Priorities for Success: LSC Funding 2006/7 and 2007/8

Introduction

1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) is an independent non­-governmental organisation and charity. Its members come from a range of places where adults learn: in colleges and local community settings; in workplaces, prisons and universities as well as in their homes through the media and information technology. NIACE's work is supported by a wide range of bodies including the DfES (with which it has a formal voluntary sector compact) and other Departments of State, by the Local Government Association and by the Learning and Skills Council. The ends to which NIACE activities are directed can be summarised as being to secure more, different and better opportunities for adult learners, especially those who benefited least from their initial education.

Funding for Adult Learning

3. Priorities for Success summarises very well the Government's priorities for the Learning and Skills sector. NIACE supports the broad outcomes that these policies are intended to achieve but fears that the document may become one more missed opportunity to integrate the skills agenda with the wider role that adult learning plays in cross-cutting public policy (see for example the ODPM/SEU report Improving Services, Improving Lives, October 2005, which recognises the need for personal capacity-building and the well-researched positive link between adult learning and social capital, health and family life).

4. Adults' lives and learning are more complicated, untidy and unpredictable than those of young people in compulsory schooling or those who are extending their initial education. Adults are not simply ‘hands’ for the economy. Not fully acknowledging and addressing this simple truth seriously weakens the document. An opportunity to re-frame thinking and thus better realise the potential of more of the population appears to have been ceded to a narrower vision. Adult learning can deliver more than improved productivity and competitiveness for employers. At the same time, if allowed, it can build stronger communities, social cohesion and inclusion and cultural capacity. Finally and obviously, adult learning offers opportunities for personal growth and empowerment. All these are important public policy goals.

5. As partners in the Skills Alliance, NIACE endorses the Government's desire to equip all adults with the necessary basic skills to operate in the workplace and as citizens. NIACE continues to support the analysis of the Skills Task Force (2000) that Level 3 is the most appropriate baseline for a skills strategy but has welcomed the Level 2 entitlement as a very positive first step.

6. We also recognise that the Learning and Skills Act 2000 places different duties on the LSC in respect of learners above and below the age of 19. As a result of a bulge in the size of the 16-18 age cohort until 2009, there is increased pressure on adult budgets and that within a limited funding envelope the LSC has to make difficult choices and decisions in relation to priorities. However, while appreciating the short-term problem facing the LSC in terms of financial pressure NIACE questions the sense of reducing voluntary participation in learning by up to a million adults over the next three years (our calculation of the likely consequence of these proposals together with the ending of ESF funding in its current form).

7. We are concerned that Priorities for Success may not meet the challenge facing the economy in skilling an ageing workforce. Changing demography means that two in every three new jobs over the next ten years will be filled not by first-time entrants to the labour market but by older adults, migrant workers and women returners, particularly from minority ethnic groups.

8. Clearly the role of learning in supporting economic activity is important but NIACE regrets the lack of attention in the document to its role in meeting other government priorities in health (not least mental health), social services in relation to those outside the labour market, in prolonging healthy independent living and the agendas of the Home Office and ODPM in citizenship and neighbourhood renewal. Nor is there any mention of Treasury and DWP interest in financial education and the DWP focus on getting those on incapacity benefit back to work. The LSC has not demonstrated in this document that it wants to raise its eyes beyond its immediate silo. There is no mention either of any attempt to resolve the policy tensions in provision for unemployed people where DfES and DWP agendas pull in different direction (for example the continuing tension around the 16 hour rule).

9. These are not connections that can be encompassed under the heading of “personal and community development learning” but are mainstream matters relating to a sustainable society which need to be addressed alongside the priorities of the skills strategy.

10. While NIACE recognises the public funding pressures and welcomes some of what is proposed, we are disappointed not to see a strategy that maximises the public value of the available money. We regret that the LSC’s explicit priorities do not appear to include its statutory duty (under section 4 of the Act) to encourage participation in learning, nor the necessary outreach work to enable what is needed to happen, nor to consider how to sustain adult progression routes from further to higher education.

11. Overall we do not believe it sensible to see a reduction in the overall investment in adult learning given the productivity issues and social challenges of the next decade and will continue to call for amendments to the Learning and Skills Act 2000. We will, of course remain committed to maximising the benefits to adult learners whatever the social and political context and will maintain our commitment to supporting the maximum level of achievement for adults inside and outside the qualifications system but no-one should be under any illusions that the proposals here will be sufficient to address the challenge facing the UK.

12. NIACE welcomes the LSC view that there is a need for research, analysis and debate about rebalancing the contributions that the state, individuals and employers make to the cost of various kinds of learning. We have consistently argued for a high fee, high volume economy in post -18 education and training with appropriate remission for those who are on benefit and not able to afford to learn. We welcome the broad commitment to rebalancing investment and support fully the contention that those benefiting from learning should be expected to contribute to its costs. Thus, for learning where employers will see a payback in terms of their business from training, there should be an expectation that they will pay for it. Similarly, where individuals will see a substantial improvement in their life prospects they too should contribute significantly to the cost of the training and education provided. In addition, there is an open discussion to be had about how best the state can support learning intended to build cultural capacity, citizenship and social cohesion.

13. However, while a policy of high fees for those individuals who can afford it is a good start, comparable advice on how local providers should secure much more robust investment from employers is disappointingly absent from the document. Rebalancing will need to be backed by promotional and publicity activities aimed squarely at employers as well as individuals. NIACE would be happy to assist in this work. We believe that the importance of promotion to employers cannot be underestimated as early Sector Skills Council agreements illustrate. These show no problems in recognising the skills needs of adults but, overall, do not evidence credible plans for dealing with the issue.

14. As an organisation working with providers across the learning and skills sector, NIACE is aware that this transition will not be made without pain. More than a decade of competition between providers has had the effect of driving down fees, and while learners have benefited from cheap provision the public purse has undoubtedly replaced private investment in some places. This coupled with a focus on widening participation means that for many providers, the distance between what is being collected currently and the fee expectations set out in the paper will be very great. We are pleased to see that there will be a range of support arrangements to help providers to contend with a new fee environment and, as stated, we are happy to offer our support to the LSC on this issue. We have experience of campaigning to change views on the value of learning for adults and believe that much needs to be done to help individuals better see the cost benefits of education and training.

15. We would also hope that arrangements for the collection of fees will give providers the flexibility they need to remit fees in the interests of a real widening of participation while charging economic and realistic prices for courses that are able to generate income either because they provide visible return to the learner or employer or are perceived as a consumer good.

16. As intimated above, NIACE also believes that employers must bear their fair share of the burden and looks forward to the announcement of measures to eliminate, or at least reduce, deadweight in the extension of the National Employer Training Pilots. While it is important that employers see the value of the education and training carried out in colleges (and that colleges are able to offer effective training and continuing career development for the workforce of today and tomorrow) there is no reason why public money should displace the investment of the private sector.

17. NIACE supports in principle the proposals to cease the public funding of qualifications in food hygiene, health and safety and first aid that are primarily required for the workplace in the expectation that employers will pay for such opportunities. We hope, however, that there will be some flexibility for provider discretion in this area. We know that such courses also attract disadvantaged learners outside the labour market who wish to improve their employability. For this reason we believe a blanket cessation (rather than an expectation) would cut off a vehicle for attracting harder-to-reach unqualified individuals that offers the prospect of motivating them to pursue further qualification-based learning at level 2 and beyond.

18. Historically NIACE has taken a special interest in adult education for personal and community development and we are particularly pleased to see that, in the face of many competing pressures, the government and the LSC have sought to preserve a specific budget for this purpose and the allied areas for family learning and neighbourhood learning. Without this safeguard NIACE believes that learning for personal pleasure, cultural enrichment and community action would find it difficult to survive in a system where skills for work are such a strong priority. We do, however continue to believe that skills leak across the divide between the personal and the work environment and too great a silo approach should be avoided. The preservation of funding for learning for personal development gives hope of a continuing aspiration to build the kind of learning society envisaged in The Learning Age (1998) and in the LSC’s first remit letter.

19. Having outlined the particular areas where we feel that this document is helpful to adult learners and the development of good quality opportunities for them, there are a number of proposals made in the document which we feel are mistaken and which will damage rather than contribute to the aims of the Skills Strategy.

Level 2, basic skills, outreach and connectivity – some concerns

20. NIACE believes, on first reading, that the LSC approach is over-focussed on the proxies of qualifications and targets when we believe it should instead start from how learning fits in with and makes a difference to people’s achievement at work and outside it.

21. The entitlement to a first “full, fat” level 2 qualification is symbolically important, politically attractive and broadly welcome. The problem however, is that (apart from young adults with few responsibilities and workers lucky enough to be given substantial time for study at work) the current arrangements are unlikely to be accessible to many of the adults who need to achieve a level 2 qualification. There is as yet no developed strategy for attracting even the target groups highlighted above - let alone anything to support part-time routes to the same qualification before the credit framework is in place, nor to allow ‘top-ups” (for example for a 19-year-old student wishing to acquire a fifth GCSE or to complete a course of study started at 18). The need for the reform of qualifications as set out in the Framework for Achievement has never been more urgent.

22. Even if all funding for adult learning were concentrated upon the entitlement groups, there would still be insufficient public funding to achieve the Level 2 target. At Skills Alliance meetings representatives of small employers have insisted time and time again that it is “just in time” fit for purpose learning that works for them in the same way that NIACE research shows that workers prefer incremental work based learning. The risk is that too rigid a focus on qualifications here may inhibit the real relationship between employers and providers needed to achieve the skills the country wants and needs.

23. Our second concern is also about qualifications and relates to Basic Skills.

24. NIACE warmly welcomed the original Skills for Life target because it had embedded within it a relationship in which 750,000 people who gained a qualification were accompanied by 1,700,000 who improved their basic skills within the national curriculum framework but outside the qualifications arena. That recognised the qualifications were only appropriate goals for a proportion of learners with basic skills needs.

25. Achieving the targets for 2007-2010 will require an approach that reaches harder-to-reach under-represented groups who have further to travel than has been the case to date. Our worry is that too narrow a focus on qualifications (rather than engagement) will lead to the target not being reached. Most worrying though is that the document says nothing about embedding basic skills within other qualifications nor offers any strategy for overcoming the dramatic shortfall in provision for ESOL. We are surprised too that Professor John Bynner’s research evidence that a key focus for basic skills work needs to be below entry level 2 is unrecognised.

26. NIACE is also very concerned at the proposal to discontinue the funding of learning aims met through short courses across the Council’s provision and has a number of points in connection with this proposal.

27. Firstly we would welcome clarification that this is not intended to cover provision made within the “safeguarded” budget for personal and community development learning. The paper does not set out the rules in relation to the safeguarded sum saying only that full proposals will be developed in due course. Very short courses are a feature of such provision, offering not only a taste of learning for those trying out participation but also a range of workshops, day-schools and courses in specific aspects of subjects that can be expected to generate income to cover all direct costs and more. Where providers need to balance fee income targets with a breadth of participation, we believe that a priority of Personal and Community Development should be to reach a wide range of communities, not simply those most able to pay. Restricting provision to long courses ties providers’ hands and must be seen as counter productive.

28. Secondly, although the paper asserts that very short courses have limited benefits in terms of progression for learners NIACE is convinced that they have a vital role to play in outreach, particularly among disadvantaged communities. This belief is supported by evidence from the evaluations of the Government’s Adult and Community Learning Fund (1998-2004). NIACE’s own experience in administering the Fund and with supporting “non-schedule 2” work before then shows clearly that many learners will not commit to longer courses on the first or even the second occasion but that with proper support they do build the confidence to progress.

29. Under current arrangements we believe that a substantial proportion of outreach activity is often funded through the short course mechanism. If it is ended without an alternative in place then attracting hard-to-reach learners and encouraging them to progress will be harder. It is certain that many will not move directly to mainstream long courses or into preparation for a full Level 2. This is something that came to be recognised by Conservative ministers a decade ago. A means of funding outreach is required outside the framework of engagement with employers - not least to target the large number of people on incapacity benefit. We do not see any indication in these proposals of how this need will be met and without it we judge that long-term targets in terms of Level 2 will not be met.

30. Our concern that insufficient funding will be applied to engaging learners and securing early steps to progression is not allayed by the contention that, in spite of a reduction of £73 million in the budget for provision that is internally certified or falls outside the National Qualification Framework “there will be substantial funding remaining to ensure that there is adequate progression learning available in each area and to meet the need of people with learning difficulties and /or disabilities” (paragraph 57). NIACE believes that a reduction of this kind will reduce the raft of opportunities available to adult learners entering the system, that the combination of reduction on this scale and increasing fees will reduce viability and thus the range of options on offer. We anticipate there will be real long term damage as a result of it and are unconvinced that adults will enrol immediately in large numbers for a first full level 2 qualification no matter that the provision is free. We are not convinced that sufficient adults will find this provision attractive and we believe that there needs to be further debate with providers about how they see the Level 2 priority being best met within their communities and how funding should be directed to attain this end.

31. A further concern is about connectivity. We are concerned that a wider range of provision is at risk than is recognised by the LSC. As noted above (paragraphs 3 and 4), learning for personal and community development and “other” further education have an impact upon more public policies than the skills strategy. Family learning funded by the LSC for example needs to integrate with policies developed elsewhere in DfES for children. In addition, the contribution adult learning makes to mental health, regeneration, older people’s learning to name but three suggests that the LSC might do more to connect its priorities to those of other Departments of State in order to identify opportunities for synergy – something that is understated in this document. We believe that the LSC should have a mechanism to channel funding to address wider Government priorities where adult learning makes a contribution and where the skills strategy priorities are not enough.

Conclusion

32. As the above analysis makes clear, NIACE is willing and ready to support the application of the LSC’s proposals for the benefit of adult learners. We recognise that the LSC must live within its budgets and that Government has a set of clear priorities. Nevertheless, we are concerned that too narrow a focus on work leading to LSC targets and too narrow a focus within DfES on short-term measures relating to the economy may lead to a sharp deterioration in opportunities for adult learners in England just at the time when we need them to be enriched and expanded. Of course we must spend what funding is available to be best effect, but NIACE would be failing in its duty to learners if we did not point out that increased investment is essential.