Every Adult Matters
A first NIACE response to the DfES/LSC paper ‘Delivering world-class skills in a Demand Led System’
Published: February 2007
1. The work of NIACE is directed towards an education and training system for adults, which acknowledges the whole range of learners that engage with the publicly-funded system and their needs. We support the government in wanting a system that is not run for the administrative convenience of the supply side but rather in the interests of the individuals and employers that use it. However we believe that, unless amended, the proposals in this consultative document risk jeopardising the government’s skills strategy and its wider commitment to lifelong learning. We urge our members and supporters not to assume the proposals are a ‘done deal’ and to use the consultation opportunity to ensure that the Department for Education and Skills and Learning and Skills Council are left in no doubt about the need to improve these proposals.
2. Our central concern is that while the document may represent a sensible approach for some adult learners, it ignores the needs of those currently unconvinced of the benefits of education for themselves and who will not make demands on providers but who are critical to the achievement of the government’s aspirations.
3. In essence we believe that the future economic success of the UK is dependent not only on people in the full-time labour force and young entrants but also upon every adult, including those currently at some distance from the labour market, being given the education necessary for work and for social inclusion.
4. The proposals in ‘Delivering world-class skills in a Demand Led System’ may be considered fit for purpose if they meet the needs of groups under-represented in continuing education and training. Among these groups are:
 | older workers; |
| part-time and temporary workers |
| those employed in businesses that are cool to training; |
| migrants (especially from EU accession countries) |
| women (especially from ethnic minority communities culturally resistant to high levels of female employment outside the home) |
| people currently on welfare benefits – especially those on Incapacity Benefits as a result of mental health problems; |
| ex-offenders; |
| adults with literacy levels at and below ‘entry level 2’. |
5. NIACE believes that the model envisaged in the consultation document is not yet sufficiently responsive to ensure the participation of many in these groups.
6. Of the document’s proposals, NIACE welcomes:
| Recognition of the need spelled out in the Leitch Report to raise adult skill levels; |
| The intention to develop a system that responds to the expressed learning needs of employers and individuals; |
| The intention to encourage a more independent system with self regulation for institutions of proven quality; |
| The involvement of new providers in the system to ensure that new groups of learners can be reached; |
| The commitment to continued provision of learning for personal development at affordable prices; |
| The new adult careers service and skills health checks; |
| The intention to develop clear routes for progression. |
7. We have concerns about:
| How far contestability and competition will improve provision for learners and achieve value for money for the public purse given previous experience of a highly competitive market for provision and the costs involved; |
| Maintaining stability in the system; |
| Moving from relationships based on trust between providers, funders and planners to more transactional relationships; |
| How far all Sector Skills Councils are genuinely representative of employer demand and how far employers in every sector have “bought into” SSCs; |
| The potential conflicts between the intention of the foundation learning tier to allow learners to choose units to follow their interests which we saw as an important engagement strategy and the suggestion that learners must “commit” to a full qualification to receive public support; |
| The reality of a demand led system when the public purse will only support very specific predetermined priorities; |
| Why learning accounts, which through unions have been so successful in the workplace, are seen as only applicable in the individual learners stream; |
| Dead weight in the system and why long-term balance of funding moves in the direction of employers and Train to Gain from individuals at a time when Leitch is calling for employers to prove their commitment to training by investment; |
| Not allowing a funding premium on short courses since these are a critical means of engaging non-traditional learners where recruitment and other running costs are high |
| How a demand-led system for adult skills sits alongside other government policies including 14-19 education; regional policy; policies for urban and rural regeneration and local government reform. |
8. We believe that the proposals contained in the document will not produce the kind of local outreach activity Lord Leitch’s describes as necessary for embedding a culture of learning and increasing the appetite for learning among those with low aspirations who see education and training as for other people.
9. NIACE believes that, while some of the system will thrive under the proposals made, it will be incomplete without funding for activities that bring people to a position where they are ready and able to take advantage of what is available. There is an existing safeguard for learning for personal and community development, family learning and neighbourhood learning in deprived communities and we believe that this should be extended to encompass a proportion of the work that will be covered by the Foundation Learning Tier (that is the credit-based part of what has been categorised as “other FE”). This will give a quantum which could be planned by LSCs and will enable local outreach provision to be commissioned from providers (whether from colleges, local authorities or the voluntary and community sector) able to construct an offer for learners that will provide for engagement and enable well-guided first steps on progression pathways to be made while still offering new learners the personalised programmes that will excite and interest them.
10. We believe that providers who have expressed fears about the absence of these first steps opportunities for new learners would support this wider safeguard which would provide the necessary underpinning to the demand led system envisaged. We do not dissent from the view that a primary responsibility of the further education sector is in securing skills for paid work – yet the existence of ‘safeguarded’ funding symbolises a recognition of the public value of the wider benefits of learning for general well-being for all in an ageing society.
11. NIACE invites comments and criticisms to supplement or amend this first response. Please contact any member of staff or e-mail Sue Meyer, Director of Policies and Programmes (sue.meyer@niace,org.uk ).
| The full consultation document can be found on the DfES website at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conDetails.cfm?consultationId=1454 |
