Derek Legge

We note with regret the passing of Derek Legge, lifetime member of NIACE and founder of Manchester University’s pioneering Department of Adult Education.

After working for the Army Education Corps during the war, Derek worked as an extra-mural tutor in north-east Lancashire before his appointment to Manchester University’s School of Education as lecturer in adult education – the first such post to be created in Western Europe.

Derek devised a programme of postgraduate courses which, at first, attracted just 14 students but which, within a few years, were drawing hundreds of students, many from overseas. A hugely influential and ambitious department of adult education grew up, with Derek as its head.

One of Derek’s students was a young Canadian adult educator, Paul Bélanger, who went on to become Director of UNESCO’s Institute for Lifelong Learning. He recalls his classmates as ‘a bunch of activists’, including a trade unionist working in the mines in Wales, a woman who set up adult education centres in Pakistan and a Tanzanian adult educator involved in the Ujamaa movement of Julius Nyerere.

‘Derek catalyzed all these experiences,’ he says, ‘and brought us in contact with the rich British history of adult education, from the Women’s Institute to Ruskin College, from Raymond Williams to Richard Hoggart’. The 10-week course enabled him ‘to join the world movement for the right of all citizens on all continents to learn and create.’

‘The roll-call of students who benefited reads like a Who’s Who in world adult education,’ says Graham Wilkinson, a former student who went on to become Principal of Alston Hall Residential College in Lancashire. Many, like Graham, became lifelong friends.

The example of Derek’s department was copied elsewhere, with Liverpool and Nottingham among the universities to become interested in training and educating people to be adult educators. His own department grew to be the largest of its kind in the country.

Derek retired in 1978 but continued his association with adult education, involving himself in learning activities of all kinds, including extensive work in prisons. In 1982 he published a book, The Education of Adults in Britain, which became compulsory reading for any student of the subject.

In 1999, he was awarded an MBE for his services to adult education, in addition to an honorary degree from Manchester University and life membership of NIACE.

Derek died on 5 April, a few weeks short of his 96th birthday. He is survived by his daughter, Angela.

A UCAS review of the proposals, first published in October, found that nearly three-quarters of higher education institutions believed the proposals were unworkable, while 61 per cent of schools and colleges said they were unviable. Although many respondents felt a post-qualifications admissions process would be fairer, the review cited widespread concerns about the practicalities of implementation.

While acknowledging the huge logistical challenges they posed, NIACE supported the changes when they were first proposed, arguing that a post-results process would be simpler, less complex and, in principle, fairer than the present system, in which applicants provide a combination of predicted grades, personal statements and teacher references. NIACE believes that the current system favours applicants from schools which appreciate how to ‘work the system’ over adult applicants.

A post-results system would benefit students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who often do not believe they will get into top universities and whose exam performance is more likely to exceed their predicted results. It would also give students more opportunity to research their course options and prepare their applications, and, crucially, more confidence in what they are capable of achieving.

The decision follows the publication of the latest UCAS admissions figures for full-time students which show applications for mature students significantly down for the sixth month in a row. These figures are yet more bad news on social mobility and NIACE fears that the abandonment of the PQA plan represents a missed opportunity to overhaul an admissions system which favours the already privileged, and to put the needs of students, rather than institutions, at its heart.

Although UCAS’s move to replace the clearing process, which matches students without places to courses with vacancies, with ‘a fair, managed, online process, catering for applicants who want access to the system’ is welcome, it falls some way short of levelling the playing field for less advantaged applicants.

Implementation of these changes would have posed major practical challenges for institutions and opposition was always going to be vocal. However, while the proposals may not have been perfect or in the immediate interests of every player in the sector, the creation of a more fit-for-purpose, flexible and adult-friendly student-centred admissions process is overdue and would, in the long term, be in the best interests of all students.

While this is encouraging, there is also cause for concern. Despite numerous campaigns, projects and initiatives, there are still 8.2 million people in the UK who have never been online. Worryingly, 67% of the total offline population is over 65 years old and almost half of those not online are adults with a disability, while additional evidence from the 2011 Oxford Internet Survey tells us that only 31% of adults with no qualifications use the internet and 30% of adults who have gone online rate their internet skills as poor.

 A mounting body of evidence shows that those who do not have the skills or access to get online will become increasingly disadvantaged in the UK’s digital society. For example, a report from research agency ICM  found that 72% of employers wouldn’t interview an entry level candidate who didn’t have computer and internet skills and the ‘digital by default’ agenda continues to be pursued vigorously by government, charities and businesses. At the same time, a growing number of learning providers are delivering their learning opportunities online, which raises the question whether lack of skills and access could result in a ‘learning divide’; where those most excluded from learning could be further excluded from online learning opportunities.

So how can we best support the remaining 8.2 million population to get online? Adult learning providers and community action programmes have a crucial role to play in supporting harder-to-reach groups. The evaluation of the recent Get Digital programme in sheltered housing schemes demonstrated that using the internet resulted in real benefits for the older residents like increased self-confidence and independence, better social interaction, improved relationships with friends and families, easier access to information, increased awareness of public services and participation in their local communities.

Adult learning providers and community action programmes can also have an important role in identifying the ‘hooks’ which make the internet relevant to people’s lives.

As far back as 2000, the Community Access to Lifelong Learning (CALL) initiative was launched by the New Opportunities Fund “to improve access to lifelong learning for adults through the use of ICT, with a particular focus on socially excluded adults and those in disadvantaged communities.” Lessons learned from that initiative are as relevant today as they were then, showing that “centres which were most successful in engaging new learners were those which helped people pursue their own interests and responded to users’ wider needs, linked to practical activities.” More recent research  (Adults Learning Online: Digital choice and /or digital exclusion? - R. Enyon, E. Helsper, 2011) echoes these findings, stating that “Policies designed to support individuals’ everyday interests as opposed to more formal kinds of learning are likely to be more effective in increasing people’s productive engagement with online learning opportunities.”

Adult learning providers, family learning tutors and community practitioners have years of experience in developing person-centred approaches to learning, especially for those hard to reach and with specific needs. They have a crucial role in helping the offline population to go online, to develop their digital capabilities and to use the internet to support their learning, especially as the internet can offer flexible access to lifelong learning opportunities. We need to take a fresh look at realistic and sustainable ways of engaging those still offline and developing their digital capabilities. Is it enough to set up yet another ‘Computing for the terrified’ course? Will that address the real needs of older adults, the disabled, those with low education levels and those who do not have the skills or confidence to learn online? Or should we be looking at how we can embed digital skills in our existing learning provision?

Recently announced JISC funding may provide opportunities for further education and adult community learning providers to explore how to develop their learners’ digital skills, trial sustainable approaches to digital inclusion and of support learner progression. NIACE has also arranged a seminar on the 15 March to explore how to ensure that all adults have the opportunity to access the internet and develop their digital capabilities.

Next Steps for Digital Inclusion will bring together representatives from Race Online, European and UK projects, JISC Advance, UK online centres and research institutions with NIACE members and delegates. It promises to be a lively discussion and should produce some new ideas on how we can tackle the remaining digital divide.

I am really grateful for the chance to open a discussion here about the teaching of post-16 Maths and English and to learn from people’s experiences. Of all the recommendations that I made in my Review, I think that continued teachingof Maths and English is one of the most important points and one that I cared about most. I’ll come back to the evidence later, but in my view - and I know I’m not alone - ensuring that young people and adults have good English and Maths skills is the single most important thing that education can do for them. If they don’t, doors everywhere shut in their faces and it is extraordinarily hard for them to come back into education, do well in training programmes, start businesses, win promotions, lead successful lives, manage their affairs.
Before I start this discussion I would be very grateful indeed for some more information about the evidence behind this statement:

Currently, there are not enough funded hours to support learners to pass a GCSE, for instance the gap between grades D and C can be huge and it’s not simply a matter of doing a bit of extra revision but learning new skills.

I’m not querying this: quite the opposite! But how would I prove the point? How many hours do you need? Why are the hours so inadequate? Are they calculated totally differently from the amount implied by the ‘Guided Learning Hours’ for a GCSE, and the time allocated when it’s taught at Key Stage 4? The sooner the better on this, please, as the Department for Education is discussing learning programmes and funding formulae right now and I’d like to try and feed this in!

To kick-start this discussion, I’d like to address one of the main questions posed:

GCSE is a strong and recognisable brand, but does it live up to it? Where’s the evidence that GCSEs are a ‘gold standard’ and is it appropriate for all sectors/industries? Does competence equate with qualifications?  Employers are not finding this.

It’s worth remembering that the gold standard was a fixed point that everyone shared. It is not that gold is intrinsically valuable, whatever that would mean. But it was stable, quite rare and couldn’t be faked. If people had stopped believing in it, it wouldn’t have worked. Modern money also depends on us believing that it will keep its value (more or less). If you want to explain a run on the banks, and the loss of value, watch and use the relevant bit in Mary Poppins!

GCSE is really quite like that. It is the gold standard in the sense that people believe in it more or less, and more than the alternatives. (Quite like modern money, in fact.) They don’t think it is perfect, but they think it has some meaning, and compared to what - sea shells? I’m not being frivolous. We did some in-depth research on how employers actually hired, rather than how CEOs were telling ministers that they did. We found that employers today, many of them quite consciously, have given up trying to keep up with qualification changes. They use GCSEs (sometimes still referred to as O levels) because they think they are the most stable thing out there. They use English and Maths because they think they know what English and Maths are about, and because they care about them.

If GCSEs are not providing evidence of competence the answer is to reform GCSEs, not provide lists of competences or yet another totally unfamiliar award. Employers (and universities) have at least some faith that GCSEs are based on objective exams, even if declining. A list of competences, or a new qualification they have never heard of, is not going to be accepted as a substitute, however much they are complaining about GCSEs. (I’m personally a little sceptical about some of the extreme complaints that come from employers, as far as young people with GCSEs are concerned - especially in the Maths area. I’d be interested to know if you think the employers are right, and what the mis-match is.)

I don’t think it is the job of an education system to train young people for specific industries! If employers need an unusual and specific bit of maths (or English?), then they should attend to that. Our job is general education for a lifetime.

One other point. Maths and English GCSEs may not be perfect, but they are pretty highly correlated with performance on free-standing tests of English and Maths administered in research projects. And both of these - getting a good GCSE grade, and also doing well on tests that employers don’t know about, and which can therefore be taken as independent measures of attainment - are important in predicting people’s future success in the labour market. So employers really do reward both the bit of paper and the underlying skills.

Over to you on these – and I’ll be posting something on the next few questions shortly, which include:

Is GCSE appropriate for post-19 and how would a different qualification achieve the same currency?

Is a linear approach to GCSE (and taking away opportunity for re-takes) appropriate for the 25,000 adults who take them each year? Could skills be marked separately and shown on the certificate?

How do we motivate young people who have already failed GCSE or who are dealing with complex lives (caring responsibilities, living independently, issues with drugs and alcohol etc.)?

What is your view on functional skills?

Literacy, language and numeracy are not assessed in all vocational qualifications, should they be?

The reasons parents gave included not being able to afford to visit attractions and not having the time.  However, a fifth claimed their children wouldn’t be interested and that they relied on schools to teach them what they needed to know.

While we might question whether the research focuses on quite a narrow definition of culture, the fact that so many parents feel they have little role in educating and broadening the interests of both themselves and their children is a cause for concern.

Sometimes, there are practical issues. If an adult has trouble reading or with numbers, they might not be able to understand a bus timetable or to find the cheapest way to get themselves and their children into town and to venues. Couple this with a fear of not being welcome in arts venues and with overcoming their own and their children’s reluctance to try something new, the barriers can seem insurmountable.

There’s a message here for all involved – schools and cultural venues as well as parents. To create a culture of learning about history, art and so on in the family, you need to engage the whole family.  NIACE’s work with museums and galleries has shown that a family learning approach to activities involving children and parents reaps dividends.

The family learning approach promotes the family as a learning environment and empowers parents to be involved in their children’s learning, through increasing their confidence in their own knowledge and abilities, as well as developing their skills. Museums and galleries are doing a lot to make their venues more family-friendly and they are developing family learning approaches to engage whole families.

While Visit Birmingham’s laudable aim is to encourage parents to sight-see with their children, we need to recognise that the first step might be to engage the parents in their own and their children’s learning.

The figures show an overall drop of 8.7 per cent among UK-only applicants – including a 9.9 per cent drop in England. Although significant, the figures are considerably less dramatic than some predicted, particularly given the spike in last year’s applications prompted by the announcement of the tripling of tuition fees from 2012-13.

The disproportionate drop in applications from mature applicants is, however, a serious concern and is one that ministers would do well not to ignore. It should act as a warning sign for ministers who have put widening participation and social mobility at the heart of their reform agenda in higher education and who, in their higher education White Paper, set out a vision for a more responsive, diverse and student-centred higher education sector.

Of course, as universities minister David Willetts has argued, it may be that mature students are opting for more flexible options, looking to study part-time or by distance learning – as part-time applications do not go through UCAS (and, indeed, as applications stay open to the end of June and mature students often apply later), we will have to wait to see the full picture.

But the drop in full-time undergraduate applications from mature applicants is substantial enough to start alarm bells ringing. In particular, it raises questions about the extent to which increased fees are acting as a deterrent to mature applicants who are typically more debt and risk averse and who often have to face juggling higher study with a range of other family and work commitments. No doubt, these inhibiting factors will have been compounded by recession and an uncertain labour market.

These, briefly, are some of the headline figures: While there has been a small drop in applications from 18 year olds of 2.6 per cent, broadly in line with demographic trends, among those aged over 21 there has been a more significant slump of 11 per cent. Applications from 23-year-olds are down 13.5 per cent, while for 24-year-olds the figure is 10.7 per cent. Applications from those aged 25 to 29 are down11.8 per cent, from those aged 30 to 39 by 9.9 per cent and from those 40 and over by 10.5 per cent.

Clearly, further analysis of these figures will be necessary, particularly around the impact on different socio-economic groups – and, of course, as a picture of all mature applications to HE it is incomplete – but it is clear that more needs to be done to improve our understanding of mature learners’ attitudes to loans, their distinct and diverse support issues, as well as to improve communication of the new loans system to mature learners. We are still some way from achieving a system of higher education that meets the realities of life for a diverse student body.

A drop in mature applicants would seriously dent the government’s ambitions for social mobility and economic renewal and sends an unfortunate message with regard to the emerging shape of the reformed HE sector and its responsiveness to the needs of learners who missed out on higher education the first time around.

Participation by mature adults could be further constrained by the introduction of further education loans for people aged 24 and above from 2013 and the ‘unconstrained recruitment’ of students achieving AAB grade or above at A-level, which will make it more difficult for mature students who have come to higher education by a non-traditional route to gain a place at a leading university and is likely to lead to a funding squeeze at new universities – the institutions which have contributed the most to efforts to widen participation on HE.

NIACE has long argued that higher education should not be viewed in isolation but as part of a wider framework of lifelong learning. Putting mature students at the centre of thinking about higher education will produce a more responsive, flexible and student-focused sector, that should improve access overall for students from non-traditional backgrounds. As Nick Pearce, Director of the Institute of Public Policy Research, has argued, the greatest steps forward in higher education have come when mature students have taken precedence in policy.

Ministers cannot afford to be complacent about the recruitment of mature students. In particular, the government needs to think hard about how it communicates its message to potential mature students, with regard not only to the information it makes available, but also to how it is used and what support is available to adults – who often have no access to either the formal or informal networks of support younger and more advantaged students take for granted – to make sense of it all.

Wikipedia’s protest is against the proposed legislation in the US which aims to stop illegal downloading and streaming of movies and TV shows, which many believe could also result in altering the Internet’s ability to provide a platform for free speech.

Rights-holders are reported to have been stunned at the way that their material has been so easily copied and freely used across the Internet and are mobilising to protect their interests. In the meantime the culture of online sharing for free has grown to the point that its advocates have made a political stand, and across Europe Pirate parties have gained modest but noticeable electoral success.

Of course those who make their living through the creation of content – be it text, music, video or audio – need to be paid for their work in the same way as farmers are paid for carrots and potatoes. The lines seem to get easily blurred, however, as professionally-created material increasingly sits alongside the growing body of user-generated content, which is created and, mostly, shared for free.

What does all this mean for adult learning though? Three things.

1. There is rarely a good reason why publicly-funded electronic learning materials should not be shared freely with learners elsewhere. Happily, the Open Educational Resource movement is gaining traction and increasingly materials are being shared using Creative Commons or Open Government licensing.

2. Rights holders should be protected, but not at the cost of easy access. Where there are legitimate reasons to charge for access to content, pricing needs to be affordable and payment methods simple and clear.

3. The tools and online spaces where some of the contested content sits – for example YouTube - have additional value for learners. They provide the medium for learners to post their own content as part of their learning and to share it with others. We really can’t afford to jeopardise the viability of these sharing spaces.

Communication tools and the ways that we access information are changing rapidly, including the ways that we learn. Having good access to information as well as to the spaces to share and discuss are important issues for adult learners and NIACE is engaged in the debate, which we are taking forward this Friday at our seminar called Open Educational Practice - making best use of free resources.

In March 2011, the Wolf Report highlighted a particular problem with young people taking poor quality vocational courses that lack currency in the labour market.

The Leitch Review of Skills (2006) initiated a process of change, moving from a skills sector centrally planned by training providers and skills funders into one led by employer demand. However, challenges remain. Employers continue to report skills gaps and local and regional imbalances in skill levels. Spatial concentrations of low skills have become more glaring in the current economic climate; as have local concentrations of high unemployment, in particular for young adults. Against this back drop, a growing body of commentators is arguing that the skills problems we face are related not only to skill supply but also to poor skills utilisation.

The Skills Dilemma: skills under-utilisation and low-wage work, released this week by the Work Foundation, is the latest contribution. It warns that the under-use of skills in the UK is resulting in lost productivity both for businesses and the economy as a whole. It argues that this trend could partly explain why the UK is lagging behind comparable countries in terms of labour productivity, despite efforts to improve the skills of its workforce.

The report shows that the problem is especially prevalent at the lower end of the labour market, where jobs too often provide little autonomy, progression or support. For employers, under-use of skills can be a waste of a valuable asset; it can result in a less motivated workforce, which may also be less productive. From the employee’s point of view, under-use of skills means little autonomy, responsibility or progression, along with the frustration of knowing one’s skills is going to waste.

The Skills Dilemma calls for wider recognition of the matter and urges policymakers to implement measures to begin tackling the problem. Among the report’s chief recommendations is the implementation of measures aimed at promoting better job design. It also recommends the establishment of a workplace innovation fund that could provide small-scale funding for skills utilisation projects and support for employers taking steps to address the issue.

This call for skills utilisation needs to be taken more seriously by policy makers. In particular, the report’s contention that any approach to skills utilisation must ‘take into account a holistic understanding of skills’ is one I completely endorse. I also agree with the emphasis in the report on the need for workplaces that provide meaningful encouragement, opportunity and support for employees to use their skills effectively. NIACE’s record of work that champions expansive workplaces and learning through work underlines this.

In the current climate, the likelihood of agencies taking up the ideas in The Skills Dilemma is hard to gauge. But as the report points out, a skills utilisation approach does at least carry the win-win promise of enhancing the employer’s bottom line and enabling workers to fulfil their potential.

The key issue at stake here is that, while no-one is in any doubt about the need to promote successful progression into employment or higher-level education and training for school-leavers, there is a lack of agreement on what curriculum will work best. Employers use GCSE English and Maths as a benchmark, but many still find that new recruits have inadequate literacy and numeracy skills; City and Guilds and others have raised concerns that Professor Wolf’s reference to GCSE English and maths as the ‘gold standard’ is ‘misguided’ and doesn’t take into account the importance of motivation in learning. NIACE has long-argued that motivation is critical and all post-compulsory learning needs to be meaningful, relevant and attractive for learners to engage and persist in.

Professor Wolf is absolutely right that GCSEs in English and maths are important ‘passport’ qualifications and many young adults may be missing out on them, but unfortunately not all young people feel the curriculum that leads to these qualifications is right for them - especially if they have become disengaged with school. Some young adults see the English and maths taught in schools as irrelevant to their lives and resent being made to go back and study more of the same. Also, those who are at the margins of society may be overwhelmed by the benefit system, housing and employment issues, their lives may be chaotic and their state of mind may mean that tasters and opportunities for informal, small steps to formal learning are more manageable for them. Policy also needs to reflect the diversity of young adults’ lives especially for those who have caring responsibilities, live independently with little or no family support or have children of their own. Making learning a priority for this group is a challenge faced everyday by voluntary and community sector organisations struggling with ever-reducing resources.

‘A lost generation’ of young adults with no appetite for learning and few choices in the labour market is not in anybody’s interests. The system isn’t working but the question remains, how do we best fix it?

Find out more about this seminar

This has led me to realise how lucky I am to be at NIACE. There is a lot of support for the organisation as well as expectation about the role we play, both supporting practice and being the critical friend of Government. We act as the interpreter of policy, retaining the long term perspective, providing the policy memory; we support practitioners bringing people together to share good practice and to learn from our research; we advocate on big issues when and where they occur and we speak out when things are not right. To lead NIACE is challenging, rewarding and enjoyable.

Increasingly, as I become part of the furniture and no longer the new boy, other, perhaps, more pressing questions are being asked: What can we do about the significant drops in adult participation in learning? Are you worried about the fate of adults who want to learn in HE? How do we address the 5.2 million adults who need entry level literacy? What can we do about the 8.4 million people who have never been online and used the Internet? What role does adult education have in the new localism and the Big Society? What do you think the impact will be of introducing Level 3 loans for adults over 24 years of age? How will colleges face up to the challenges of being more independent and of being even more accountable to the communities which they serve?  I could easily go on because there are many more similar questions which I think need to be asked, need to be debated, need to be addressed.

I know that many people are now asking those big questions; my list might not be the same as yours, but most people working in the sector are worried about the future. Funding cuts do that, they make people worry and they also mean that previous gains and wins can sometimes be lost. My biggest worry at the moment is that the adult education sector is so focused on survival that the big policy and practice issues are not being debated and discussed enough. That’s why I think that one important role for NIACE is to help stimulate informed and open debate about the big issues in adult education. We will do this in partnership with others and we will provide the spaces and the intelligence where we can. We hope that you will join us and contribute to the debate.

I have also had many people asking me about the transition I have had to make personally in moving from the Skills Funding Agency to NIACE. From the outside I can see how dramatic the move has been, but for me it doesn’t feel very different. I am still fighting for the same things, I still have the same values, the same passions and the same focus…I just have a different platform and space in which to fight for what I believe in and have always believed in. When I joined the Learning and Skills Council in 2000 I was signing up to an organisation given the task of delivering a learning revolution; unfortunately I think there is still some way to go on that journey.  At NIACE we have a simple purpose; to support and make the case for all adults to have the opportunity to participate in and benefit from learning throughout their lives. I like that, I believe in it and think most people in adult education are working towards that, even those in the funding bodies.

“So, what will the new NIACE look like, then?” Having been at NIACE for less than three months, I have had the luxury of saying that I am still listening to what others want it to look like. That is probably starting to wear a bit thin but also reflects the need for NIACE to listen to its members and stakeholders. I want us to deliver what you want, meet your needs, support your agendas because that will help us to achieve our purpose. NIACE is a strong and confident organisation doing great work but, it also needs to change. There is so much to build on, so many good projects, publications, events, campaigns that the change is mainly about facing up to the new environment. NIACE is now a lot smaller than it was a few years ago, but we still have a hundred staff doing great work and I am confident that we can sustain that. More importantly is how we use our resources, how NIACE operates.

A major part of the change therefore is for NIACE to be more of a facilitator, helping to stimulate and inform debate and bringing practitioners together to help overcome the isolation they often experience. Given the funding challenges, we also need to focus our energies on the policy and practice issues which will have the most impact in line with our purpose and we need to enter into strategic alliances with others to ensure that we can combine resources rather than simply compete. If we are to be true to our purpose we need to support better learning for all adults wherever they are learning: at work, in college, in the community, informally, and so on. We also need to be vigilant to ensure that we speak out for those people and communities who are not being given adequate opportunities and support to learn and to succeed.

By the spring we will have a new NIACE strategic plan setting this out and starting to set out what the organisation will look like. Before then I will be doing more listening and learning. Lifelong learning is great, isn’t it?