[ Current issue ] [ Back issues ] [ Special Issues ]

Editor's Letter - February 2007

“The sector needs a different future which gives equal weight to social justice and economic prosperity – and why not, for once, in that order?”

Since 1997 the learning and skills sector has been subject to wave upon wave of reform. Never has the sector received so much serious attention from government. Yet, according to Frank Coffield, despite nine years of constant reform – and a good deal of clear progress on some fronts – the sector remains ‘inchoate, over-centralised, democratically unaccountable, unequal, woefully underresearched and without robust data for decision-making’.

The pace of change within the sector is fast and accelerating. Lord Leitch’s review of Britain’s future skills needs sees the landscape shifting once again, with employers to be put firmly ‘in the driving seat’ of a demand-led skills system. Sir Andrew Foster’s 2005 report urged further education colleges to reconfigure around a new mission: ‘to help people gain the skills and qualifications for employability’. A great deal is expected of these reforms and of the sector which is to deliver them.

But are they taking us in the right direction? Are the reforms creating the ‘radical and enduring change’ envisaged by David Blunkett in his remit letter to the Learning and Skills Council in 2000? Coffield thinks not. Since the publication of the Foster report employability seems to be becoming not just the main mission of FE but its ‘sole mission, with colleges up and down the country closing courses not linking to it’. Instead of what Alan Tuckett describes as the Government’s ‘narrow utilitarianism’, the sector needs ‘a different future which gives equal weight to social justice and economic prosperity – and why not, for once, in that order?’

Education policy, Coffield says, is based on three underlying assumptions: that ‘our future depends on skills’; that it is appropriate ‘to put employers in the driving seat’; and that market competition is essential to make providers efficient and responsive. Not only are all three assumptions wrong, and, indeed, damaging, Coffield argues, they have been roundly criticised for almost 30 years. It’s a recipe ‘for long-term failure’.

Politicians of all parties ‘need a new story to tell’, Coffield argues. ‘An increasingly sophisticated electorate deserves better than the insulting rhetoric … that education on its own can create economic prosperity and social justice. Instead we want to hear how education will become part of a co-ordinated strategy of social, economic and fiscal policies to tackle deep-rooted inequalities.’

Such a strategy should, of course, see business and education working closely together ‘but in a relationship where the private sector is prepared to learn from the public sector as well as vice versa’.

Coffield’s argument will resonate with many, particularly the front-line staff in whose working lives many of these tensions are played out. As reported on page four of this issue, further education lecturers are experiencing higher levels of stress and ever lower morale. Many complain of a lack of influence over their work, of responsibility without authority. As Coffield insists, it’s time the professionals responsible for delivering reform were treated as full partners in the process rather than as one of its objects.

Paul Stanistreet, Editor, Adults Learning