Post-16 Learning Targets- Proposals for the Spending Review 2004

i) Lack of clarity
The consultation paper suggests the creation of new PSA targets without explaining clearly how the current or future targets are to be reported upon. It is extremely difficult for the public to find out how well the government is doing against targets it has already set. It is hard to see how the consultation paper ‘reduces’ targets to report on when the three for young people, for example, are replaced by:

The consultation paper is not easily understandable and this lack of accessibility creates obstacles in obtaining clear views. At no point are the terms, ‘outcome-based measure’, ‘outcome-based target’, ‘performance indicator’ explained to the reader and all are evident in the three proposals in relation to young people. For learners to be at the heart of the system means having regard to the language that makes policy accessible.

On balance, once these difficulties are be clarified, NIACE welcomes the retention of targets as ‘measures’ – but urges Government to be cautious about how they are used. While targets have the positive effect of focusing attention and resources there is a real risk that they can distort the policies for which they are proxies. Both the Government and LSC must monitor and reflect upon how programmes and provision evolve and how this confirms or challenges the analysis behind the target setting. As long as ‘measures’ do not attract less attention, or resources though, they offer a mechanism for adapting and fine-tuning targets better to meet the aspirations of learners.

ii) PSA targets in relation to young adults
The Department will need to take care that taking positive action to understand drop-out at 17 is done before a decision is taken on outcome-based measures. Some PSA targets have resulted in unintended consequences such as the narrowing of curriculum offers and the reduction of provision aimed at widening participation. Taking positive action will involve increasing and effective guidance and the valuing of learning outcomes other than qualifications. The report of the 14-19 Reform Group may well offer guidance on this. NIACE believes that because 19 is the age used to identify participation and level 2 attainment, it makes sense to keep 19 as the measurement point for a single attainment target. However, we would want to see an attainment target set which values those activities of young adults which contribute to social development and cohesion, as well as whether or not they hold level 3 qualifications, ‘vocational’ or ‘academic’.

iii) Adult literacy, language and numeracy is about more than ‘employability and progression’
NIACE notes that from the learners’ perspective, adults with the greatest level of literacy, language or numeracy need may be those at entry level. We also know that the participation levels and actual achievements have been increasing at a greater rate than qualification levels in basic skills. This indicates that adults wish to learn with or without taking qualifications, which may or may not be relevant to them. We need to recognise all those who are learning and what has been missing thus far is a publicly recognisable participation measure to balance the target based on taking qualifications successfully. We believe that all learning has the potential to assist economic and social development. Practitioners report a narrowing of the programme offer when only qualificatory outcomes are valued by funders or providers. NIACE believes it would be better to have a publicly recognised measure of participation in learning basic skills, at whatever level, rather than the PSA target of achievement at level 2. If these two things can be combined effectively we might then concentrate effort on ensuring that as many adults as possible had successful achievements.

iv) PSA target on skills at level 2 may reduce participation
The focus on level 2 for all qualifications will put pressure on the Learning and Skills Council- funded provision to give priority to courses operating between level 1 and level 2 rather than at entry level. It is still unclear what is meant by ‘first level 2 qualification’. There appear to be some who believe that a single GCSE at Grade C is enough. This needs clarification. The single adult target at level 2 may also effectively marginalise the basic skills focus, risking reduced support for this provision. The level 2 target is important but does nothing for the many adults whose learning is uncertificated, or at entry level, or at level 3. Again, all learning has the potential to improve personal or economic development. When a national target is created so funding drives down a narrower route, thus taking resources away from those who may not be wanting to take a level 2 qualification but for whom participation in learning is a means to better health, stronger social capital or social inclusion. NIACE would prefer to see a broad target, with supporting measures, provided the measures value adult participation in learning and achievement, as well as passing of qualifications. All are important.

v) FE and training providers need safeguards
NIACE welcomes moving Success for All targets to delivery plans but suggests that safeguards are needed in order to protect provision aimed at ‘new’ learners, those adults returning to learn for the first time since leaving full-time education and those for whom attending college is an enormous first step. Some consideration might also be given to defining provision rather than providers. For example, college provision can be made by local education authorities and ‘other’ or ‘adult and community learning’ provision is often made by colleges.

vi) Balance between local and regional discretion and national priorities: some concerns
Although NIACE supports the move to enable providers to take ownership of targets for their local area or region, or to incorporate them into their national remit, we have some reservations about this section. NIACE would wish to see:

1. genuine negotiation between the local LSC and providers, which allows full recognition of the mission and purpose of each provider, and to ensure that targets are realistic and appropriate;
2. adequate funding is made available to support the achievement of targets;
3. a proper balance of provision aimed on the one hand at contributing to targets, and on the other with provision designed to widen participation in learning or increase the social, health and well-being outcomes of communities and learners.