Organisation and Policy: Influencing Public Policy: Archive
TECs: Meeting the Challenge of the Millennium
A NIACE Response
Published: September 1998
Since their creation in 1990/91, NIACE has worked alongside the TECs in promoting and developing more, better and different approaches to lifelong learning and has welcomed the catalytic role which some TECs have played in fostering local partnerships. In particular, we have welcomed the energy and commitment which the TEC movement as a whole has brought to the development of the annual Adult Learners’ Week co-ordinated by NIACE. Over the past eight years we have undertaken contracts for individual TECs, supported TECs under contract to DfEE, and initiated the Consortium of Rural TECs. There are currently twelve TECs in membership of NIACE. We welcome therefore the opportunity to contribute to the Government’s review.
While this response does consider the six challenges set out by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, this is preceded by a number of more general comments.
1. ACCOUNTABILITY AND CREDIBILITY
Since their creation, TECs have suffered from a lack of credibility in some quarters because of a perceived lack of democratic accountability compared to other agencies - in particular local authorities. While the years have seen a gradual broadening of the base of TEC board memberships (most of which now include trade union officers for example, although public sector employers remain under-represented) this factor still undermines TECs’ ability to assume local leadership roles - particularly with regard to strategic planning. There is also an issue about the level of reserves which some TECs have accumulated. It was clearly not the intention of Parliament that substantial amounts of public finance should be locked away in this manner. We believe that TECs might be more accountable if each were obliged to include at least one elected member representative (nominated by the Local Government Association).
We are concerned, however, that in some ways audit has taken the place of accountability. The degree of red-tape under which TECs operate is, in our view, excessive and poorly focussed.
TECs also face problems in the way they are able to relate to large national or transnational employers. The local variations which represent a source of strength can, at the same time, be a weakness in securing the support and engagement of large organisations.
2. QUALITY AND CONSISTENCY
Monitoring carried out by Government suggests that there are wide variations both in TEC performance and in value for money. While the best TECs are visionary and efficient this does not appear to be the case for all. Although there is a degree of local flexibility and autonomy is desirable, it appears that the gap between "good" and "bad" TECs is a problem which may require a more interventionist role for the Training Standards Council.
3. CLARITY OF ROLE
There is a tension between TECs’ roles in securing the delivery of publicly-funded training programmes and in promoting enterprise. The mismatch between the proportion of TEC income which comes from managing the local delivery of national training initiatives and that contracted for other purposes skews public perceptions and makes it harder for TEC boards to promote economic development and enterprise within their areas. The review might usefully distinguish those areas where TECs are expected to offer strategic leadership and those where this should be the responsibility of another body.
4. THE SIX CHALLENGES
Challenge One: Creating an internationally competitive economy
While TECs have a responsibility to contribute to this challenge we do not believe that relatively small local bodies can be expected to play a leading role. Regional Development Agencies are a more appropriate sub-national unit to co-ordinate and focus TEC work in this field.
Challenge Two: Raising standards of education and training
TECs have relatively little of value to add to raising standards in comparison with the FEFC Inspectorate or Ofsted. The need for FE corporations to secure TEC approval of their strategic plans, for example, represents unnecessary bureaucracy and the routing of funding for education through TECs diminishes value for money. The credibility of some TECs among colleges and universities is not high and there is, again, a strong case for strategic guidance and planning to occur at regional rather than local level. TECs do, however, have a potentially valuable role in raising standards in education institutions through better evaluation and wider dissemination of the monitoring information and data they collect.
Challenge Three: Promoting lifelong learning
A number of TECs have developed an important and valuable role in this territory - in particular in the field of workplace-led learning and employee development. NIACE is grateful to many TECs for their support of Adult Learners’ Week. TEC involvement in the Investors in People programme is also valuable. Across England and Wales, however, the degree of commitment to the promotion of lifelong learning appears to be patchy.
Challenge Four: Moving People from welfare to work
Securing the local delivery of central initiatives lies at the heart of the TEC mission. It is one function which they perform that could not easily be bettered or replaced.
Challenge Five: Tackling deprivation and social exclusion
While this is an important role for TECs, it is not apparent why they should have a leadership role. This is perhaps an area where local government (with its statutory powers in regard to social services and housing, for example) is better-placed to take a strategic leadership role. TECs’ ability to mobilise business activity and commitment can play a valuable part in supporting this.
Challenge Six: Regenerating local economies
There is an important role for TECs in this area, working in partnership with local authorities and co-ordinated by Regional Development Agencies. The particular role that TECs can play with regard to small businesses is of particular value and NIACE believes that closer links between TECs and Chambers of Commerce should be encouraged. We would also welcome the strengthening of the TEC role in data collection and labour market analysis to better inform local planning.
NIACE, September 1998