| Path: Projects > R&D > Voluntary Sector > LSC Regional Report > London |
Learning and Skills Councils: Opportunities for the Voluntary Sector
NCVO, Regents Wharf, All Saints Street, London
Monday 20th March 2000.
This page contains appendices FROM, and should be read in conjunction WITH the Regional Report
For the London Region seminar
The planning and delivery of this event was undertaken on behalf of NIACE and the WEA by Cheryl Turner (Development Officer, NIACE) and Michael Freeston (Education Officer, WEA).
Particular acknowledgement needs to be given to the hard work of administrative staff of both organisations, especially Philippa Cattell, Averil Coutinho and Vera Tunçel, for ensuring the smooth running of the event.
NIACE and the WEA gratefully acknowledge the support of Ben Kernighan, (National Council for Voluntary Organisations) who contributed to the presentations at the London event.
66 participants registered to attend the event. Representatives of the Government Office Local Learning Partnerships, voluntary groups and 'umbrella' organisations attended. This spread of experience and knowledge ensured that participants’ contributions, both in the discussion groups and plenary sessions were lively and informative.
[ Back to Report ]
At the London Region seminar
| The boundaries of the London LSCs make little sense in terms of existing relationships and networks |
| Will LSCs go for big providers only? |
| Will there be an automatic transfer from personnel involved in TECs to the new LSCs |
| The current experience of the Voluntary Sector with LLPs is ‘pretty bad’ overall |
| It is important that the Voluntary Sector is involved in the drawing up of learning plans by local authorities. These are being written by the Autumn of 2000 |
| Will LSCs only work with a list of ‘approved’ suppliers? |
| The standards of staff development must not act to exclude people or provider organisations. The Sector must ensure that appropriate standards are put in place e.g. through PAULO. |
| Will the quality criteria be essential and appropriate? |
| There appears to be a contradiction between the stated stability of funding for existing providers and a desire for the system to be open to new players. |
| The role of the 10-15% non-formula funding will be crucial in encouraging participation of small providers. |
| Adult and community learning should not just receive funding from the 10-15% non-tariff element. |
| Councils should link to local income generation for local community suppliers. This raises the issue of whether or not local bodies are the most appropriate to be working with. |
| There is a need for flexibility in Voluntary Sector choices. |
| A key issue for London is membership in terms of constituencies of LLSC and the size of membership. |
| There is little difference in the money available under the new system. Will this predominantly be for 16-19 year old provision? |
| Who will decide on the quality standards affecting the Voluntary Sector. |
| There is a continued need for capacity building and to protect what is already happening. |
| Continuity of funding is needed. |
| Small voluntary bodies need to build on existing networks. Consortia and partnerships may well be necessary. |
| The question of how the Sector is suitably ‘represented’ is important. This may well be the role of CVSs. |
| There will need to be extra resourcing to enable this representation to happen. |
| The role of non-accredited training and learning must be recognised in LSC provision. |
| LSC funds need to match with other widening participation funds e.g. SRB, new deal, etc. |
| Non-accredited learning assessment systems must be developed. |
| The Voluntary Sector should welcome the proposed unified quality system. |
| How will the proposed funding system link with or resemble the existing load-banding arrangements. |
| The opportunity of direct access to LSC funds for the Voluntary Sector is welcome. |
| There is a need for the Voluntary Sector to have access to Standards Fund and Capital Fund. |
| What new money will be available in relation to more bidders? |
| There is a need for unified admin between LSC, ESF and SRB. Will this be a reality? |
| There is a need for adults with mental health issues to be involved in the scheme. |
| There is concern that the larger players will dominate and, if so, what are the implications for the small organisations? Hard to confront. |
| There is concern related to the lack of co-ordination with other sub-regional structures, e.g. Ufi. |
| There is concern that LSCs will be able to apply and sub-contract directly for ESF? |
| Interim arrangements - Franchisees are particularly vulnerable at the moment. Are they being tied into longer term contracts? |
| What will happen to Ufi ‘hubs’ and what are the franchise arrangements via FE colleges as lead bodies? |
| How to demonstrate and measure ‘distance travelled worth of non-accredited learning and ‘early steps’ - without pressure? |
| Can Quality Assurance be tailored to small organisations? |
| How will the element on ‘disadvantage’ in the formula work in practice? |
| London Boroughs are being encouraged to link together to ensure ‘regeneration’, therefore this is a big issues for more disparate Voluntary Sectors. |
| There is concern that the 10-15% non-formula funding will be a token element. |
| The Sector is beginning to suffer from ‘initiative fatigue’. |
| It is important that LSCs recognise the importance of first step provision. This often acts as a motivating factor and gives learners incentive to study further. |
| LSCs need to provide resources to the Voluntary Sector to help build its capacity. |
| How many difference QA systems will voluntary organisations be required to meet? Picasso and more? |
| Importance of applying Voluntary Sector ‘compact’ to the world of training and education - particularly for organisations with multiple funders - to avoid too many difference quality standards. |
| What will be the distinctive place of community groups rather than voluntary organisations is the new structures. |
| It is importance that the Sector achieves representation at National LSC level as well as local LSC level. |
[ Back to Report ]
At the London Region seminar
From the forms returned the ratings for this event were: 6 very good, 17 good and 2 satisfactory. Overall, the written comments were positive and spoke favourably about the clear structure of the programme and the balance between presentations, discussion and feedback, the informal, friendly atmosphere and free flow and open character of the comments, the documentation before and during the event, the fact that it was clearly for voluntary bodies and included a number of grass-roots organisations, and the richness of the plenary discussions due to the diverse experience and knowledge of the participants.
[ Back to Report ]