| Path: Projects > R&D > Voluntary Sector > LSC Regional Report > West Midlands |
Learning and Skills Councils: Opportunities for the Voluntary Sector
Birmingham Voluntary Service Centre, Digbeth, Birmingham
Tuesday 21st March 2000
This page contains appendices FROM, and should be read in conjunction WITH the Regional Report
For the West Midlands Region seminar
The planning and delivery of this event was undertaken on behalf of NIACE and the WEA by Cheryl Turner (Development Officer, NIACE), Sue Cara (Associate Director 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.
65 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 West Midlands Region seminar
| There is concern about how Voluntary Organisations can successfully access and work with Local Learning Partnerships. |
| To date experience has shown that Partnerships differ greatly in their willingness to work with Voluntary Sector organisations. |
| The Voluntary Sector must consider other ways of engaging with LSCs rather than merely relying on Learning Partnerships. |
| Proposals that all provision must meet Quality Assurance thresholds is welcome, however these mechanisms must not act as a barrier preventing small organisations from offering provision. |
| Any staff qualification requirements must be appropriate to those who teach in the Voluntary Sector. NTOs must recognise the value of open college network teaching qualifications when developing their standards. |
| FENTO and PAOLO need to ensure that their standards do not act to drive valuable staff out of the Sector. |
| The inspection framework applied to the Voluntary Sector must take into account the size and resource capacity of the organisations being evaluated. It would be inappropriate to expect to generate the same evidence profile as larger institutions. |
| A standards fund to support the Voluntary Sector similar to those available to FE colleges and LEAs should be established. This could act to overcome some of the capacity issues that face small voluntary organisations. |
| There is a great need for training and support for staff and volunteers in the Sector. |
| LSCs must be made aware of the huge variety of inclusive work that Voluntary Sector organisations undertake. This often extends beyond formal provision of learning opportunities and encourages active citizenship. |
| Assessment mechanisms must recognise the wide benefits of learning for adults, beyond simple measures of increases in skills. |
| There must be recognition of the slow progress that new returners to learning often make. The funding methodology must not pressure providers to move "unready learners" onto other provision too quickly. |
| The new post 16 learning framework should be seen positively by the Sector as encouraging collaboration between providers to meet local learning needs. |
| LSCs must recognise and fund the often high cost of developing community based learning. To this end the proposed weighting of the funding formula to meet the needs of disadvantaged learners is welcome. |
| If the Voluntary Sector is to engage positively with LSCs support must be given to help them develop their organisational and administration capacity. |
| LSCs and LLPs must recognise the diversity of the Voluntary Sector and the wide range of learning provision that it offers. |
| Complicated jargon must be avoided when inviting applications for funds. This often has the effect of excluding small inexperienced providers. |
| If the government wishes to meet its bold targets for adult learning, it must recognise that new money will need to be committed to the Sector. |
| Training and support for volunteers must be provided. It is these people who are the backbone of community and voluntary activity. |
| Assessment criteria must recognise the wide range of learning outputs involved in community based education. |
| The post 16 framework must encourage consortia working between small organisations. |
| Funding to stimulate activity by new entrants to the Sector should be made available. Inexperienced providers must be given resources and support to encourage their development in the field of learning. |
| The resource implications of attempting to widen participation from disadvantaged groups must be recognised by LSCs |
| There is a role for NIACE / WEA / CVSs to offer training sessions in how to access LSC funds. |
| LSCs must recognise and support existing networks and structures within their boundaries. |
| DfEE should develop mechanisms to ensure that the Voluntary Sector is kept informed about developments within the LSC framework. |
| Conversely the Sector needs to ensure that the department and LSCs are aware of the full potential it offers to meet the needs of learners. |
| How to link with the new Connexions service? |
| Proposals to simplify the funding mechanism are welcome. |
| The simplified and unified inspection system is a good idea. However the system must be flexible to ensure that the Voluntary Sector is evaluated appropriately. |
| The West Midlands must be recognised as a rural area as well as an industrial one. |
| A service should be developed (maybe involving NIACE and the WEA) to translate and decipher government information concerning LSCs for easier access by the Sector. |
| Direct access to LSC funds by Voluntary Groups is a very positive move. |
[ Back to Report ]
At the West Midlands Region seminar
From the forms returned the ratings for this event were: 3 very good, 23 good and 5 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 ]