Strategic Area Reviews

Comments:

The toolkit for the review should clearly state that it is for guidance and not a template to be used by each Local LSC. However, we believe that some clear guidance may be needed about minimum levels of provision in those areas that are not subject to government targets, most particularly non-certificated learning opportunities for adults. Such provision may be threatened by concentration of resources on the targets leaving access routes for the most disadvantaged compromised and general learning opportunities, needed to maintain learning habits among all groups, severely diminished.

Comments:

We believe that the focus for area reviews is appropriate although we believe that there is a need to consider, alongside the volume and type of education, the participation profile of those engaging in education and training. It would be excellent if a review of local participation patterns was a part of the process. We think it should be made clear that the reviews are a recurring event driving up participation quality and achievement over time, not one off events providing a snapshot of local provision. We also feel that not enough is made of the potential in area reviews to assess the balance of provision nationally as well as locally.

One of the purposes of such reviews should be to give the LSC nationally a picture of provision across England and the anomalies and commonalities that exist in this picture. Without this national perspective there is a risk of a very different range of opportunities being available to adult learners in different areas. We believe it is important that there is a national baseline of provision that all learners should expect to have available to them, which can be built on locally to meet specific local needs. Our experience in observing the effects of adult education delivered to local agendas by local authorities and colleges without such a baseline is very unequal delivery across the country, meaning unequal access for learners. A national system must be in balance with local autonomy.

Comments:

Comments:

We believe that Local LSCs should be given maximum flexibility in how reviews are carried out subject to guidance on major stakeholders to be consulted, and some guidance on baselines of provision as mentioned above. However, we think the National Office will need to advise on the collection of information and reporting arrangements. As mentioned in the Circular, there will need to be a means to deal with National Contractors and specialist providers. Consideration of the capacity and potential impact of National Voluntary Organisations should form a part of this process.

We believe it is important to ensure that the views of potential learners are represented in consultation. Continuing consultation should be expected to include this aspect and not merely to involve consultation with groups already engaged with the LSC. Use of locally available consultation mechanisms, citizens’ panels and the like should be encouraged. It is also important to obtain the views of employees and efforts should be made to include those from small and non-unionised firms.

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

Comments:

We would like to make some specific comments on the issue of the review of provider mission on the basis of the paragraphs on this in the Circular and the toolkit document produced by LSDA on the issue. It is clear from the toolkit that work on mission will need to be carried out with a view to context and policy (both local and national).

It is also apparent that for institutions the process of mission review is critical. Taking internal stakeholders’ views into account is vital as is securing commitment to the vision. This process does appear quite time consuming if it is to be carried out in an appropriate fashion.

Institutions will be aware that Local LSC’s, along with locally determined needs, will have a particular driver in reviewing provision in the delivery of the government’s targets. In terms of adult learners this means the level 2 target and the Basic Skills targets. The LSC’s adult participation target will be of key interest although it is likely to have less priority than the PSA targets. Providers will be only too aware that funding follows targets.

Given this context, Local LSCs will need to be very clear at an early stage about what kind of provision they see as likely to form the building blocks in terms of area planning. If the concentration is on targets alone, then mission will follow this lead. No provider will place their institution in a place where they are unlikely to obtain funding. Yet it is clear that within the range of providers, different provision exists with strengths and weaknesses being held within individual institutions and some gaps where new providers are needed.

If, as the Circular suggests, differentiated missions - and consequent provision are to be sought than the Local LSC must be prepared to indicate the different strands it expects to fund for the area prior to mission review, so that institutions are able to define the context and work with their strengths. This will hopefully give institutions the confidence to do this.

The perverse incentive in mission review is for providers to ally their missions alongside the narrow targets to guarantee funding reducing the broad raft of provision necessary to meet those targets and to meet local need outside the specific target areas. The Local LSC will not be well served by this nor will institutions find it easy to build support from within for such a process. There is a particular risk here for general non-certificated adult learning delivered by Further Education Colleges.

In rural areas it will be important to work towards more general missions than in urban centres where differentiation can more easily be accommodated. For adults in rural areas, learning alongside 16 - 19 year olds may be essential.

The second point to emphasise is the need to build capacity in Local LSC staff. We consider the timetable very challenging if there is to be the kind of staff development that is needed. It is apparent that while many LSC staff are familiar with contract management in work based provision, far less have experience in the Further Education Sector. Engaging in area reviews with colleges and community based providers - particularly where challenge may well be required, will need staff with knowledge of Further Education as well as negotiating skills.