Financial Support for Adult Learners
Introduction
NIACE, the National Organisation for Adult Learning, welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the review of financial support for adult learners. ("the Wanless review").
Building a coherent framework for supporting adult learning is an essential aspect of creating a learning society and the Secretary of State’s requirement that the framework be guided by the principles of social equity, efficiency, value for money and consistency of support is welcome. We believe, however, that there should be a further requirement – that of simplicity: The more sophisticated the mechanisms devised to cover every eventuality, the less likely they are to attract prospective learners whose commitment is not firm. As Mr Wanless knows, through his leadership of the Adult Financial Literacy Group, the 1.5 million households which make no use of any financial services and the 3 million people without a bank or building society account are unlikely to be attracted by ILAs or loans for learning.
While we understand the short- and medium-term political reasons for the review to not include higher education, we believe that this is a weakness. The boundary between the content of further and higher education is becoming increasingly fluid and permeable and ring-fencing HE is unhelpful in the longer-term if a comprehensive framework of recurrent education and training is to be achieved. Long-term planning of funding for lifelong learning should not be constrained by stages any more than ages.
Although we broadly welcome the eleven principles set out by Derek Wanless to guide his thinking, we believe that these may need to be applied flexibly (for example when applied to older learners who are at, above, or nearing retirement age and who wish to enter higher education).
NIACE was pleased to be invited by the Department for Education and Employment to contribute to the Scenario Planning Workshop in October 2000. This response considers nine specific questions, which we understand to be of particular interest to the review. NIACE is happy to comment further on these or on any other matters as required.
1. What is needed to make choice in learning a reality for the most disadvantaged?
We believe that the notion of a financial entitlement or credit, ring-fenced for voluntary learning, is the most powerful incentive through which the least confident learners can be encouraged to take up opportunities. The model of the Ford Motor Company’s Employee Development and Assistance Programme is of proven effectiveness in empowering learners, giving them the confidence to take their first steps as self-directed learners. Almost ten years ago, there was considerable support within the Labour Party for the notion of a financial entitlement to learn for the least well-qualified older people. It is important to note that the notion of an "entitlement" is considerably less intimidating than the idea of having to open an "Account".
Although we are aware that the recommendations of the final Skills Task Force report were not endorsed by the recent NACETT report "Aiming Higher", we believe that the difficulties suggested by NACETT are not insurmountable and that the Task Force proposals deserve to be developed more thoroughly.
While a time entitlement (through arrangements for paid educational leave) would be an alternative, we believe that a financial entitlement would be easier to target upon the most materially or educationally disadvantaged.
What is essential however, is the provision of independent information, advice and guidance. While learndirect has an important role to play here, there is no substitute for face-to-face engagement of people on an outreach basis. During the passage of the Learning and Skills Act, NIACE argued that each Local LSC should establish such an outreach team able to take on such a role. Such workers need not be expensive professionals: The success of the TUC in training 2000 lay "Learning Representatives" to take on this front-line role shows what is possible.
2. How much do disadvantaged learners rely on an infrastructure for learning?
Where adults are unconvinced of the value of learning and have few or no positive experiences of learning, the sort of support arrangements described above is essential. Confirmation of the value of learning from a person’s peers in the community or workplace helps overcome suspicion and apprehension. Whether or not this constitutes an "infrastructure" is unclear – but support for advisers or mentors whose support is free at the point of use is a crucial requirement.
3. At what level/stage are loans appropriate?
We do not believe that loans are often appropriate for "first-step" engagements in learning – even if leading to a person’s first qualification at or below level 3. Where adults have had some successful experience of post-compulsory education and training and have begun to appreciate the value and benefits of learning, loans start to become a more appropriate mechanism to help fund a repeat engagement.
4. What promotional tools for encouraging learning and transfer of learning into a consumer good/lifestyle choice would need to be funded
Since 1992, NIACE has co-ordinated the UK’s annual Adult Learners’ Week (and in more recent years, the September and January "Sign Up Now" and "Sign Up Again" campaigns) to stimulate demand for learning. In so doing, we have sought to acknowledge learners’ complex and diverse reasons for undertaking education and training. On the basis of this experience, we would be cautious about over-promoting learning as a consumer good and lifestyle choice. In the eyes of economists learning is in some respects both an investment good, a positional good and a consumption good – and while some benefits of learning accrue to individuals, others also accrue to society as a whole.
5. How can employers be compelled to invest in training for all workers, especially the low-paid and temporary?
NIACE supports the arguments made by NAGCELL for a minimal regulatory framework (analogous to that for Health and Safety) which would require all employers above a certain threshold to abide by a 'Code of Good Practice for Workplace Learning'. The Code would set out guidelines and minimum standards for the promotion of workplace learning. It could contain three principal components to encouraging partnership and learning development at the workplace.
First, the Code would propose the production of Workplace Policy Statements, drawn up by employers and setting out clearly their commitment to, and objectives for, workplace learning and an indication of how the objectives are to be achieved.
Secondly, the Code would promote the establishment of Workplace Learning Committees or 'Forums', with equal representation from the employer and employees, with responsibility for developing and monitoring progress in achieving the objectives of the Policy Statement.
Thirdly, from this process, the Code could support the conclusion of Workplace Learning Agreements, or 'Compacts', between employers, employees and their representative organisations aimed at developing a learning culture for all at work. Such Learning Agreements or Compacts would define rights and responsibilities, in relation to workplace learning, for both employees and employers.
In the first instance, the specific requirements of the Code of Good Practice might be expected to apply to employers and organisations above an appropriate size, but all employers would be expected to engage in communication and consultation with employees on the Policy Statement on workplace learning.
NIACE believes that there is also an important role for role for National Training Organisations. While we would not advocate a return to the grant/levy system of the old-style Industrial Training Boards, we would welcome the introduction of incentives to encourage the development of voluntary levy systems – similar to that which exists for technical training in the film and broadcasting sector. There may also be some merit in the sort of transferable training loan schemes that are being established in the gas industry with the support of the NTO.
While recognising that the consolidation of NTOs may hold up progress, we would suggest that, the Secretary of State should review progress towards voluntary arrangements in three years time consider legislating for powers to intervene in sectors where insufficient progress has been made.
6. Should there be a pool of funding from employers where SMEs are not investing that employees can access to ensure that they receive training?
See above.
7. What can be done about low-paid contract workers and low-income self-employed workers needs to access training and development?
We believe that locally-organised initiatives have the greatest potential to attract workers in these circumstances. NIACE is attracted to the potential of credit union initiatives and the kind of mutualist Collective Learning Funds pioneered by the TUC especially in North West England. We are aware however, that the Registrar of Friendly Societies might have concerns about too rapid an expansion of the sector without very careful planning.
8. What arrangements should there be for the funding of training for unemployed adults
While it is likely that the primary funding route for the training of unemployed people will remain the New Deal, we would urge that the offering made to individuals should remain open to development and refinement with the potential for building on successful experiments and pilots. We believe, however, that New Deal should not be the ONLY arrangement open to unemployed people who wish to learn additionally and alternatively. In particular, we believe that the extension of Individual Learning Accounts to unemployed people should be piloted and monitored.
9. What should the relationship be between the benefits system and support for learners?
NIACE believes that the benefit system should not be used as a back-door form of student support for people in full-time education. We believe that there should be a "learning allowance" paid to those not in employment who are undertaking a legitimate learning activity that will increase employability. This is a model already successful for young people in the new EMA’s which have been piloted. This will obviate the difficulties experienced around the 16 hour rule and availability to work making the improvement of skills a recognised part of the drive to improve employment prospects.
Sensitive and sensible options and means of maintaining such a system would of course need to be developed. There should be transitional arrangements to enable those in work and studying part-time to complete their study if they lose their jobs and for those leavers on "learning allowance" to complete their studies if they are unable to access a suitable job prior to completion of their course.
Where learners are on benefit, we believe that in addition to fee remission, they should be eligible for support towards examination fees, transport, essential materials and childcare costs.
Conclusion
We would be pleased to meet with the Review group to discuss any aspect of this response. Please contact Alan Tuckett (Director) if this is of interest.
NIACE
21 De Montfort Street
Leicester
LE1 7GE
November 2000
