National Equality and Diversity Strategy 2004 - 2007

1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) welcomes the proposed National Equality and Diversity Strategy of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and broadly supports the aims and approach it expresses. In particular we agree that the main issues that the strategy seeks to address are the correct ones - as are the main commitments. NIACE will continue to work in partnership with the LSC at local and national level on a range of initiatives that should contribute to the promotion of equality and diversity.

2. There are, however, a number of areas where we believe that the LSC could be more proactive and achieve a greater impact. Fulfilling statutory responsibilities is absolutely necessary (for example in relation to the Learning and Skills Act 2000, The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) but should not be seen as a sufficient strategy. The LSC should, we believe, be at the forefront of new and innovative ways of working with groups at highest risk of experiencing discriminatory practice (for example black community organisations). The “permissive” dimensions of the legislation should be used to the full.

3. The emphasis of the forthcoming EU Employment Directive and the likely impact of a new Commission for Human Rights and Equality (CHRE) reinforce the importance of taking a proactive approach in order to prevent unacceptable discrimination and promote the benefits of diversity. In areas where there is no legislation in place (for example in prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, age and religion), the LSC should give a clear signal of its commitment to challenge discrimination on these grounds. While section 14 of the Learning and Skills Act requires the LSC to tackle discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and disability (including people with mental health difficulties) this does not mean that the LSC is limited to a consideration of discrimination in relation to these issues only - other matters such as age and respect for cultural diversity are also important.

4. Generally speaking there is little reference to the strategic role that the LSC’s partners can help to play in promoting equality and diversity - by engaging learners who are disadvantaged and by operating policies of inclusive learning. While all providers of learning funded by the LSC have a part to play, more could have been made of the LSC’s role in active engagement with employers and with the voluntary and community sector in securing and celebrating diversity and challenging the causes of discrimination. The commitment to partnership working between the LSC and the Department of Health’s Valuing People Support Team is an example of this as will be the cross-governmental work arising from the Social Exclusion Unit’s report on Social Exclusion and Mental Health. The LSC has considerable powers of “leverage” to promote good practice. These should not be neglected.

5. Overall, NIACE believes that the aspirational dimension of the strategy needs to be supported by stronger, more explicit and more easily measured action plans. This needs to be the norm, not the exception. Not all opportunities to demonstrate inclusive practice appear to be taken up. Particularly visible, in this respect, is the omission of older learners from the descriptive sections of the document. Falling back on statutory responsibilities is not sufficient.

6. NIACE recommends that the strategy should include a plan detailing priority areas for action and associated time scales for short, medium and long term delivery - without this the strategy will remain a well worded document which means well, but which may fail to fully realise its aspirations. The LSC is not without expertise in this area: its internal equality and diversity action plan for its own workforce should be seen as a springboard for further work.

7. The restructuring of the national LSC and the restructuring at regional level means that there are questions over the translation of the strategy into practice. It is sometimes unclear what proposed new mechanisms the LSC will develop in order to ensure its successful implementation, monitoring and evaluation. This should be clarified and made more explicit in the final version of the paper.

8. The restructuring is likely to impact also on local EDIMS in terms of the support and resources that will be made available in order to ensure that targets are met. It would be helpful if the strategy was clearer about how responsibility for delivery of the strategy will be divided between local, regional and national tiers and how much local elaboration or extension of the details will be permissible.

9. NIACE believes that internal restructuring may have implications for existing forums of LSC staff, council members and partners to manage issues such as equality and diversity. In this respect, further clarification of the functions and reporting mechanisms for such bodies as the the Equality and Diversity External Advisory Committee and the LSC Learning Difficulty and Disability Forum would be welcome. These and other specialist expert groups are an important resource for the LSC - and the concerns of their members need to be considered at every stage.

10. NIACE believes that the LSC should give particular attention in the coming period to:

11. We suggest that the LSC might best approach these tasks by encouraging a culture of continuous improvement that builds on success and by:

These issues are the right ones to focus on; however there is not enough said about partnerships or potential partners in service delivery. There is no indication of how such partners will be supported in service delivery or how they will be supported in order to ensure that they will successfully secure contracts. The strategy neglects to mention the strategic importance of the voluntary and community sector which has no little expertise in issues of equality and diversity. Similarly, the potential of cross-governmental partnership working and the interlinked nature of social and economic policies is not considered in any depth.

The use of the “journey of transformation” (on the road to equality) metaphor is welcome as is the recognition that this process is long and continuous. It might be helpful for the LSC to set out in practical terms exactly how it intends to assure the discharge of its responsibilities under existing equality legislation. More detail would be welcome on exactly how leadership through employers, employees, partnerships and learning providers will be promoted, measured and supported.

Yes, but NIACE believes that these could be more hard hitting and make specific reference to legislation, (Positive Action for example).

Possibly, in expectations around monitoring and contracts - this would not be unwelcome.

There could be mention of plans to target, consult with and engage potential partners - especially employers (as well as mention of monitoring provision, providers, staff etc). It is not clear how adequate data collection and monitoring arrangements are in this respect. Identification of gaps and the proposed strategies to bridge these would strengthen the strategy.

Yes, in the light of historical disadvantages and discrimination. The LSC should also act in accordance with the spirit ands letter of various equality legislation, particularly RRAA2000. . It is also important to note that people do not fit neatly in to one particular marginalised group. For example a black person may face discrimination on account of age and mental heath difficulties. Targets and priorities need to take this into account.

Yes, NIACE believes that this is a very important though it has to be linked to a sensitive internal appreciation as to the need for this - minimal targets should be set in areas where there are few black people as an example of good practice but also in recognition of the constantly shifting nature of British society in terms of its racial and cultural composition.

NIACE is not able to answer this question. It may be that a formal audit of links and relationships is required.

Without a better understanding of the LSCs communications strategy it is hard to judge this. While such things as making publications available in Braille, in community languages or in forms accessible to people with learning difficulties where appropriate are straightforward indicators of sensitivity in this respect, but there is also a more subtle issue about how well the LSC relates to and engages with small stakeholders (for example local community groups). Communication with larger bodies may be fine - but its important to seek out voices unable to secure a place at the “big tables” in order to ensure real equality and diversity. Consultations such as this, for example, may not be reaching those on the margins of the discourse. The LSC must continually ask itself “whose voices are not being heard?”.

It is not unreasonable to say that the LSC cannot have infinite patience in continuing to fund providers who fail to meet appropriate and achievable standards so long as adequate resources and support are in place to help them (for example capital funding to improve access for people with disabilities or funding for specialist equipment). In general the LSC should operate in a pre-emptive and supportive way with regard to equality and diversity issues and in so doing be able to anticipate delivery problems and seek to address them.

Yes. NIACE support this and urges the LSC to revisit and extend the work done for the FEFC Quality Initiative with a particular focus on Adult and Community Education and Work Based Learning providers who have had not had such support and training around Inclusive Learning.

Yes - although we recognise that when offering learning activities intended to help people access particular positions in the labour market, the concerns of employers must also figure. We believe that the potential of IAG in reinforcing a learner-centred approach is enormous, as is engagement with union learning reps (who are generally sympathetic to matters of equality and diversity), and we would urge the LSC to make these a priority in reinforcing such an approach.

The Inclusive Learning Report made clear that Inclusive Learning would not occur without structural and organisational changes as well as changes in the realm of teaching and learning. There needs to be a commitment to this, e.g. by creating structures which are flexible enough to respond to individual needs. It is also so very important that funding systems reflect this. There is current concern that some of the proposed changes to Additional Learning Support Funding might in fact make it less easy for staff to obtain necessary additional funding for learners with disabilities and learning difficulties.

Yes, very much so - clearly equality and diversity issues have a huge impact on all within the context of the workplace - not only modern apprentices or work-based learners. Employers need to know what their responsibilities are and the LSC should be active in promoting best practice (and it is here where the LSC may consider, if necessary, withdrawing ‘premium funding’ to ensure compliance).

Yes - see 16 above - although if employers practice is within the law this must be achieved by consent.

Support and encouragement for employers, backed up by “light touch” codes of practice around issues of equality are essential and should form the part of the contractual relationship between the LSC and employers. The LSC should not engage with employers unless they are committed to working towards equality of opportunity and acceptance of diversity in the workplace. The LSC should consider:

NIACE accepts this in part but notes the words of Albert Einstein “Not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts”. In this respect things like commitment (especially of the senior management team), innovation and good practice are important, as well as the general approach and ethos (of a college or workplace) and how they are viewed by those who are most likely to face discrimination and exclusion.

NIACE agrees with this statement but believes that the case must not rest upon economics alone. There are social, moral, health and political reasons for ensuring equality of opportunity, challenging discrimination and promoting diversity. Solely espousing the economic makes the LSC look like it is pursuing equality and diversity simply because it makes good economic sense rather than because it is simply the right thing to do.

We believe that this approach seems sound and rational.

Monitoring and evaluation are both important, but these can be streamlined and institutionalised as standard good practice in order to avoid excessive bureaucracy

NIACE believes that while the LSC is right to be realistic, it should be aiming higher and have more demanding expectations of itself.

NIACE would be pleased to elaborate on anything in this response. In the first instance, please contact: Lenford White (0116) 204 2827.

Top of page