where could private investment be increased? What are the main constraints on changing the balance between public and private investment and how could these be overcome?
The costs associated with the bureaucracy could be reduced with a simplified system. At a time when employers are reducing training, more incentives rather than less are needed, perhaps through an element of tax relief on Business rates where employers engage in training.
Employers pay for training where there is a legal requirement for training to occur and where it clearly benefits their business to do so. The push to accredit skills has been unhelpful as it has often led to accreditation of existing skills within a full level 2 or level 3 framework rather than developing new skills. Many employers would like to move to unit accreditation where a more bespoke “framework” could be developed to meet their particular training needs.
At a time of financial constraint should public support only be given to national or local skills priority areas e.g. Basic Skills?
A respected and credible training offer
4. How could the Apprenticeship programme be improved? What can be done to increase the proportion of apprentices progressing to Level 3 and beyond? What and how should employers contribute to Apprenticeships?
Apprenticeship funding is being focused on the wrong age group. The focus should be on 19+ apprenticeships rather than 16-18. It is suggested that we use mainstream funding for 16-18 for a least one year to cover technical skills, functional skills and work readiness skills, which could then be classed as Y1 of any apprenticeship. Employers may then be more likely to fund or part fund the remaining elements. This would also facilitate progression from L2 – L3 where there are health and safety issues for the 16-18 group as well as issues around delivering the supervisory elements of level 3 apprenticeships where most employers unable to offer that degree of responsibility to young people under 18. There are examples in the county where a pre-apprenticeship approach has been demonstrated to work.
A move away from numbers and targets and a move towards tailored offers to employers would increase the take up of the scheme as would reducing bureaucracy. The challenge is still increasing apprenticeship take up by SMEs. A shared apprentice scheme is one solution which has been demonstrated to work, reducing costs to the employers and enabling the full framework to be covered.
Progression to Level 4 has been demonstrated to work where management training has been offered on a 1:1 basis and in bite sized chunks, rather than full qualification such as MBAs.
Generally there is a need to encourage the more able young people to consider apprenticeships and provide credible progression routes into higher level training, not necessarily Foundation degrees, which may not suit the learning style, but programmes such as HNCs
This requires more positive marketing of both apprenticeships and progression opportunities.
5. We welcome views on how best to support people who might in time benefit from an Apprenticeship but who do not currently have the skills to begin one.
A relevant careers advice, that is an information advice and guidance service should be accessible. At a local level it needs to be delivered as part of community engagement so that it is known and respected.
In addition apprenticeships need to be seen as a credible progression route post 16 and young people need to be aware of this option. To achieve this schools need to develop further their links with employers and skills agencies early on, so that the curriculum realistically supports transition into employment and further skills development.
Career and learning plans as well as an understanding the skills needed for employment are needed by this group. Their biggest difficulty is their “attitude” to work. There should be financial penalties associated with non-attendance or poor performance.
The E2E programme worked well especially where learners infilled into mainstream FE courses. There needs to be an individual focus with a minimum of 1 year on programme to give the opportunity to sample different vocational areas before settling on one.
This pre-apprenticeship training could also incorporate something similar to Future Jobs Fund to encourage employers to offer placements with an expectation that they would take on the young person as an apprentice after 6 months
We need to accept that for a number of young people, L2 is a tough qualification and many of those on pre-apprenticeship training may not be able to progress to this level. It would be useful if a pre-apprenticeship scheme is accredited as a L1 apprenticeship framework for low skill areas
6. We welcome views about progression from Level 3 Apprenticeships into higher education, including whether there is demand for Higher Apprenticeships at Levels 4 and 5.
Any barrier to progression needs to be tackled. An individual already engaged in skills development should receive support and encouragement to progress to the next level and employers need to be made aware of the positive impact to be had on gross added value.
The language or terminology may be the issue here
There still an issue about “older” Universities not understanding Vocational qualifications and being reluctant to see these as a credible route to some degrees?
In the professions (Law, Medicine etc) post graduate training is the norm and isn’t this a type of apprenticeship (albeit paid). Perhaps if this training was referred to as an apprenticeship the status of apprenticeships in general would be raised? – or should all vocational training be re-branded as an internship?
It would help if Level 3 apprenticeship qualifications had UCAS points attached to them as other vocational qualifications have. Alternatively every L3 apprenticeship framework should be linked to a L4 framework. Ideally similar to HNC rather than HE generally which is often too academic in approach. The national Certificate progression to HNC was the best model
However learners need to achieve a level 3 apprenticeship at 18 for parity with those going to HE at 18 with “A” levels or diploma qualifications. This emphasises again the issues of health and safety pre-18 and the opportunity for supervisory skills in the L3. The value of apprenticeships needs to be promoted and the profile raised in a positive way.
Lessons could be learned from higher level post graduate vocational training (Medicine & Law) for higher level apprenticeships.
7. How should we ensure that training leads to real gains in skills, knowledge and competence and not just the accreditation of existing skills?
Accreditation of existing skills is an important step in up skilling the workforce. Individuals gaining recognition for their competencies enhances their confidence as well as giving them portable evidence of their abilities. It also helps to ascertain a platform upon which skills can be improved.
Real gains in skills require the employers to effectively articulate their needs. Employers need to lead on this – they know what new skills they need and only these should be supported. This would need a move to unit accreditation rather than full qualification and employers and SSCs need to be more involved in developing the frameworks. There has been too much concentration in the past on demand from the individual and the provider response to this. Training should be focused on what employers need. Group training models have been shown to work as they have been responsive to need.
It should be noted that employers generally say that they need English, maths and ICT skills at a basic level. Higher level skills are ‘not available here’ or will be provided in house.
In addition apprenticeships need to be seen as a credible progression route post 16 and young people need to be aware of this option. To achieve this schools need to develop further their links with employers and skills agencies early on, so that the curriculum realistically supports transition into employment and further skills development.
8. How can we incentivise colleges and training organisations to offer a flexible and cost-effective ‘needs-led’ offer for people who are out of work or at risk of becoming unemployed?
Pay them to do this as it’s a market failure. Pay a premium for shorter, flexible provision aimed at this group. Have an additional outcome payment for getting them into work
There must be a simple scheme – single funding over an extended period of time to provide continuity and allow impact to be demonstrated
It should be different for those at risk of redundancy. If they opt to train in an area where there isn’t a skills shortage should they pay as it would be deemed personal development? However the state should support re-skilling in local priority or shortage areas.
9. How can we encourage colleges and training organisations to make the transition from learning to work as smooth as possible, enabling progression in the workplace, as well as to further learning?
Local research demonstrates certain traits which employers expect, not just the core English, maths and ICT but also levels of communication skills and personal presentation. Developing teamwork skills would also be a plus.
Having supported trial periods would help. Also having employers come in to observe trainees during their training would help them keep up to date with details of the training frameworks. Similarly college/provider tutors need to be involved in regular upskilling by having time in industry.
Having part of the funding paid on progression to related training or employment would increase the focus on progression into work with possible bonuses for progression into further training such as apprenticeships rather than into work where there may be limited or no training
Demand that the curriculum has an element of work preparation as a core element, including enterprise education
10. How can we better promote enterprise education in further education colleges and throughout the training system?
Qualifications and frameworks should only be accredited if they contain an enterprise/business unit in the framework. There are already pilot schemes where enterprise education is part of the framework.
Schools should start the process and diplomas should have enterprise as a core element. However employer engagement with diplomas is patchy
Business units need to embed core concepts around writing a business plan, understanding cashflow, risk management and accessing markets.
This should be a partnership between educators and employers but employers need to engage in the process. There will need to be strategic leadership at local level to develop effective business/education partnerships. This can be piecemeal, with some schools making their own very effective links with local employers.
Funding and entitlements
11. Should Government continue with an entitlements based approach? How can we ensure that Government money is targeted where it is needed most and where it will achieve most value?
Basic skills should be the only key entitlement – but should basic skills be funded within the DWP/JC+ Work programme rather than through the skills strategy?. Government skills funding should be targeted where it will achieve added value and entitlement should focus on skills for local need. The current funding mechanism isn’t useful for supporting this local need.
Any entitlement can be restrictive and there will be tension between supporting the individual and adding value to the local economic need.
12. How can the learning market be made to work more efficiently, effectively and economically and to be more responsive and accountable to demand by individuals and employers, while also delivering value for money?
We should build on what we have and use local community based organisations that already exist as the first point of contact. However there are issues around the permanence of such organisations when funding is removed.
The quality of guidance is critical. There are too many choices facing individuals and we tend to concentrate too much on exact skills matches. Perhaps more generic pathways would help simplify.
We need to differentiate the offer. Skills for work are “education”. Local vocational skills needs should be matched to provision with employers testing the service.
13. We welcome views on how best to ensure employers are able to shape the skills system to meet their needs.
Strategically, this is a role for the LEP but employers must be involved in developing the frameworks as we can’t rely on SSCs locally. However employers may never be entirely satisfied as they often have such exact requirements that they may not be able to be met within the FE system or even by Skills Academies
Publicly funded providers should have more employers on their Governing Body with a regular review to ensure those on the board mirror skills priority areas.
Operationally, teachers and tutors need to incorporate a better understanding of employer needs as part of their CPD.
14. We are interested in views on what more might be needed to make the system responsive to employer needs.
A unitised curriculum would be useful only if flexible and employers could see that they have more input and control. However there must be a framework in which the units sit so a FULL qualification can be awarded at some stage
The system will need to deliver what employers want at a cost that they are willing to pay. There is evidence that this works locally though group training associations.
The system need to be made sensitive to local needs and environmental conditions, for example the predominance of micro businesses in North Norfolk- this requires an additional focus on the individual owing to the extra difficulties of engaging with the employer.
15. Which qualifications have most value for employers and learners? Which do not have value? How do we evolve the Qualifications and Credit Framework so that it focuses on the former and removes the latter?
Employers value competences or skills rather than qualifications. It is the individual who values qualifications, as portable evidence of their competencies.
We have carried out research among local businesses of their skills needs. The results have been unsatisfactory, in the sense of not truly engaging with businesses in terms of volume or findings, and tend to reflect research by for example UKCES which indicate core skills, presentation skills and team working. It s The SSCs should identify those skills and competences most valued in their sector.
NVQs have helped those with no qualifications ie. Care workers where it helped boost confidence and self esteem. Having a legal requirement for a skills qualification helped at both L2 and L4. Non- accredited qualifications are of no use now.
16. How can we improve the accessibility and quality of careers information, advice and guidance services for adults?
The focus needs to be on community based approaches which thrive on a strong word of mouth and local network publicity. This helps to create the worth need for people to engage.
People often bypass advice services. The Work Programme must ensure that individuals access advice through the Job Centre. However IAG is often perceived as poor and clients must be able to access high quality careers information at Job Centres via people rather than information points. Careers advisors must have a broad knowledge of the local opportunities and skills needs.
There must be improved training for advisors in schools, colleges etc if they are not professional careers specialists registered with the Institute of Careers Guidance.
17. We welcome views on the vision for lifelong learning accounts, and their potential usefulness.
These accounts will have no money attached to them and most do not realise this so there is a real need to advertise the fact. They will be a record of the public spending received by an individual. Details need to be accurate and up to date to be of any value. It is a good idea to show how much public support is given but learners also needs to be aware of how much their own contribution will be. There needs to be more on non-SFA funded provision.
Ideally the accounts should link with MIAP (Managing information across partners) so prior attainment known and advisors can help to build on existing skills. Perhaps the SFA database could be used more effectively to support this work?
The accounts are “individual” based. Is there a case for a similar scheme to be available for employers to demonstrate to them how much public funding they are accessing for training?
18. We welcome views on approaches to informing learners and employers including how better information can be made available while reducing bureaucracy.
Lots of information exists e.g. business plans etc– we just don’t use it because it is not readily available or is in too complex a form. Keep information simple – similar to food labelling so it is easier to understand. Ensure that advisors use the information effectively.
Giving colleges and training organisations the freedom to respond
19. We welcome views on our planned measures for simplification and freeing colleges and training organisations.
It would help if funding was linked to units which address skills gaps in priority areas with direction and targets communicated via ESB, LEPs. Providers will need to be aware of the implications if they don’t deliver the priorities
If there is a strong business case for training and funding, discretionary funding routes should be available to a wider range of providers.
The investment required for new provisions is a “risk”. There is a need for a protected period to nurture new provision while numbers and success rates increase to acceptable levels. Otherwise providers will stick to their existing offer.
20. How can we enable colleges and training organisations to be more efficient and responsive to the needs of employers, learners and their community but without adding new layers of control by local bodies?
If the offer is right the employer will buy it. The LEP will be useful forum for sharing information and providers would welcome joint planning. However consideration will need to be given to local requirements by involving local enterprise or skills groups.
As already stated the actual deliverers of training, teachers, tutors etc, need to be more aware of local industry/business needs. This should be an enhanced part of their CPD and would result in the offer being more relevant for employers.
21. What mechanisms could we use to hold colleges and other training organisations to account for their performance in responding to employers’ needs and for prioritising training that adds real economic value?
There needs to be some measurables around local skills priorities, perhaps having a higher tariff for priority areas would encourage work in these priority areas, though this would add complexity to the system. Timely and accurate LMI is the key and it must be accessible to those bodies charged with overseeing skills in the county.
Incentives to train in priority areas
22. Do we need a framework that will enable and encourage employers and individuals to invest in training in priority areas and for colleges and other training organisations to provide appropriate courses?
This would apply only if employers are unable to articulate their needs by other means.
This could mean that the LEP set the priorities and monitors provision in these areas. It could include having a higher cost weighting factor for shortage/priority areas with employers incentivised to take on apprentices.
Funding driven by qualifications should be an element which supports the “pull” but there is a need to allocate a small percentage to a local “participatory budget” type model (not accessible by mainstream providers) available to group training associations
23. Should we promote training innovation, particularly in rapidly changing or wholly new areas of the economy? If so, how might we do this?
If employers are involved there may be more innovation. However innovation doesn’t always lead to impact and there needs to be developmental money to facilitate this.
In areas such as North Norfolk the promotion of distance learning might be seen as innovative particularly as travel can be such an issue, however, we quickly hit the barriers of broadband infrastructural weaknesses
24. How can we ensure employers can access high quality labour market information?
This our real challenge. We need to lobby for sub-regional level information which provides the most effective evidence to inform employers and providers. It could be a requirement for LEPs to make LMI available in an understandable form to partners and be the single point of information.
There is a need to be careful in agreeing what information is required to avoid information overload.
Encouraging a more productive workforce
25. What would enable businesses to use skills as a driver of productivity and business improvement?
Some businesses still don’t get the link between skills and productivity. They need a clear message about the business benefits of a skilled workforce. This could be a role for the LEP.
Economic Development officers and the local Business Forum could take the lead here with their work with local employers. They could identify employer champions or ambassadors and encourage training for SME business owners on how to drive growth through skills
26. We welcome views on ways in which businesses can be encouraged to increase the UK’s leadership and management capability to create better run and more highly performing businesses.
Businesses are more interested in own survival rather contributing to UK’s leadership and management capability. We need to “sell” the link between good leadership and management and high performance.
There needs to be more local research in this area, impact on micro-businesses in a narrow economic base.
“Big” training programmes are not always the answer to increasing management and leadership skills (MBA etc) For SMEs short, sharp focused training works better.The L4 Train to gain project was a good example of this. It was flexible and provided exactly what the employer needed. There were no targets attached and businesses were willing to participate because it was not linked to a full qualification. It provided workshops on key issues. Matched funding was in the form of people or facilities. It addressed the real issue around new managers not being trained to carry out their new roles. Generally newly promoted managers are not assessed for their leadership and management skills, training is limited and support may be minimal.
Often strategic thinking is the key rather than leadership and management (which is more about driving the workforce). Small mentoring groups (6-8) offer effective support, they are cheaper than 1:1 sessions and more personal than larger workshops.
Reinvigorating adult and community learning
27. How could we encourage the development of productive partnerships with third sector organisations?
True recognition of he role of the third sector and enhancing potential roles, for example acting as mentors for business start ups. As with all sectors, there is a risk of losing skills from the third sector as/if it downsizes.
Involving the third sector is core to any partnership approach in any field.
The new minimum contract levels may encourage more partnerships with the third sector in the future.
The third sector is just another employment sector and should be treated as such. They need to identify their skills gaps and work in partnership to address these..
28. We welcome views on new ways that colleges could be used to support the community.
Colleges need to be part of the whole community. They need to be seen as part of the community and not just an institution that happens to be there. The doors need to be open and welcoming so that the community is comfortable crossing the threshold and it is not yet another barrier to accessing services.
There is a need to look at new partnerships eg. with Libraries, Village halls etc who are well placed in the community . However rural areas were better supported when colleges had ACL funding. When this was removed, links to these areas were lost. 19+ funding is so poor now that colleges are even abandoning many evening classes in the community and bringing learners to their main base.
29. How could adult and community learning be reinvigorated? We especially welcome ideas for how businesses and others could be encouraged to engage in supporting local community learning to help create local ownership and momentum.
Need to start at Parish level, develop local approaches and look at local learning groups and involving Parish Clerks to collate provision and need. To do this resource is required and it should be a priority because of the wider benefits it brings ie health, social cohesion etc. There is a need to explore sponsorship and to appeal to local employer sense of social responsibility and to tie in to other events such as the Village Olympics.
Measuring success
30. We welcome views on those indicators of success would be most useful to you or your organisation.
Success rates can be manipulated. Progression and destination related to the training undertaken would be more useful. Data on location and sectors would also be valuable. However this needs to be local and of high quality.
Given the ever evolving need to identify resources from alternative sources a universal yet locally relevant value added matrix might be a useful tool. This could build on social return on investment models, the recognised agreement that a qualification, a competency or a job could be valued at an agreed value. This would enable providers to demonstrate value for money in a transparent and recognised manner.
Do you have any other comments that might aid the consultation process as a whole?
Please use this space for any general comments that you may have.
Comments on the layout of this consultation would also be welcomed.
Higher level skills should have a much greater role.
Universities should be involved more in adult skills and community work. FE is doing the largest amount of work in getting people into work with Schools.
Universities need a better understanding of employer demand led/job related provision.
HE as in NVQ 4+ could be seen as more important than degrees which are not work related.
Question 10
There are three elements to this. Many courses taught in further education will result in the high likelihood of self employment and so the issue of enterprise education is necessary to ensure these people will gain the maximum economic impact from their training. In these cases, the principles of self employment and the understanding of the need for enterprise skills should be integrated into the courses themselves. There is also the opportunity to encourage networking of trades people to support their future / current business ideas. As well as possibly joining to create better, sustainable business there is also the possibility of developing short term incubation in further education to support, for example, the idea of a bookkeeper working with a plumber to support and strengthen both potential businesses.
The IEBE members can also support enterprise education in colleges for the students who are interested. St Helens Chamber has run such a programme in St Helens College with some success. We also ensure that younger people in the College are included in other activities to support enterprise education – including the Young Entrepreneurs Bank and Young Chamber.
There have also been previous suggestions from BCC and St Helens Chamber to include enterprise or entrepreneurial education units in Apprenticeship frameworks.
Overall, there needs to be an understanding of the need for enterprise skills as part of the package needed by employers. It should be evidenced so that employers can see that the skills and knowledge have been imparted, understood and used.
Question 13/14
The ESF/ LSC programme in Merseyside called “Skillworks” was a programme which helped businesses to get the skills which they assert they need. This system has flaws but is highly responsive to employees needs. There perhaps needs to be more awareness as to how the impact can be measured but the impact is on the productivity of the company rather than qualifications.
Such a scheme should be targeted at areas where companies spend less than the average on training themselves or where productivity is much lower than the national average.
This scheme allows for companies to decide themselves what level of skills are needed to make a difference. They need an impartial advisor and some help in researching the most suitable and best value, provider from whichever sector, and by whatever means (e.g. classroom, IT etc) that is most suitable.
Such a programme can also be linked to business investment. If a new piece of equipment or a new market is being acquired or developed then this would highlight eligibility. It should not be linked to qualifications only, or at all. In this way it will reflect the private sector training market, which is a large sector already, but which market – especially smaller companies – fail to access.
In response to how larger employers wish to shape the skills system for their needs, many bodies already are supporting their voice. It is also easier for colleges and training providers to work with larger companies to provide specific courses for their workforce in any area (or through a network such as Chambers) as they have a demand for places of a scale that is worthwhile for training providers to develop courses as needed.
Question 22
Employers will be more likely to invest in training if there is a clearer accreditation, less complicity of “routeways” and better ways of linking their priorities with priority areas. Short courses and flexibility in changing what is on offer, quickly, as well as ensuring that the trainers are competent, professional and have some relevant and current experience, would all help businesses have confidence in the offer.
Question 30
Adult and community learning could be invigorated by tax incentives for SMEs to invest in training. Local business sessions in the workplace – TUC Learning advisers very useful model. Link to other activities to support businesses e.g. healthy workforce initiatives.
Qu 1-3: There is much to be positive about in the principles outlined. However, there are dangers. Much waste is created by unnecessary duplication of effort in the mistaken assumption that competition is always desirable and choice essential. There can be a varied range of providers but they need to reflect the varied needs of the population including businesses and they need to understand the difficulties people face in gaining training and getting back into learning. Government has a tendency to think that oone size fits all, and preferably a very big size at that. There is too much rigidity particularly from the centre. The understandable witsh to be fair sometimes creates rules that en up being unfair particularly to isolated communities. Empowerment is a noble aspiration, but, given a free hand, most of those who are empowered will be those who had power in the first place. We work in a disadvantaged rather isolated community in North Nottinghamshire which was ignored by the big colleges located 10-15 miles away. Over 25 years we have built up a million pound business serving that community’s needs despite occasionally competitive threats and occasionally being undermined by free provision offered by voluntary agencies with government money. Most of what we have done has been a response to community need and in line with government policy, but only a little has been at the request of the community. We have to articulate those needs as well as responding to requests and criticisms. It has been a struggle to get people and especially businesses to pay their share of costs, and the reality is they often don’t. Most local businesses are very small and don’t want their staff to acquire nationally recognised qualifications for fear of losing them – so often people pay for themselves. Under TtG there is an expectation that employers will pay, but sometimes they won’t and sometimes the learner is a volunteer, but idf they are funded through ER they have to pay if the employer won’t or we have to subsidise them. We do this, but it is then very hard for us to make ends meet. Our rural isolation increases our costs because we have smaller class numbers. We scrape by, by paying staff less and having a very shallow structure. Incidewntally we have never run an NVQ programme that merely evidenced existing skills. Quite often we have had to support businesses, free of charge, to improve patterns of working to enable their staff to show and learn competence which we can then assess and verify. We get no funding for that. In our view NVQs have been an immense success.
We have not yet provided apprenbticeship training though we had hoped to this year. Local Authority cuts have made that impossible. Most small businesses cannot afford the risk of taking on a full time apprentice, but might be persuaded to share one. We could do this if we were supported to set up a company to facilitate that process. The risks for us as a small organisation ourselves are great, but only that structure is likely to increase such opportunity locally. WIthout our input very few apprenticeship opportunities will arise locally, but we need some sort of security and on-going funding to make it happen. Insisting upon a minimum of 50 apprenticeships before we get a contract is not a way of helping.
7. As commented earlier, we have never delivered a programme that didn’t enhance skills and knowledge through NVQs in Care, Childcare, STL and business admin. We hear of stories and we have had one painful experience of employing someone from a training agency who did not do the job honestly (we have others who have offeredan excellent service). There is a need to weed out those who abuse the funding and purpose but most in the public sector at least do an honest job with integrity and do advance their learners’ skills, and often support employers to improve.
qu 8&9: As a small provider, we are often blocked from accessing funding e.g. ESF in recent years. Yet small is often beautiful when it comes to offering a personalised service that supports people into work or in developing their skills. Don’t block us because we are small, encourage us to have a responsibility for our community. All our staff know this community and are very committed to each student, despite the increasing formularisation of funding and measuring success.
Q 10: We have recently introduced this strand, though it is too early to say whether it is having any impact. Exhortation and funding and encouraging the sharing of good practice is sufficient.
Q11: Use the Public Sector to do this and move back to an ethos of trust and co-operation not competition and payment by results. Support those working with the most difficult not those who get the highest success rates.
Q12: The market is not a good way of delivering education and training. Competition in this sector is wasteful, especially of public money. An “efficienmt” market often ignores the needs of those who lack buying power.
Q13-15. Those who manage the employer perception of needs and link into sector skills councils are almost always big employers. They often want things small employers don’t want. The picture is vastly more complex than the usual prescriptions allow, and sometimes we need to deliver what the employee needs even when it is not what the employer wants. The idea that childcare should only employ people with level 3 qualifications for example is crazy, both from an employability standing and from a societal position. We need people who can work at level 2 but not at 3 to be part of the workforce – it supports children better and makes the workers better parents too.
Q16/17. The service has been lost to us because of minimum contract values and our rural isolation. Web based solutions are very limited especially to the least accomplished and ost disadvantaged. It needs to be a local service provided by the education provider. Lifelong learning accounts may have a value especially long term, but they need to offer real support in terms of funding for e.g. childcare.
Q18. This is nonsense. How many learners will read a business plan?! The task should be to eliminate poor performing organisations, if they really are poor, and ensure all those that trade can offer a competent service. Cut all the data promotion and the quality measures and get a good inspection and advisory service going that is seen as constructive and helpful and performance will improve.
Q19-21. Largely OK. We welcome peer review but it’s hard to organise. Co-operation is desirable but the competitive ethos engendered by previous governments has made that extremely difficult.
Q22-24. Training levies worked.
Q28-30: We are a very sucessful community provision – a school with an adult education section and a community complex. This has been achieved despite government rather than because of it, though once well supported by local government. Much of our funding to facilitate this is being cut away – we lose £400k over 3 years. Therefore the government interest is very welcome. However, it costs money. We have always supported voluntary agencies even when that has been against our interests – competition in training for example. But it is hard work. It needs co-ordination and time, and with cuts that gets increasingly difficult. It requires a local relationship, and most Colleges have become too big. Fund local authorities to deliver this not groups of Voluntary Agencies that have to respond to disparate self interest. Come and see what we do.
Q31. Needs to be a value added approach. Data requires intelligent interpretation to be of any use. Too often it is turned into misleading league tables.
To improve the competitiveness of British business and the efficiency and VFM of the British public sector we require a more talented and skilled workforce. How can we achieve this crucial objective but at a much lower cost to the UK taxpayer?
First, ensure any public funding for training and skills arrives safely at the front-line providers with the minimum of ‘evaporation’ of such funding en route. Over the past decade too much money has been wasted paying for no or low added value quangos like the RDAs, LSC, Business Link and latterly the SFA and NAS.
Second, ensure public funding is only made available to those high-quality, responsive training providers who deliver a demonstrably beneficial impact for their customers. The UK’s training sector is a curate’s egg and too much money has been wasted by democratically allocating funding to all providers; some with a very poor track record of results. Hold training providers rigorously to account with more demanding and meaningful quality assurance, including evidence of customer satisfaction and measuring the return on investment. Give the poorer training providers notice to improve their effectiveness in the first stage and subsequently terminate their public funding contracts if they continue to fail to raise their game.
I have been passionately involved in training and national and international skills development on the front line for 20 years. I am absolutely convinced that the UK could get far more bangs for its bucks if it took the above two steps. I only hope this new coalition government is sincere about listening to those who know what they are talking about and it acts upon their informed advice. If it does, we could do so much more with less. If it does not, the electorate will understandably become more cynical about government.
I would be very happy to help in any way I can as, if we could only get policy makers to work more collaboratively with those experienced practitioners who operate successfully on the front line, we could achieve results that we can only dream about at present and at a much lower cost to the taxpayer. I am sure that this single innovative step could apply right across all public spending and not just to skills development and training.
Q1: The FSB in the East Midlands welcomes the focus on informal learning and the emphasis on employers being able to choose the training that will best meet their needs. Small businesses in the East Midlands have encountered many difficulties as a result of the current skills system being heavily biased towards full qualifications.
We represent 16,000 micro and small businesses in the East Midlands and we would advocate a stronger emphasis on flexible learning and training delivery methods. Our members feel strongly that micro businesses in particular, should be able to access training for their staff which causes minimal disruption to the business in terms of the location, timings and duration of the training.
Q2: During the last ten years there have been too many publicly funded bodies that have had a responsibility for developing and delivering individual aspects of skills and workforce development. Such bodies have included the Regional Development Agencies, the Learning and Skills Council, the Sector Skills Development Agency, the Sector Skills Councils, the Basic Skills Agency, Local Learning Partnerships, the Association of Colleges, the Higher Education Funding Council, NIACE, the WEA, the Careers Service and individual public and private training providers. This has led to a fragmented and often disjointed skills system that is confusing for both individuals and businesses to understand. When our members have identified skills gaps in their business they have not readily known which organisation they should contact first. This has often meant that businesses with training needs in specialised or technical subjects have been passed from one organisation to another, which has been frustrating and off-putting to the business.
Many of our members have benefitted from the various training initiatives, most notably Train to Gain and Apprenticeships. However, our members have often complained about the frequency with which the eligibility criteria or terms of the various initiatives have changed, and how often new short-term initiatives have been introduced.
The FSB in the East Midlands would welcome a simplified, streamlined and stable skills system that can provide a responsive service to businesses. Ideally, this would involve businesses being able to contact a single organisation to discuss the skills gaps and skills needs of their business, and where the business can receive information and advice on how to access training that will fully address their training needs. We would also advocate a skills system that is more flexible and which can be tailored to the specific training requirements of the individual business. Whilst we recognise that there are generic subjects which most businesses will require for their workforce, the current regime of ‘one size fits all’ qualifications is failing to plug the skills gaps that exist in small businesses as they often cannot access the training that they need.
Q3: The FSB believes that there is an imbalance in the amount of financial support for micro and larger companies. We understand that whilst micro businesses represent 95% of the UK economy, larger companies have benefitted from public funded initiatives, when perhaps they did not need to. We believe that those companies who can afford to invest in training should do so. However, in order to ensure that micro sized businesses are given sufficient support to grow their business we would welcome a far greater focus on assisting small businesses with the cost of training that will help them to flourish and expand.
Q4: The FSB in the East Midlands is supportive of the apprenticeship programme. We feel that apprenticeships can provide valuable practical experience and learning for any individual, regardless of age.
The FSB in the East Midlands believes that the current apprenticeship programme should be expanded to cover a wider variety of skilled trades. Our members have also commented that the range of apprenticeship programmes available should not be dependent on geography. At present, some apprenticeship programmes are not universally available because it is the choice of the further education college or training provider as to whether that programme is available at their institution. Our members have also suggested that the academic element of the apprenticeship should not need to be delivered at the college premises. For some employees, this can involve considerable travel to the institution.
Q7: The skills needs that businesses have now are not entirely different from the skills needs that they had several years ago. Businesses continue to call for skills and training programmes to directly match the specific needs of their business, and for skills and training to be delivered in a flexible and convenient way.
The education system has become proliferated with lengthy qualification courses which do not readily match the needs of the business. The FSB in the East Midlands believes that a better approach would be to develop accredited units or modules of learning, which can be amalgamated into a whole qualification. This would allow employees and businesses to select the units or modules that would be of most benefit to them and allow them the flexibility to undertake additional units to build-up to a full qualification at a time convenient to the business
We disagree with the emphasis on Level 3 and above. Small businesses have skills gaps at all levels. Businesses continue to report issues with basic skills in literacy, numeracy and IT. There is also significant demand for replacing retiring workers with apprentices at Level 2, and investing in their further training and development. A common issue reported by FSB members is that there is a shortage of apprenticeship programmes in skilled professions and trades. Some of our members also advise us that their preference would be to train an apprentice alongside an experienced and highly skilled employee so that the skills can be imparted amongst the workforce.
The FSB in the East Midlands believes that in order for businesses to be in a position to exploit any new opportunities, the skills system must be responsive to their needs for technical and specialist skills. The further and higher education curriculum does not readily cater for businesses with skills gaps in highly technical fields, and businesses have to struggle on their own to find the particular course they need from a specialist training provider, often at a substantial cost.
Whilst it is important that young people are supported through their training and employment, there needs to be a greater balance in the skills system in supporting the training and development of those individuals aged 19 years and above. Skills gaps exist in all age groups, and a successful and productive business will invest in the skills development of all workers regardless of age or profession.
Overall access to high quality key skills training is vital. It needs to be available locally and free to the unemployed.
Local exam centres within the community help accessibility.
Q4
In the current economic climate the current funding methodology is applying pressure to all sectors across the UK and is having an impact on the volume of apprenticeships for young people. The methodology has adverse affects if a learner starts a level 2 framework, but does not progress to level 3 until after their 19th birthday, meaning they move onto a lower rate of funding even though no break in learning has occurred.
Post 19 rates should be set to the same level as 16-18 rates, if the above scenario is being suffered by learners, employers and providers.
Q9: The FSB in the East Midlands believes that all young people should leave the education system with proficiency in literacy, numeracy and IT skills. It is also essential that school, further and higher education develops a generic skillset in the future workforce that will be required for any job. This skillset includes verbal and written communication, team work, problem-solving, organisation and planning, meeting deadlines and working under their own initiative. These are the skills which our members often identify as lacking in job applicants. In addition to this, our members also identify key behaviours that they expect from all of their employees and new recruits: a positive attitude, a work ethic, a sense of responsibility and consideration for others
Small businesses in the East Midlands frequently comment that young UK school leavers are generally ill prepared for the workplace. In some cases the young person has a firm view on what roles and tasks they are prepared to undertake and those which they are not. Some graduates also have an unrealistic expectation of what salary they can expect to earn upon leaving university, particularly if they have no job experience. Education providers need to raise the ambitions and aspirations of those who are leaving education, but they must also prepare them for working life and develop a work ethic in their students. The FSB in the East Midlands advocates a greater emphasis on work experience and work placements in all courses so that the student can practically apply their learning in a work setting.
Q10: The FSB in the East Midlands believes that more needs to be done to provide school and further education leavers with the skills and attitudes they need for the workplace. This includes a greater emphasis on work experience and longer work placements than those currently offered. Our members also recommend that the school and college curriculum should include business management (such as finance systems and how to compile and manage accounts), business planning, market research, project management and taxation. We would particularly welcome a focus on supporting individuals to become self-employed.
Q12: The FSB in the East Midlands disagrees with the current emphasis on qualifications and qualification levels, as it is failing to address the skills gaps and skills issues that businesses have. The skills required by businesses cover a variety of levels and a variety of subjects. This is partly because of a need to tackle the basic skills needs of employees who left school without a proficient level of literacy or numeracy, but mostly because the level of training is dependent on whether there are gaps in core skills (eg. communication, administration or finance), or technical and high-level specialist skills.
We firmly believe that skills support should be aimed at addressing the skills gaps that hinder productivity and business growth, rather than aimed at a particular skill level. Businesses simply do not think in terms of skill levels. Businesses merely concern themselves with plugging a gap in a particular type of skill that their business needs. For some businesses, a full qualification is often needed to address the skills needs of an employee, but they may only require a half-day of training on a specific subject for another employee. The learning market needs to have a variety of training on offer; from bite-sized chunks of learning, to a day’s training session on through to a full qualification. This would serve both businesses and individuals better than the current emphasis on full qualifications, particularly if there was a greater focus on vocational learning. The learning available also needs to be delivered in a far more flexible way so that it reduces the amount of staff time and staff resource lost to the business whilst the training is undertaken, such as online learning, distance learning, on-site training and off-site training.
- Resources and funding should be focused on demand-led workforce development. This will imply strong and effective partnership working between the private, public and educational sector. The Local Enterprise Partnerships will have a key role to play in this debate and should act as vehicles to facilitate this type of partnership working. This will entail the allocation of some resources to the LEPs to lead on this work.
- Special attention should also be given to skills forecasting and growth sectors to ensure training is developed accordingly.
- Consultation with employers has shown that often school/college/university leavers and jobseekers lack employability skills. These skills should be part of any training offer and provision and should be developed in schools, colleges and universities as well as part of any back to work programme.
- To respond more effectively to employer skills needs, training providers should have more flexibility to be able to develop a provision that reflect the local context and demand. Allowing schools and colleges flexibility within the curriculum will ensure education is able to react and respond to employer needs quickly and adequately.
- Many businesses already offer their own training provision. This could be expanded upon and those businesses could be involved in delivering courses within school, colleges and universities so to capitalise on their experience and knowledge and making the training more “real”.
- Non-university based education should be promoted more effectively, particularly in the context of apprenticeships. A flexible and well-funded apprenticeship programme at all levels (including level 4 and 5) should be developed. This will ensure apprenticeship are better valued. The programme should also be open to all ages and funding should be made available to those adults that want to undertake apprenticeship so as to enable them to still earn a reasonable wage while training.
- Business support organisations such as the FSB, Chambers, etc. also have a key role to play particularly in terms of entrepreneurial skills. Funding mentoring schemes would support the development of entrepreneurship and offer practical training.
Q13. The FSB in the East Midlands firmly agrees that there needs to be more interaction between businesses and further and higher education, if only to educate the training providers on what businesses want and how they want it to be delivered.
For over a decade the skills system has purported to being demand-led, yet small businesses consistently complain that they either cannot access the specific training they need for their workforce, or that they are offered lengthy qualification based courses that either do not adequately match their skills needs, or which duplicate aspects of training that have already been delivered through private training provision. All too often, small businesses are left confused by the plethora of training programmes that are on offer, but frustrated because the programmes are generic and ‘one size fits all’ rather than tailored to their particular requirements.
We appreciate that it is difficult for further and higher education institutions to actively make contact with the high volume of small businesses in the region. We therefore suggest that better linkages are made by further and higher education institutions with the business representative organisations like the FSB. The business representatives are able to impart knowledge and expertise of business issues including skills needs, and they are also able to effectively communicate key messages from the institutions to several thousand businesses across the region.
The FSB in the East Midlands firmly believes that skills development and delivery should have the sole aim of addressing the skills gaps that exist in individual businesses, and enabling those businesses to improve and flourish. This means delivering shorter courses which are tailored to the topics or subjects that each individual business needs, and in a flexible way that will minimise the time and resource costs for the business.
Hi trevor – I couldn’t see an attached doc here I’m afraid. If you send it to jennifer.poole@bis.gsi.gov.uk I’ll get it to the right people.
Q14: Under current skills delivery mechanisms, individuals and businesses in rural and remote areas have unequal access to skills and learning as it is more costly for the business to send employees off-site to train, and seemingly more costly for the training provider to deliver the training at the business premises. The FSB in the East Midlands believes that where possible, technology should be exploited to provide training to businesses in a non-traditional format, such as through the use of web-based seminars. However, we also ask that consideration is given as to methods of delivering more face-to-face training on business premises in a cost efficient way. Businesses should not be penalised on their choice of skills and training by where their business is based.
Our survey data shows that small businesses still favour short, tailored training provision that is delivered on their business premises as this is the most cost-efficient form of delivery from the business perspective, and has less of an impact on their productivity rates than training delivered off-site. In the East Midlands, 64% of our members employ less than five people. Losing just one employee on a day’s training per week at a training provider’s premises equates to an automatic reduction in productivity of 20% each week for these micro-sized businesses. We therefore advocate a skills system that delivers more short courses in a more flexible and innovative manner to minimise the impact of training on business time and business productivity.
Q15: As previously stated, it is the type of skill that matters most to a business, not the level of skill. When recruiting, businesses look for candidates that can demonstrate the types of skills and level of experience that the vacant post and their business requires. For a significant proportion of our members, the qualification level of a candidate’s skills are a secondary consideration to their knowledge and experience.
Name: Karine Jacques
Organisation (if applicable): UK National Agency for the Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal programmes (Ecorys)
Address:
Ecorys
Vincent House
Quay Place
92-93 Edward Street
Birmingham
B1 2RA
Please tick the option below which best describes on whose behalf you are responding:
X Other (please describe): UK National Agency for the Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal programmes (Ecorys) working for the Joint International Unit (DfE, BIS, DWP) and the European Commission
Principles for a skills strategy
1. We welcome views on these principles and whether there are others we should consider.
As the UK National Agency for the Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal programmes, we welcome the opportunity to reply to this public consultation on a skills strategy for the future for the UK.
We would also suggest for the skills strategy to be closely linked to the creation of a coherent lifelong strategy across the UK, and within the UK’s four countries. We would also encourage the UK Government to look at the funding opportunities supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP) supported by the UK (DfE, BIS, DWP Joint International Unit) and the European Commission (Directorate General Education and Culture).
The LLP, which will run between 2007 and 2013, aims to contribute through lifelong learning to the development of the European Community as an advanced knowledge society, with sustainable economic development, more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. It aims to foster interaction, cooperation and mobility between education and training systems within the Community, so that they become a world quality reference. The LLP supports all segments of the education and training sector, i.e. from school to higher education, including adult education and vocational education and training through the following sub-programmes
- Comenius: Comenius targets schools and further education and is designed to provide opportunities for schools and colleges to introduce or strengthen the European dimension in their curriculum.
- Erasmus: Erasmus is the European exchange programme for higher education students, teachers, staff and institutions. It enables students to study or work in another European country as part of their degree.
- Leonardo: Leonardo supports the development of skills and training. It funds work placements for trainees, workers and staff, and supports European projects to discuss common issues or develop training materials, courses and frameworks.
- Grundtvig: Grundtvig is a passport to training opportunities for adult education organisations, teachers and learners. Adult educators can be involved in structured courses, conferences and even job shadowing. http://www.grundtvig.org.uk
- Transversal: The Transversal programme supports projects on cross-cutting themes such as dissemination, policy, language learning, and Information and Communications Technology. http://www.transversal.org.uk
In the UK Leonardo funds a wide range of opportunities for UK vocational education & training organisations, staff and learners. Funding is for any UK organisation involved in vocational education & training. For further information please consult our projects across the UK http://www.leonardo.org.uk
3. In view of the current fiscal deficit, what areas of public investment in skills could be reduced and where could private investment be increased? What are the main constraints on changing the balance between public and private investment and how could these be overcome?
As the UK National Agency for the Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal programmes, we support many UK organisations working within both the public and private sectors to benefit from European funding for education and training.
Since the start of the LLP in 2007 we have seen that the largest proportion of UK project promoters consists of public sector services (colleges, local authorities, universities, fire, police, NHS) but also private organisations (chambers of commerce, private VET training providers, businesses) followed by, and increasingly so, by organisations working within the civil society sector (e.g. non profit organisations, community groups, charities, theatres, museums and prisons).
We believe the multiplayer character of the organisations involved in these European partnerships, i.e. a mix of both the public and private sectors is actually a key strength of the projects funded under the LLP. We therefore would encourage the Government to look at examples of existing transnational European projects as a way of encouraging both the public and private sectors to be actively engaged in increasing the quality and provision of the education and training system in the UK and at the European level.
Since 2007, we also have seen increased demand for European funding from both the private and public sectors in the UK (maybe as a result of declining funding at the national level). Interestingly, the demand across Leonardo, Grundtvig and the Transversal programmes far exceeds the budget available.
A respected and credible training offer
4. How could the Apprenticeship programme be improved? What can be done to increase the proportion of apprentices progressing to Level 3 and beyond? What and how should employers contribute to Apprenticeships?
In today’s global economy, apprentices need to go beyond traditional skill-sets if they are to advance in their careers. Equally, organisations depend on the versatility and creativity of their apprentices for competitive advantage.
Based on the experiences from UK participants (which include UK apprentices) supported by the Leonardo Mobility programme, undertaking a period of study or work placement in another country enhances the level of the beneficiaries’ skills (hard and soft skills) and also their employment prospects. Skills gained through a period of study or work abroad include improved vocational skills, linguistic skills and soft skills, e.g. greater flexibility to work in different settings, enhanced multicultural awareness and self-confidence. The analysis of feedback received from UK participants clearly shows that participants’ skills levels and self confidence increase as they are introduced to new ways of working abroad.
To improve the Apprenticeship programme in the UK we would therefore encourage the Government to also look into the existing initiatives supporting apprentices in the Leonardo Mobility programme as well as into factors for success and lessons learnt from these projects.
Positively, over the last few years, the UK Leonardo National Agency and the National Apprenticeship Service have also been working together to promote the opportunities supported by Leonardo to apprentices in the UK, since they fulfil both European and UK ambitions for improving the quality and diversity of apprenticeship schemes. Many UK organisations are now beginning to integrate European work placements into their apprenticeships, thanks to Leonardo Mobility grants.
In addition, since 2009 the National Agency and the National Apprenticeship Service have developed greater publicity demonstrating ways in which employers contribute and benefit to Apprenticeships through the Leonardo Mobility programme; this promotion which clearly shows the benefits for employers and learners to engage in Leonardo Mobility for apprentices could be looked at as an example of best practise.
6. We welcome views about progression from Level 3 Apprenticeships into higher education, including whether there is demand for Higher Apprenticeships at Levels 4 and 5.
In the current economic climate we believe that greater emphasis needs to be put on a lifelong learning strategy as a whole, which will cover all segments of the education and training sector – including school, VET, adult education and higher education.
We also think that adult education as well as Vocational Education and Training should remain a key priority alongside higher education. Also, progression routes between VET, adult education and higher education need to be further developed and promoted (and this not only for apprentices).
Over the last decade European cooperation in education and training has shown the increasing importance which needs to be given to the lifelong learning process. The Bologna Process in higher education, the Education and Training Work Programme 2010 and its successor, the Renewed Education Strategy 2020, and an increased focus on the importance of early years and adult education in a lifelong learning context all have contributed to create an enhanced awareness of the importance of holistic approaches to policymaking in education and training and the need to focus on issues of context when addressing implementation issues.
7. How should we ensure that training leads to real gains in skills, knowledge and competence and not just the accreditation of existing skills?
As the UK National Agency for the Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal programmes we strongly believe that training leads to real gains in skills, knowledge and competence and not just the accreditation of existing skills.
Under the LLP we support UK organisations to apply to our programmes which clearly bring added-value to both formal and non-formal education and training in the UK.
As an example, Leonardo focuses on Vocational Education and Training (VET) – and per se skills, the Transversal programme targets education and training altogether and Grundtvig supports adult education – by which we mean non-vocational learning provision to people over the age of 25. Under these three programmes the UK receives approximately 25 million € per year.
Over the last years, both the European Commission and Member States, including the UK have increasingly stressed the importance of recognising or accrediting skills, knowledge and competences in both the formal and non-formal settings by supporting specific priorities in the Leonardo programme.
Also, as an example for Vocational Education and Training there are several related initiatives to help make qualifications, experiences and skills better appreciated and easier to recognise throughout the EU. The aim is to give greater access to learning or employment opportunities in different countries and encourage greater mobility – for individuals, businesses and other organisations.
9. How can we encourage colleges and training organisations to make the transition from learning to work as smooth as possible, enabling progression in the workplace, as well as to further learning?
Through the Leonardo, Grundtvig and the Transversal programmes, we support the aim of encouraging colleges and training organisations to make the transition from learning to work as smooth as possible, of continuous professional development and further learning- this through European funding.
We would therefore encourage the Government to look at existing funding opportunities supported by the LLP, as they all, though to a varying extent, support increased cooperation between the world of work and that of education.
Examples of projects funded under our three programmes which support the transition from learning to work and further learning in the workplace are listed below:
- Leonardo is the European Union’s programme which supports Vocational Education and Training by focusing on the quality and provision of skills and enhancing employability. In the UK hundreds of vocational education providers are working together on Leonardo projects across Europe. Together with European partners UK organizations can involve learners and staff in an exciting range of opportunities and raise the standard of training provision for all. The programme offers employees or trainees, apprentices or learners the opportunity to set up exchange programmes (through Mobility projects). Alternatively Leonardo supports UK organisations to share and transfer innovative practices in VET; in so doing the programme helps for training programmes to meet the needs of the labour market (through Leonardo Transfer of Innovation and Partnership projects).
- Grundtvig’s range of adult education opportunities are not about work related skills and qualifications. They are about learning for living and enjoyment. In the UK there are hundreds of adult of education organisations working together on Grundtvig projects across more than 30 European countries. They are involved in all kinds of activities – from sharing new teaching practices, to supporting older people to do voluntary work, to enabling adult learners to travel abroad and improve their language skills.
- The Transversal Programme supports experts from around Europe to focus on policies and practices within their field of education. The programme is for everyone who oversees education and training provision and funds a range of short, intensive Study Visits at education and training organisations across Europe. There are around 300 themed Study Visits to choose from – each one covering a specialised education or training theme. What’s more, most of the visits are conducted in English, so this is an ideal opportunity
for UK education and training professionals to learn from other countries’ practices. Helping the transition from learning to work and encouraging progression in the workplace as well as further learning is also an underlying policy priority at the European level (see “ET2020″ the EU’s overarching programme focusing on growth and jobs).
Funding and entitlements
Helping individuals and employers choose the learning they want.
15. Which qualifications have most value for employers and learners? Which do not have value? How do we evolve the Qualifications and Credit Framework so that it focuses on the former and removes the latter?
As part of the national thematic work we carry out in the UK, we encourage the exchange of practices and information between policy-makers and project practitioners on key themes, one of which is the recognition of skills, knowledge and competences in education and training.
As a result of our discussions, we have seen that, for employers, learners and training providers the qualifications which are more valued to employers and learners are those they both are aware of and of which they know the content. Also in the UK specific accreditation frameworks cover the four countries of the UK.
To evolve the Qualifications and Credit Framework in the UK, we would suggest for the Government to also look into the existing initiatives which support the recognition of skills, knowledge and competences at both a national and European level, i.e. through Leonardo Transfer of Innovation projects which work on initiatives such as the EQF, ECVET, EQARF and Europass.
Incentives to train in priority areas
23. Should we promote training innovation, particularly in rapidly changing or wholly new areas of the economy? If so, how might we do this?
In the current economic recession, we do believe that the Government needs to promote innovation in education and training. Since its start in 1995 the Leonardo programme has supported innovation for Vocational Education and Training in the UK, through supporting Pilot Projects and Transfer of Innovation projects (i.e. approximately € 8.5m per year in the UK). Leonardo Transfer of Innovation projects help UK organisations to work with organisations across Europe as part of large-scale partnerships to adapt, transfer and share innovative training materials. Transfer of Innovation projects can benefit all sectors or target groups across several countries.
For the next programme which will run between 2013-2020, the National Agency also encourages the European Commission to introduce Transfer of Innovation projects across the subprogrammes of the LLP; this because we believe that the transfer of innovative practices, methodologies and approaches needs to also exist for schools, adult education providers and universities, and not for vocational education and training only.
The promotion of innovation also follows the recent Commission Communication ‘Innovation Union: Transforming Europe through Research and Innovation’, which launches the flagship initiative on research and innovation announced in the Europe 2020 strategy for jobs and growth.
24. How can we ensure employers can access high quality labour market information?
We would suggest for the UK Government to consult Cedefop and OECD studies which have been published on this topic; as an example, Cedefop’s new skill demand and supply forecast up to 2020 (“Skills supply and demand in Europe: mid term forecast up to 2020″), published in 2010, sets the scene for anticipating future trends in Europe.
Encouraging a more productive workforce
Reinvigorating adult and community learning
27. How could we encourage the development of productive partnerships with third sector organisations?
The LLP supports the participation and the development of productive partnerships with third sector organisations. We would therefore encourage the Government to look into the existing projects which aim to support the community involvement in the Leonardo, Grundtvig and Transversal programmes. For further details please consult the maps of the projects funded in the UK on: http://www.leonardo.org.uk; http://www.grundvig.org.uk; http://www.transversal.org.uk
Q1. Although the LSEN supports the overall principles outlined in the document, it is concerned that little recognition has been placed on the changing nature of employability which will require individuals to develop a much wider range of survival and resilience skills which will enable themselves and their families to cope with the major changes we will face in the forthcoming decade. It is already accepted as common place that individuals will have a number of career changes during their lives and consequently the learning offer must reflect these ever changing situations. It is also predicted that within a few years more and more people will become self employed and entrepreneurial this will require everyone to harness and develop these skills, which in turn should be built inherently into any future skill strategy. It is also likely that people will, at any one time, have a variety of both paid and unpaid (voluntary) work and consequently the skill set we offer both the young people and adults of today need to take on board a variety of skill sets to enable them to cope in this new age. It is well documented in research that the most stressful part of anyone’s life revolves around transition – from school to college, from work to redundancy, from health into sickness consequently a future skills strategy should focus on identifying and supporting skills that encompass a wide range of learning opportunities from the informal to the formal that will provide individuals and communities with the resilience needed for the future
Q2. The LSEN would support any changes that would simplify the present funding system but would urge that any future changes take note of the very valuable role community and voluntary sector organisations play in the delivery of the skills agenda and seek to ensure that all organisations involved in the delivery of these agendas work much more closely with individuals, communities and employers. Much research has been carried out through social network analysis and total place and total neighbourhood initiatives to show that local collaboration between learning and other service providers with local people and local employers can play a significant role in reducing deprivation and raising aspiration. It is therefore important that these principles are recognised in the establishment of Local Enterprise Partnerships and that these partnerships value equally the contribution of all sectors, public, private and third sector and recognise and determine from the outset the clear roles and responsibilities of these identified partners in delivering an holistic skills agenda to our communities with a funding methodology which clearly recognises and rewards the attributes of each partner.
Q2 cont The LSEN also believes that the new funding model should re-visit the more positive aspects of the franchise system – third sector organisations are becoming much more fit for purpose and many have well established Self Assessment Reports and Quality Improvement Plans in places enabling them to play a full role in any collaborative or partnership work. The new funding methodology must recognise this and provide mechanisms by which effective and quality assured providers regardless of the sector from which they come, are enabled to access mainstream funding opportunities to deliver learning.
Q3. The LSEN advocates the need for greater collaboration and co-operation between learning providers at a local level ensuring a maximisation of existing public funds. Such co-operation can maximise a variety of public funding streams at a very local level. The LSEN recently supported the development of a new Third Sector Consortium in the City, Manchester First Limited – this consortium recently won a contract from the UK Borders Agency for £1.6 million to deliver a range of community cohesion and ESOL programmes in the City over a three year period. Initially all match funding was provided by the Consortium members themselves, however following the submission and approval of the bid a further level of match funding was asked for. This was provided by the City Council at a value of £100,000. In essence the City is getting £1.6 million worth of learning delivery for a cost of £100,000. Similar partnerships and arrangements between the public, private and voluntary sector could provide a major investment in learning in the City.
The LSEN would also suggest that private sector organisations could learn a great deal from the way in which the not for profit sector operates and that, over the next few years as more and more funding is expected to be invested by the private sector in a range of service delivery models, at present being spearheaded by the Work Programme, that these new relationships should be explored and greater co-operation between these two sectors developed, with the public sector taking a much more facilitated role as its influence declines.
We also believe that private investment has an important role to play in reducing unemployment and would like to see incentives for private / corporate investment in training and work placements in areas of need which could be funded on a social investment bond model.
We also believe that in the interests of community cohesion, community empowerment and reduction in the democratic deficit support for citizenship and social action learning is essential. A politically literate population and a well informed and equipped civil society are crucial, not only in the interests of fairness, but in order to ensure public efficiency and accountability and enable appropriate consideration and legitimacy for the private sector. A movement towards the big society will rely more than ever on supporting investment in transformative education with a view to the long term.
Q4. Third Sector organisations need to take a much more active role in both the promotion and delivery of the new apprenticeship programmes and the LSEN would advocate that such apprenticeships should be made much more accessible to adults, especially in areas of major deprivation. Third Sector organisations are often reluctant to take up apprenticeships and collaborative models need to be established whereby a number of smaller community providers can come together to support this take up. There is a real opportunity for smaller third sector organisations, social enterprises, charities and community organisations which have developed a great deal of experience in working with disadvantaged young people and NEETS to become involved in a wide range of pre-apprenticeship programmes which could focus on these client groups and as a result positive relationships could be established with colleges and other providers in the transition to full apprenticeships.
Q5. As already indicated above the LSEN believes that there is a clear place for pre-apprenticeship or foundation apprenticeship provision to engage disadvantaged learners as a progression route into full apprenticeships and that such programmes would be best delivered by an equal partnership.
Such programmes could be developed by positive partnerships between third sector organisations and colleges with the public sector and its strategic relationship with schools acting as a key component of these developments
The LSEN has a number of partners working with ex-offenders and ex-prisoners on offender reduction programmes and would be keen to explore how a potential relationship between colleges, prisons and the third sector could be explored in relation to the apprenticeship programme.
Q6. The LSEN considers that the present Level 3 Apprenticeship programme already provides sufficient access to HE through Foundation Degree programmes and that more emphasis should be placed in the school sector in recognising that for many students a focus on the academic route is inappropriate and that greater emphasis should be placed on apprenticeship programmes which would also enable greater access to local employers and the building of more effective work/school links.
It is already being witnessed in areas such as construction (in particular the gas industry) that the role of apprenticeship programmes is greatly needed, the present apprentice trained workforce is now approaching retirement age and there are a number of workforce employees who have been fast tracked through training and this has resulted in a workforce that is ill equipped to complete the job in hand, resulting in on the job training in order to develop the necessary skills to become a competent worker. Employers need to guarantee that there will be suitable support and time devoted to those apprentices who may wish to study Higher Apprenticeships.
Q7. The LSEN would advocate the use of Employee Development Plans linked to CPD which would record initial key competencies and gaps in existing skill profiles and be used through the appraisal process to monitor and update skill development. These EDP’s should be owned by the employees and will provide a much more realistic record of competence and ongoing professional development. Too often training is about evidencing the skills that individual already possess’ and building that evidence into a portfolio rather than focussing on the development of new skills.
Q8. Individuals who are out of work or at risk of unemployment require a range of strategies to engage them and so a single national programme offer may not be the best way forward. Training providers need to have the freedom and accountability to build a range of delivery partnerships and programmes that meet individual circumstances and local contexts and address the issue of transition highlighted in section 1. The removal of restrictions on funding part qualifications or programmes that have no qualification outcome could play a significant role in supporting these developments along with the development of a new range of programmes that focus on resilience and self reliance – we need to provide more for our communities.
Q9. The all-age Careers Service to which the Government is committed could have an important part to play in helping colleges and providers improve how learners can make a transition but this would need to be properly resourced.
Perhaps the most cost-effective interventions might be on focussing less on face-to-face guidance and more on the dissemination, distillation and interpretation of occupational and labour market information in ways that are useful to learners.
Providers themselves might be given more encouragement to provide careers guidance to registered students in the same way that universities do as part of their offer to students. Providers might also be encouraged to map leaver destinations and maintain contact with alumni in a more systematic way than has been the case. While understanding the aspiration behind proposals for a system of course labelling made by the UKCES, we remain unconvinced that the benefits outweigh the costs and bureaucracy involved.
Higher education appears not to find such a system necessary and the idea that it should be imposed on further education and training is a symptom of over-regulation and over-centralisation.
Once learners are in the workplace, learning representatives (union learning representatives in workplaces with unions) represent an effective and proven way of helping people focus on their continued education, training and development. The LSEN believes that further development of a system of workplace learning representatives should be considered and that this could also be linked with the developing Community Learning Champions in local communities
Q10. The LSEN suggests that the Skills Strategy needs to highlight the important work done by the Small Firms Enterprise Development Initiative (SFEDI) which specialises in enterprise development and related skills and by the Development Trusts Association (an umbrella body for community enterprises).
There is a considerable volume of activity and expertise in the third sector and through informal adult learning. This may be through voluntary and community groups with a focus on particular groups (opening up employment opportunities to women in particular occupations, the promotion of enterprises owned by black and minority ethnic enterprises) and by particular occupations (digital technology or manual trades for example). Many local authorities have expertise and involvement in this territory.
Links between this deep and rich field of community based education and the world of formal educational institutions are massively under-developed and illustrate what is lost when a skills strategy is developed in a over-simplified manner that divorces it from education for personal and community development.
By encouraging and facilitating effective communication between colleges, universities and the wider hinterland of enterprise education will allow public funds from all sources to go further.
Q11. The LSEN agrees that an entitlements based approach is necessary and that this must rely on active analysis of the individual and collective needs of populations in their own areas. This implies some need for a collective approach to data gathering and dissemination if a balance of needs and expectations is to be realised. We believe local authorities are well placed to carry out the analysis and dissemination of such information and that learner and local community interests should be represented in any local arrangements that are made with respect to frameworks of entitlement.
Q12. BIS should aim to maintain levels of public, private and personal spending on adult learning by encouraging local and national Learning Promoters and providers to be entrepreneurial, imaginative, collaborative and innovative in making learning desirable and inclusive.
Continued support for those National Infrastructure Bodies that provide leadership and encourage learner and community engagement in the setting of strategy & goals for the sector.
We believe the following activities would help to address responsiveness, accountability and to deliver value for money:
• Community learning representatives to parallel the success of unionlearn;
• Regular, independent surveys & research into adult’s aspirations, participation, experience and appreciation of learning, to inform planning and provision;
• Adult learner’s voice and representation of learners through elected class contacts and representatives of identifiable groups of learners – greater use should also be made of the social networking technologies now available to adult learners
• Investment in accessible facilities for learning
• Systematic feedback from users, through on site and online feedback forms;
• Flexible staff development which recognises changes in the Lifelong Learning sector;
• Light-touch quality assurance standards, along the lines of Matrix, for externally moderated self-assessment;
• Learner-centred self-assessment moderated by Ofsted inspection, with continued support from LSIS
• National learning networks and centres of excellence to share knowledge, innovation and practice in different fields of adult and community learning (e.g. citizenship, literacy, numeracy, family learning, sustainable development, etc)
• Clear progression routes made available to people engaged in any form of learning
• All adults should be encouraged to continue learning through a network of advice, guidance and motivation some of which can be developed and supported through the use of new technologies
Q13. Third sector organisations based within local communities are probably best placed to work with employers in their communities, especially SME’s who may not have existing relationships with the larger training providers
The LSEN would strongly urge BIS to explore and develop the potential relationships that could be forged in this way at a local neighbourhood level and would provide a mechanism that would not only support local people back into work but also provide post employment support at this much needed local level
Q14. Although private employers and their associations are often seen as being the single most influential voice in a dialogue about skills we also need to take account of the skills needs of public employers (from the NHS to local government and the armed services) who also need to be seen as key stakeholders, especially at a time when these very services are expected to be remodelled from a Big Society perspectives.
Adult Learning strategies that develop negotiation and empowerment skills will be crucial in these areas over the next few years.
The LSEN urges Government to consider how to encourage greater dialogue between the community and voluntary (third) sector and private sector employers so that each may learn from the best practice of the other. Relationships and links are already being established through the Work Programme and the various Prime Contractors – we need to extend these relations with private sector employers and the third sector through the Local Enterprise Partnerships.
Q15. As the Qualifications and Credit Framework (QCF) becomes more familiar, it has the potential to lead to a much-needed simplification of the landscape. This might allow a wider range of learners the opportunity to get the qualifications they need, in a way that suits them while also allowing work-based training to be nationally recognised.
The Skills Strategy may need however, to build awareness among employers to understand how the new framework differs from that of the previous system and how it offers flexibility for employers to specify the competences they need so that they may be included in qualifications,
The most significant way the Government can support the evolution of the QCF is to encourage professional bodies to contribute to its development. Given the growth in labour mobility within the European Union, the Skills Strategy needs also to ensure that the QCF (and its Scottish equivalent) interface with the European Qualifications Framework.
Q16. We need to move to a much more personalised IAG service than the present system allows. We need to make much greater use of Web 2 technologies and Cloud Computing – this will allow the development of a much more personalised IAG system that recognises the important link between health and well being and employability – much work is already happening in Manchester, which the LSEN is involved in, with regard to the submission of Framework 7 bids by the City and it’s HE Institutions to make these developments a reality
Q17. The development of personalised services will become an evident development as we move from a dependency culture to a culture of empowerment and as we move from Big Government to the Big Society. Consequently it could be viewed, some time in the future, that all learning is personalised and it is left to the market place and the individual learner, through a system of learning accounts, to buy the learning they want from the organisation they wish to purchase it from. However, such a move, as with the NHS, brings with it a wide range of monitoring issues and the LSEN would be most concerned about the protection of those disadvantaged learners who have not only missed out on learning in the early years of their lives but, as is often the case today, continue to miss out on future learning opportunities
Q18. The LSEN have worked closely with the School of Everything, which acts as a broker between teachers and learners and are aware that they provide a very useful analysis tool that can identify real learning needs in some of our communities. We would advocate greater use of Web 2 technologies in the development of these strategies which would not only reduce cost but also reach a much wider audience of both employers and learners.
Q19. The LSEN welcomes any plan that simplifies the present system but would urge the Government to recognise that large institutions, such as colleges and large training providers are often unwieldy and unable to respond quickly to local need. We would also question the sustainability of these providers in such areas and would urge the Government to consider the really valuable role voluntary and community sector providers, which are fully embedded in these communities, and have been for a substantial number of years, can play. Future policy demands that organisations work to their strengths and we all recognise that partnerships, collaborations and co-production are going to be the only way that we can move forward in the present fiscal climate.
The formation and composition of the LEPs and the smaller neighbourhood versions of the LEPs which will have to be established, if the whole process is to be effective, will be fundamental to changing the system and creating ways in which the market can be opened out to new providers from the community and voluntary sector.
Q20. Consortium developments, collaboration arrangements and co-production methodologies can be implemented, managed and funded by the very organisations themselves – with perhaps the support of an independent broker. We certainly do not need large infrastructure talking shops that go nowhere, drain resources and ultimately take the funding away from the learner. Clear partnership agreements backed up with legally based service level agreements and clear grievance and disciplinary procedures will be key to these developments. Much work has already been carried out here by the DWP on the development of the Merlin Standards
Q23. According to a recent report 16 of the most popular jobs today didn’t even exist 10 years ago. This is likely to escalate over the next few years as is the fact that people will be multi-skilled and multi-disciplined. The front end loaded model of education has brought us to our knees with great swaths of the population unable to retrain and re-enter the labour market without the use of considerable pressure, including forcing people back into work by threatening to take away their benefits. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past if we want to move from the dependency culture these policies have created to the empowerment model we all aspire to.
Only when we recognise that learning encompasses all of our lives, the social, political, environmental and economic will we be able to move this agenda forward.
The LSEN has been a partner in a number of JISC bids involving the Manchester University and its researchers – proving that technology can bring together widely differing services to create innovative services and delivery. Innovation and experimentation has the potential to bring together unusual partnerships and experimental means of learning and it is essential that this continues and its potential exploited, it also has the potential to provide learning for under represented groups such as emerging communities, the homeless, alcohol and drugs users and prisoners/ex-offenders.
Q24. There is no shortage of bodies, at present, although we recognise some of these may disappear in the near future, seeking to offer labour market information (LMI).
The UK Commission for Employment and Skills serves as the primary national ‘clearing house‘for monitoring and analysing LMI and this role is valued by NIACE. In addition Regional Observatories play an important role in the English regions by enabling access to a wide range of data and intelligence in economic, social and environmental issues. As such they encourage holistic thinking and support decision-making by providing evidence of different kinds to underpin policy.
The LSEN believes Government should ensure that the role played by the Observatories survives the winding-up of their parent Regional Development Agencies. Sector Skills Councils are required (under their terms of licence agreements) to provide up to date LMI in respect of their sectors although the quality and sophistication of analysis varies. In addition, academic and research bodies such as the Institute for Employment Studies and the Institute for Employment Research are involved as are a range of trade associations.
Q25. Employers would not use skills as a driver if they were unable to see any results from their investment, there would have to be some form of incentive in order to encourage employers to take this route, perhaps through some form of tax break, in particular for SME’s.
Q26. Whilst leadership and management skills is a given for any organisation to thrive, particularly in times of change and impending cuts, businesses should perhaps be concentrating on the development of the skills of its workforce in order to build in a resilience to times of hardship. Mangers should already have developed the skills they need to be in a management position where as some of the workforce may need support in order to develop and build confidence. This support could be provided through mentoring or coaching.
Q27. Third Sector organisations will be critical to the success of the ‘Big Society’ as many work at grassroots level within communities and often with hard to reach groups.
To form productive partnerships with Third Sector organisations it is essential that the skills and knowledge that they bring with them are fully recognised and that they are treated as an equal player in all partnerships.
It should be recognised that there are real costs to third sector organisations in maintaining an active role in such partnerships and that these costs should be factored in to any planned developments. In particular the staff development needs in both third sector and learning provider organisations will need close attention if the aspirations that we share with government are to be realised.
Developing partnerships with third sector organisations is a very welcome move but we do not believe it should be a one way street. Many third sector organisations have a great deal of specialist expertise and in some cases it will be appropriate for them to lead multi-sector partnerships. We would not want to see a system that excludes charities, social enterprises and community organisations from being the lead partners in a multi-agency partnership arrangement.
We would recommend that the DWP work with BIS to explore how the recently developed Merlin Standard can help improve partnership working and engagement with VCS organisations within BIS provider relationships.
The Merlin Standard focuses specifically on how supply chain relationships should be managed by the prime provider and looks to ensure fair payment terms are passed down the supply chain in an equitable and transparent way. The Standard monitors how a prime partner designs and builds their supply chain, and looks for areas of best practice where that prime uses the expertise of the organisations it has partnered with in planning the delivery of provision, as well as capacity building small specialist VCS organisations.
In working together, both Government departments would benefit by helping to ensure supply chain relationships are of a high standard and specialist quality provision is preserved across the skills and employability agendas.
The LSEN are working closely with LSIS on the development of specific quality improvement programmes for third sector providers which will enhance their performance and enable them to compete, on a level playing field with public and private sector providers
Q28. While recognising that there are many colleges that successfully listen to and interact with the local community this is not necessarily true of all colleges.
We would suggest that if colleges are to be used to support their local community they should draw on the expertise of those communities themselves and with staff and volunteers currently working within these communities such as community development workers and others engaged in community development and learning.
The LSEN would strongly recommend that strong partnerships and collaborative arrangement are put in place between Colleges and Third Sector Learning and Skills providers with clear SLA’s in place maximizing the expertise of both sectors in the holistic delivery of learning in communities which clearly adopt a total place, total neighbourhood approach
Colleges should seek to work with those based in the community to offer provision which reflects local needs and aspirations on terms that are agreed with community representatives.
In addition there should be a new mandate which would ensure that buildings constructed by or currently operated with public funds are made available for Informal Adult Learning at a fair economic price, such that it is non-profit making and in a sustainable manner.
Q29. Informal adult learning can be best supported by encouraging, supporting and facilitating the development of self organised groups and developing clear strategic bodies which are able to bring together a range of different delivery partners from the public, private and third sector and subsequently promote such opportunities on an area or citywide basis. The LSEN created such a model during the recent Festival of Learning delivered in Manchester.
It is vital that Local Enterprise Partnerships actively involve third sector organisations, co-operatives and social enterprises in its membership – sectors that are clearly missing from the North West LEPs established so far (following the initial research carried out by ACEVO North).
The LSEN would also welcome the active involvement of the private sector in the support and development of third sector organisations through their appointment as trustees and directors on voluntary sector management committees. This would not only strengthen these committees by providing them with a resource that can provide much needed business acumen, but would also help the private sector gain a real working knowledge of the issues and constraints that third sector organisations often face. Such engagement would also contribute to the private sectors corporate social responsibility agenda.
Q30. The most useful indicators in our view are those that enable individual adults and individual employers to make intelligent choices in relation to training opportunities. These are not necessarily the same indicators that would be chosen for performance management purposes by a funding body. For example a funding body would be interested in an overall grade summarising the institutions performance. This is of very little use to a prospective student who is interested in details relating to a specific course.
It should not be assumed that individual adults or individual employers are only or even primarily interested in outcome data. Information about the course content and details such as time, place and price can also be key. Details of the process – will it for example be taught in a classroom, a workshop or via the internet – can be critical to the decision to engage.
In a properly functioning market the need for a set of performance indicators to hold providers to account is diminished. Poor performance is rapidly punished by the market mechanism itself. The market itself also determines what constitutes poor performance; for example, a restricted choice available locally is often preferred to a richer and more cost effective offer at a distance.
Do you have any other comments that might aid the consultation process as a whole?
Please use this space for any general comments that you may have.
Comments on the layout of this consultation would also be welcomed.
• The LSEN have worked closely with a number of organisations in the development of this response and wishes to recognise this cross fertilisation of ideas by identifying those organisations where we have seen a common point of focus.
• Locally we have worked with Manchester City Council and its Local Adult Education Service (MAES), The Manchester College and the North West WEA
• Nationally we have linked our responses with NIACE, the ECA, The Community Sector Coalition and Skills Third Sector.
• Although this Word document contains Question 28 it does not appear in the PDF version of the Skills Strategy Consultation document