Organisation and Policy: Influencing Public Policy: Archive
Learning Works
(the Kennedy report)
A NIACE Response
Published: June 1999
1. NIACE is enthusiastic about Learning Works which concerns itself with what we consider our main policy focus - the inclusion of more and different adult learners in education and training. In general we support the recommendations of the report and would wish to endorse them. In particular we are in full support of the underpinning belief contained in it that a fundamental redistribution of funding for education post 16 is needed if we are to have a real Learning Society. This will require new money but new money will not be enough to secure what is needed given the inevitable need to compete with other priorities. We see a very major difficulty in winning the argument that funding should be redistributed so that the proportion of costs met by the state are increased in Further Education and those borne by individuals increased in Higher Education but support the contention that this is necessary if the entitlement contained within Learning Works is to be delivered. There is also a need to prioritise within Further Education if the goal of widening participation is to be achieved.
2. NIACE supports the proposal that the Government should launch a new campaign to encourage learning but we would hope that such a campaign would be focused particularly on those learners who have not participated and particularly on the large mass of adults who have not got any qualifications rather than appealing to those who are already learning. We think that such a campaign should be organised and funded to ensure that the mass media, particularly television, could be used effectively in the encouragement of learning. We remain convinced that the National Targets would be stronger for having an explicit commitment to involving everybody. We recognise this would involve improving data collection and measurement tools but is an essential underpinning to a learning culture. To be meaningful such a target would need balancing with national, regional and local institutional and sectoral targets. NIACE is anxious that all learning is valued and has been concerned at the damage that the division created by Schedule 2 and non-schedule 2 has created in this respect. We would not wish to see this problem made worse. However, we agree that an annual report on progress in widening participation in the Further Education Sector would be a useful commitment on the part of the Council to monitoring the efforts of the sector in this regard.
3. We are in favour of the idea of lottery funding to support the an increase in provision for learning provided that this was not a short term proposal with a limited life span. As Learning Works points out efforts to widen participation have been dogged by short termism. A very large amount of short term money is not what is needed, what is necessary is significant reliable funding over a period of time. We would wish to see methods for delivering funding also being different from the short term bidding which has characterised funding in the past. For this reason we have some reservations in relation to the proposal for regional and sub-regional Learning Regeneration Funds if they become the major lever for change. Currently single regeneration budgets are increasingly being used to support learning and training but these do remain short term funding initiatives with unwieldy and bureaucratic access and monitoring mechanisms. It seems to us that the emphasis should be on long term mainstream funding rather than further pots of money whose competitive bidding processes and individual monitoring systems absorb energy which could be focused on provision. Any such system should be straightforward and comprehensible to those for whom it is provided . NIACE has campaigned consistently for the tax system to be used to support learning and would wish to see tax incentives for employers to encourage their interest in training and staff development.
4. We fully support prioritising the widening of participation within the post 16 agenda. We would want to see public funding concentrated on this activity and on the support of those who have not attained level 3 qualifications. NIACE regards the choice of level 3 qualifications as an appropriate one but would hope that the meaning of this terms is level 3 or equivalent as without a national credit framework many students, and particularly adults are studying for qualifications which are not predicated on NVQ levels. We would agree that study to level three or below should, so far as possible be free and that it should receive priority in terms of public subsidy. Priority in free provision should be given to those in receipt of benefits and, more broadly, those who are socially and economically deprived, those who have basic skills needs and young adults.
5. NIACE is committed to the concept of partnership in delivery of educational opportunities and believes that the kinds of strategic partnerships suggested in Learning Works, and which have begun to develop in a number of "Learning Cities" in Britain offer exciting opportunities to extend participation. There are a number of current proposals which involve the creation of collaborative partnerships including the New Deal and Learning Information Networks. We feel that it is important that this move towards partnership does not result in a chaotic series of partnerships overlaying a chaotic funding and delivery structure. We feel that in the long term partnerships should not be closely tied to a particular educational sector and that they might be led by any one of a number of key players in a locality, one of which might be a Further Education provider. If the Government, rather than the Council were to promote such partnerships it would, we believe, enhance the co-operation of partners in a number of sectors. We also feel that if Regional Government is to become a reality in Britain the representation of further education in regional structures will need to be considered to enable the key relationship between widening participation in education and training and economic regeneration to be adequately represented. We therefore support a strong and consistent policy framework to support learning being developed by the government.
6. We are happy with the proposal that local education authorities should be encouraged to produce plans for their securing of adequate non-schedule 2 provision and believe that this should be a requirement. We are interested in the development of a definition of adequacy in this area. We are concerned that any assumption by the Council of responsibility for non-schedule 2 work without such a definition might result in local education authorities with pressure on their budgets withdrawing from provision still further where current commitment is not strong. Nevertheless we recognise that the interests of learners may be best served if the Council does, where other options are exhausted, use its powers under the 1992 Act to secure adequate provision in those curriculum areas not covered by its duties in order to secure widening participation and broad progression routes.
7. A closer relationship between strategic planning and needs identification would be a first step in focusing the attention of Colleges more closely on the widening participation agenda. We support the proposal to increase community representation in college governance but believe that the processes for achieving such representation will need to be absolutely transparent.
8. We would support the proposal to encourage employers to provide Learning Centres although we are aware of the challenge represented in this area so far as it relates to small and medium enterprises. We believe that to work with employers to encourage training and development among their staff should include encouragement to develop opportunities for employee development outside the vocational frame.
9. We very much welcome the Council’s proposal to reform its own funding mechanism and we are particularly glad to see the use of postcodes for the identification of disadvantage until the development of more sophisticated indicators can take place. We are also pleased to see that the means of funding childcare is to be reconsidered as current methods have been too inflexible to be useful. However, access funds are, as stated, far too low and removing the current restrictions will be of little use unless they are significantly increased i.e. by more than the childcare funds. We agree that the whole system of support for students needs to be reformed and would see reform of the benefit system as it relates to learning as a vital part of such a process.
10. NIACE supports the concept of the Learning Pathway and believes that the development of such a pathway could form an important link with other government initiatives for moving those on benefit into learning which have a guidance and support function as an initial phase. As an example the Learning pathway could form an important part of the "New Deal" for those over 25.
11. The Council will be aware that NIACE has been concerned for some time to promote the building of a CATS system. We would wish such a system to be rigorous and demanding in terms of standards but also flexible and responsive to the very different needs and contexts of learners. We feel any system which is to encourage learning rather than provide a barrier must embrace such differences. We share the belief that recognition of interim achievement and small units of accreditation are useful in keeping non-traditional learners engaged.
12. We have already stated that we believe that the focus for public money should those least able to pay and we have no objection to those able to contribute to their own learning being asked to pay a higher proportion of the cost. Franchising of provision has been very successful in widening participation but we would wish care to be taken in this area, for funding to be directed to franchising at level 3 and below and for the rules in relation to the displacement of private money to be forcefully applied.
13. NIACE has campaigned for the development of a coherent national system for guidance over a long time and is happy that Learning Works supports that case.
14. We are also delighted with the proposals in Learning Works in relation to the media and to the use of television as a tool to increase participation. The new BBC Committed Learner project which encourages students to move from watching programmes to finding out about courses and attending them seems to be an interesting example of such strategies which could be extended and developed in a number of ways. We believe that all television channels should have a duty to educate and to promote participation in learning. We also support the idea of a Learning Charter post 16.
15. With regard to taking learning to the learner and the new technology recommendation NIACE believes that there is a vital need to ensure that learning opportunities are available in community settings but is also concerned that this does not mean that students in community based provision do not receive an inferior service to those who learn on major institutional sites. There has been some evidence of this in inspection reports of Council provision and in Ofsted reports on provision in LEAs. We believe that "outreach" provision may need to be funded at a premium to ensure that this does not happen and the increasing development of educational technology may make this even more the case. This may form an important strand in the redeployment of resources to widen participation which institutions may not find easy to adopt. We would hope that the Further Education Sector will have a key role to play in the University for Industry.
Page first published June 1999