LSC Adult Literacy and Numeracy Plan

An early NIACE Response

Published: February 2002

NIACE welcomes and raises concerns about the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) Adult Literacy and Numeracy Plan, launched last week in Birmingham. It is helpful that the national LSC gives a clear lead to local LSCs as they work with local basic skills providers in the 47 local LSC areas. It is also important that the national LSC bring cohesion to the work done locally so that the same standards apply throughout the country from one LSC to another.

Each local LSC has a designated officer responsible for basic skills who will take responsibility for a local delivery plan. Some have a background in basic skills and others are new to the area of work. Some officers have this as their sole area of work and for others it is only part of their responsibilities. For these reasons it is most welcome that the national LSC is taking a strong lead and asking for the highest standards in the local delivery plans.

What's in the Delivery Plan

The LSC Adult Literacy and Numeracy Delivery Plan covers all provision for the literacy, language and numeracy needs of post-16 learners, including those with learning difficulties or disabilities. The provision extends from pre-entry level to level 2, and covers key skills to level 2 as well. The Plan also addresses provision whether as discrete basic skills courses or embedded basic skills as part of a vocational course, part-time or full-time.

The nine sections include:

A number of annexes and appendices are attached, to cover minimum local ranges for targets, what counts towards achievement, and guidance on the production of local LSC Delivery Plans.

Strengths of the Delivery Plan

The Delivery Plan has, as its first chapter, details of the wide range of partners with whom the LSC will work to deliver basic skills and achieve the Skills for Life targets. There is a clear understanding that, whilst the LSC will be the main funder of basic skills, there are other agencies in the field that have expertise in basic skills and also key partners who will help the LSC reach the priority groups identified in Skills for Life. This co-operative approach and open attitude is most helpful and one which will be conducive to effective provider networks if translated into local action.

We also recognise as a key strength the high profile given to meeting the needs of priority groups. Paragraph 1.5 states "The Council is engaged in strategies to increase participation in learning by those who have hitherto been hard to recruit and to drive up the quality of the learning experience". This is very important. The national basic skills strategy must be seen to meet the needs of people who most need it and not 'cherry pick' by counting towards the target more able and confident learners achieving at a higher level.

NIACE further supports the emphasis on capacity building with new providers in the voluntary sector (para 1.6 and 2.10). Recognising the limitations of the service so far to significantly reach disadvantaged learners, the LSC states that "by working with and building capacity in small community based voluntary organisations, new learners can be engaged."

We are pleased to see the proposals to "increase ways in which literacy and numeracy can be made integral to other provision and can be embedded in vocational programmes." (para 2.7) This type of embedded provision, especially in the workplace, will make basic skills more attractive to the reluctant leaner, more relevant to the everyday needs of the employee and ultimately a more effective teaching and learning process. The Council intends to build on the success of the non-Schedule 2 pilot programme and this is most welcome.

Following on from this work, we are pleased to see the LSC intends to develop ways to measure progress on programmes that are not accredited in order to report nationally on learners' achievements on these programmes. This is indeed a strength.

Most importantly, the LSC stresses the central issue of equality of opportunity.
(para 1.7) "The learner is placed at the centre of the Council's approach to raising standards in literacy and numeracy. Therefore, the highest priority will be given to identifying and meeting the needs of learners". (para 6.1)

Concerns

NIACE feels the Delivery Plan has some weaknesses. For example, including the achievement of GCSE English and Maths towards the targets confuses the issue, and has no place in a Delivery Plan for Adult Literacy and Numeracy. The focus needs to be on the adult learners who need provision most and this should not include young school leavers taking their GCSEs for the second time. Further confusion is caused as the meeting of national targets and what will count towards those targets is different from and yet inextricably linked with recording the achievement of learners. The former is quantitative and the latter is both quantitative and qualitative. The inclusion of GCSE seems to run counter to the spirit of paragraph 1.5, referenced above, on the importance of targeting the hard to recruit learners.

There is insufficient emphasis on the needs of learners with learning difficulties or disabilities and no reference to Freedom to Learn in Annex 1 on Authoritative Sources. The failure to recognise that achievements can be much more than qualifications will impact on this group of learners in particular.

We do not understand why paragraph 3.1 refers to learners over 19 years in courses of key skills in communication and application of number. Since the rest of the document applies to post 16 provision, this may cause confusion. Similarly, confusion may arise regarding what is funded and what counts towards the national and local LSC targets. Providers may assume from this document that funding relates strictly to the national targets.

The requirement for each local LSC to write a local basic skills delivery plan for this year is most welcome. It focuses attention on this key area and encourages the local LSCs to plan strategically instead of simply continuing funding of existing providers.
We are disappointed to see that there will be no requirement in future to write a separate delivery plan and that literacy and numeracy plans will be subsumed within local LSCs' overall strategic plans. There is no more important area of adult learning than basic skills at present. We must give support to long term strategic planning and ask local LSCs to address this area of work separately. There is no quick fix to the issue of basic skills, to do it properly we must take the longer view.

Conclusion

We welcome the discourse between the national LSC and the other key agencies involved in basic skills. The basic skills newsletter produced by the LSC national basic skills team and the seminars and conference on the delivery plan have demonstrated a commitment to openness and communication. The benefits of communicating effectively - with other agencies, providers, practitioners and learners - will be improved delivery of basic skills nationally and locally. NIACE hopes to continue as a critical friend to the national LSC in this process.

Top of page