Socialist Educational Association |
Further
Education - March 2007
1
Introduction The purpose of this paper is to
AOC Guidance to Colleges A summary of the Leitch report which 'informs' the
current debate about skills
2
Context As members are aware, the
government is facing considerable problems regarding public expenditure.
It is also pursuing an agenda of 'reform' for the public sector, and the
FE sector is included in this. This is heralding some major changes
which FE Colleges is having to face up to, alongside other major
projects such as major building replacement programmes, Ofsted and other
quality inspections. The totality of all these changes
faces the Corporations (governing bodies) of the FE College sector with
major challenges. This paper was originally written
for my College Corporation, in which I said: 'In the light of these
matters, it behoves the Corporation to take stock of the potential
impact of these developments, which involve the curriculum, finance,
resources, quality and governance.' 3
FE Bill and the Learning and Skills Council For the first time ever, the FE
sector has got its 'own' Bill that is currently moving through
Parliament. It has started in the House of Lords, and will now move in
to the House of Commons. The key aspects that affect Colleges are ·
the national, regional and local structure of the LSC ·
the powers of the LSC regarding the sacking of Principals ·
the requirement for College Principals to have a formal
qualification ·
the provision of powers for FE Colleges to award directly
Foundation Degrees For the LSC the issues are the
major reduction in the number of its staff, linked to a new
organisational structure i.e. no longer 47 Local LSC Councils (which
is enshrined in current legislation) but 9 Regional Councils with a much
reduced number of local staff. Virtually all of this is in place,
including the staffing, but this legislation is needed to 'ratify' this.
There are those in the Houses of Parliament who are not happy at all
that effectively this has been done largely without legislative
approval. For most Colleges this means that there is a much reduced
local 'support' service, and the influence of central/national and
regional control is much more obvious. One might have expected more
strategy and less bureaucracy - as yet this is not how it feels. (e.g.
the LSC lists 50 documents as published since 9/03/07).The quality of
the bureaucracy also leaves much to be desired. Working in partnership,
with appropriate openness, are not characteristics of the current
regime. Recent meetings have been quite combative, with little interest
in the positive achievements of Colleges. A further aspect of the FE Bill
is that it will legislate for College Principals to be qualified for the
job. Vice-Chancellors too, you may ask? Of course not! Of course it is welcomed that,
presumably, support for gaining the qualification will come with the
legislation. However the detail of this legislation has not been thought
through, nor discussed with the relevant bodies. For example, it would
appear that even a Principal nearing retirement might have to comply
with this! And
Principals/Deputies who have got prior qualifications are not at all
happy that these qualifications will apparently not 'count'. This is of
course not the only example of poor consultation leading to badly
drafted legislation. The LSC is seeking to assume
considerable extra powers to sack the Principals of colleges, which have
implications for the power and authority of Corporations.
At present the only person other than the Corporation that can
sack a Principal is the Secretary of State. The House of Lords has voted
the new proposal down emphatically, but the government has already said
that it intends to re-introduce the Clause in the Bill that goes to the
House of Commons. The Association of Colleges is completely opposed to
this proposal, and considers that it sets an impossible precedent: how
can a person be sacked by two different bodies? How is a Principal to
deal with a situation where the funding from the College and their
potential job lies in the hands of one body/person? High level legal
advice is being sought in this regard. It is not thought that any other
individual/position is subject to such a challenge. It certainly does
not apply to Head Teachers or Vice Chancellors. Corporations are being
asked by the AOC to assist in lobbying MPs on this issue. As Principals
are 'parti-pris' the AOC is advising that lobbying on this issue would
be best undertaken through Corporation members. The ability to award Foundation
Degrees is welcomed by the FE Sector, but it is likely only to affect a
few colleges who have a significant amount of this work, usually in
addition to other Higher Education courses (validated by Universities).
In so far as this change will formally recognise Foundation Degrees as
being valuable, and provided by FE Colleges, this is a very positive
move. Members will not be surprised to hear that the University sector
does not think this is a good idea! 4
LSC Funding and Curriculum Priorities It is tempting to write here a
section on LSC Funding and then another section on Curriculum
Priorities. The two are immensely entwined, and are therefore discussed
together. Funding In general terms, College
LSC funding is being capped, and demands are being made to support more
students for the same or less funding. (2006/7 budget represented real
terms cuts of 3%. 2007/8 budget looks like being a further real terms
cut of 5%). The government is having difficulty in 'squaring the circle'
on finance, and the LSC is having difficulty finalising its allocations
to colleges and others. The LSC is not able to give Colleges even an
indicative budget until end of May 2007.
This makes financial management for Colleges very difficult, and
does not seem 'fair' in that the LSC and the government never hesitate
to complain about the standards of work in
colleges, but do not apply similar standards to themselves. A new
'funding methodology' was heralded some time ago, but the LSC has not
been able to produce it, and delayed implementation for a further year.
Another example of the LSC's lack of ability to do the job it is
supposed to do. Underperformance is the 'LSC word
of the moment'. For the 'core' curriculum for young people and adults,
the number of students and the courses that they study are being
progressively controlled more and more directly by the LSC. The methods
of control are based on the LSC's assessment of the quality of
provision, or 'underperformance' of Colleges, together with the
priorities of 16-19, first level 2 (equivalent to 5xGCSEs @ A-C) and
level 3 programmes (equivalent to 3xA-levels), skills for life, etc.
This assessment is separate to Ofsted quality judgements and systems,
although a 'joined up' approach to quality is supposedly being developed
involving LSC, Quality Improvement Agency, and Ofsted. The plethora of
quality systems and criteria are a now an undue burden to Colleges.
Currently, however, the LSC focus on 'underperformance' is overwhelming,
and linked directly to their proposed new ways of allocating budgets. Progressively more work that is
identified as 'underperforming' will be withdrawn by the LSC from
college budgets, and put out to competitive tender. In 2007 up to 10% of
Work Based Learning (Modern Apprentices) will be subject to the first
rounds of competitive tender. Over the next few years this will be
extended to underperforming areas of core full and part time provision
and depending on the definition of "underperforming" may
potentially have significant impacts on College budgets. 14-19 Agenda College budgets for full time
16-18 students are significant. The majority of 16-18 year olds study at
FE and VI Form College. Continuing to maintain and grow this area of
work is a key goal and requirement for the College sector. Standards are
a big concern in FE, in that a significant proportion of FE college
students have failed at school, and so require extra help to succeed.
The extent to which Colleges successfully manage this is critical. All
of the ways in which the government constructs its targets and league
tables ignore the fact that Colleges have to pick up with students where
they have been failed by the school system. Work Based Learning
(Apprenticeships) is being forced to cope with the knock-on effect of
restricted government funding, and a key issue is maintaining a viable
portfolio which can be integrated within the mainstream 16-19 funding
and college programmes. Some of the current quality controls being
introduced by the LSC would make your eyes water, they are so Byzantine. There is also considerable
pressure on all schools to be working with Colleges on the 14-16 and
16-19 agenda to provide a broader and more vocationally oriented
curriculum. Engaging in this area of work has been resource intensive
for the College sector, and needs to be considered alongside the other
demands on the Colleges. The competitive aspect of school against
school, and school/s against college/s is massive. Government policy in
this regard is completely contradictory, and leading to vast amounts of
time and effort being wasted. The so-called new Vocational Diploma
development initiative is almost inoperable because of these conflicts, as well as the fact
that there is great confusion as to its purpose. Another example of no
consultation, rejection of a good piece of work by Professor Tomlinson,
and poor outcomes as a result. Perhaps Professor Tomlinson could give
our next Caroline Benn lecture? Adult Provision As members are well aware, the
scope and profile of the work of the College sector for adult students
has reduced considerably over the last 5 years. Government priorities
and funding have focussed on specific priorities, and increasingly
funding is linked to these. The less educated you are as an adult, the
less likely it is that you will be able get on to the 'learning ladder'. The impact on Community Education
services and their rationale in this context needs consideration.
Already most Colleges have cut back on some if not all of their
community provision in the light of LSC funding and curriculum
priorities, and further changes may be needed. In addition, a new demand-led
approach to funding 'Adult Learning' is being introduced. In this regard
the Train to Gain element of work for adults, linked directly to meeting
employer needs, should grow quite significantly from its current level.
There are however many aspects of this funding stream which make it
difficult to integrate within the overall College management and
financial frameworks. Many colleges have already
initiated changes in this area of work by establishing specialist
centres as cost recovery, income generating centres. This can be seen as
a start to managing a situation where the LSC is going to require
Colleges, in theory at least, to be highly flexible, paid on results
rather than being 'supply led', with no 'underperforming' areas, and
working within the very 'consumer', paid by results, environment of the
LSC. The language is about volumes, commissioning, underperformance, and
the atmosphere is a negative one that accompanies that sort of
terminology. Not user friendly, from a College perspective. Higher Education Funding for Higher Education does
not come from the LSC. Good progress is being made in this area in many
colleges. Its viability and the HE approach to quality control (very
demanding, and used as a lever by HE to 'control' HE in FE) are key
issues, which need to be considered strategically alongside the purpose
of having a HE portfolio. Larger colleges will find this easier than
smaller colleges. As a 'buffer' to the control of the LSC, HE income
could become really important to the FE sector. How long before the LSC
start to try and control that too? Budgets All of the above means that FE
College LSC budgets will be 'earned' in very different ways to hose to
which we are currently used. The balance of income sources will change,
together with the criteria that go with them. Colleges will need to
carry out a serious risk assessment of this and adopt a positive
strategy with which to face the future in providing their services to
students and clients. The impact on staffing and other resources could
be significant. AOC
The national Association of
Colleges works hard to mitigate against the worst of these changes, and
provides good information, as SEA knows, to all colleges. Appendix 1 is
an extract from one of their recent briefing papers. 5
Education and Skills Appendix 2 is a summary of the
Leitch Report which is spelling out the importance of skills and the
economy. Sadly, this has its origins in the Brown agenda, and indicates
that the utilitarian view of education promoted by Blair is going to
continue. The disregard for education when it is applied to working
class people is breathtaking. It is still perfectly all right to study
English, Latin and Politics at school and university but only if you
go to university, and preferably Oxford, Cambridge or Durham. Otherwise,
the rest remain condemned to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. 6
Conclusions The above overview does not
pretend to be exhaustive, but hopefully gives members a feel for the
impact of current and future plans of the government. Joanna Tait Appendix 1 Further Education and
Training Bill: The impact on your college As you will know the Further
Education and Training Bill is currently being considered by the House
of Lords. The Bill contains significant areas of interest for colleges
in particular Clause 19 would allow FE colleges to award their own
foundation degrees and Clause 17 proposes that the LSC have a new power
to give directions to a college requiring its governing body to dismiss
a senior post holder. AoC is lobbying Peers on both of
these issues. We are also using the legislation to encourage debates in
Parliament about two other key issues of importance to members the
level of bureaucracy in FE and the Government's 'choice' agenda. Also of interest is Clause 22
which introduces new rules regarding Principals' qualifications. AoC is seeking clarification from
Ministers regarding the time period in which they expect Principals to
have achieved relevant qualifications and whether the new measures will
apply to all Principals regardless of their circumstances. The Bill had its Second Reading
in the House of Lords on 13 December and will now be considered in more detail
(Committee stage) on 23, 25, 30 January and 1 February. Guidance attached to the
above AOC note: Foundation degrees
Clause 19 AoC is strongly supporting Clause
19 of the Further Education and Training Bill which would allow the
Privy Council to bestow the power to award foundation degrees only on
further education colleges. This would remove the current requirement
for colleges to validate their foundation degrees only via a
university. The power is an enabling one. The
Privy Council acts in this area under statutory instruments. In the case
of full degree awarding powers, there is a comprehensive and demanding
process to assess the capability of individual institutions. The
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is expected to set out its
proposed regulations for foundation degree awarding powers this month.
There is every reason to expect that there will be high quality
thresholds. The Government have introduced
this Clause as a result of lobbying by AoC and the Mixed Economy Group
of colleges. We raised concerns about the length of time universities
often take to validate a foundation degree course and the charges /
level of top-slicing from universities. The Government is under a
considerable amount of pressure from many Peers and the universities to
drop this Clause. Proposed new power for
LSC/Welsh Assembly Government to give directions to a college requiring
its governing body to dismiss a senior post holder Clauses 17 and 18 Clause 17 of the Further
Education and Training Bill transfers powers to intervene in the work of
an FE college, which currently lie with the Secretary of State, to the
LSC. Where the LSC has concerns about
the way a college is being managed it can: ·
remove all or any of the governing body and appoint new governors ·
direct the governing body on how to exercise its duties ·
order the governing body to dismiss senior post-holders
including the Principal The Secretary of State will also
have a reserve power to direct the LSC to take action as described
above. Clause 18 of the Bill proposes
similar powers be given to the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) in respect of colleges in
Wales. AoC believes that the
Government's decision to give the LSC/WAG power to require a College to
dismiss a senior post holder has been poorly thought out and therefore
we are lobbying for Clauses 17 and 18 to be amended. Both the
Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats oppose Clauses 17 and 18. AoC has drafted a proposed
amendment to Clause 17 and we hope this will be tabled for debate at
Committee stage. The effect of this amendment would be to: ·
remove the right of the LSC to order the dismissal of a
college Principal or other senior member of staff; ·
remove the right of the LSC to direct a Governing body
and replace it with a right to 'advise'; ·
remove the power of the LSC to intervene where an
institution is performing 'less well than it might be expected to do in
all the circumstances'. We feel this definition is drawn far too widely; ·
introduce a power identical to that held by local
authorities when they are concerned about a school head. The 'choice' agenda
concentrating on courses and qualifications rather than institutions - Clause 6 Clause 6 of the Bill places a
duty on the LSC to 'encourage diversity' in education and training and
'act with a view to increasing opportunities for individuals to exercise
choice'. AoC is concerned that the
Government has not defined 'choice' in the context of this Bill and that
the LSC may feel obliged to ensure there are many different types of
institution in a particular area rather than a wide range of courses and
qualifications available. We are well aware of the problems
associated with the presumption in favour of school sixth forms and the
destabilising effect this has had on some college provision. We will be
seeking to table amendments to ensure choice is not solely focused on
institutions. Bureaucracy busting
placing a duty on LSC to account for the paperwork and circulars it
sends to colleges and reduce it year on year (proposed new Clause) The Education Act 2002 places a
duty on the Secretary of State for Education, when communicating with
schools, to 'have regard to' the benefits that are expected to result
from the guidance; the desirability of avoiding sending excessive
material and the imposition of excessive administrative burdens. The
Secretary of State also has to produce a report for Parliament listing
the number of documents sent to schools in the current year compared to
previous years. AoC is seeking to table a new
Clause into the FE and Training Bill to introduce a similar duty upon
the Learning and Skills Council in an attempt to ensure the LSC takes
greater strides towards reducing the bureaucratic burden on colleges. Principals'
qualifications (Clause 22) Clause 22 states that all
Principals need to achieve a specified qualification and allows the
Secretary of State to set a time limit by which the qualification must
be achieved. The Government's explanatory notes say that any regulations
made under this Clause 'will allow adequate time for the acquisition of
the qualification'. AoC will be tabling an amendment
to allow for a debate on this issue and to seek clarification on how
long Principals will have to achieve the qualification. We have concerns
that Principals who have held the same post for a number of years will
be forced to achieve the qualification. Appendix 2 Leitch Review of long term skills needs: A summary "In the 21st Century, our
natural resource is our people and their potential is both untapped and
vast. Skills are the key to unlocking that potential. The prize for our
country will be enormous, higher productivity, the creation of wealth
and social justice
The case for action is compelling and urgent.
Becoming a world leader on skills will enable the UK to compete with the
best in the world. I am optimistic." Lord Leitch, December 2006 "The clock is ticking for
the one in three employers who fail to train." Brendan Barber, TUC Reforms were originally announced
in the government's white paper on further education last year and have
been endorsed by Lord Leitch's report on skills. The report has
committed the Government to working towards a demand-led system to put
purchasing power for learning in he hands of the employers and
individual learners. Leitch recommends that the UK
commits to a compelling new vision - to become a world leader in skills
by 2020. By this date: 95% of working age adults
should have basic skills in both functional literacy and numeracy,
rising from 85% and 79% respectively in 2005; More than 90% of adults
should be skilled to GCSE level or to vocational equivalents (at least
level 2), rising from 69% in 2005; The number of apprentices in
the UK to be boosted to 500,000 each year, double the current number,
with improved quantity, quality and esteem for intermediate skills; More than 40% of adults to be
skilled to graduate level and above, up from 29% in 2005. Wherever
possible, skills should be portable to deliver mobility in the labour
market for individuals and employers. Leitch highlights the need for
shared responsibility of the three key players. The costs of raised
ambitions should be shared between government, employers and
individuals. It recommends a new partnership, based on the success of
Train to Gain in England: ·
Government must create an end-to-end system with real
clarity and discipline as to who in the education and skills
infrastructure does what, ensuring employers and individuals drive the
system so that it delivers economically valuable skills. ·
Employers must respond to the opportunities offered,
apply their stronger voice in definition of skills qualifications, focus
investment on where this will have most effect in meeting their needs. ·
Individuals must invest in their own skills development
and raise their aspirations and awareness, sustained by high profile
awareness programmes on the value of skills to them and their families Radical change is
recommended across the whole skills spectrum by: Routing public funding of
vocational skills through Train to Gain and Learner Accounts; Strengthening the employer
voice on skills through creation of a new Commission for Employment and
Skills; Reforming Sector Skills
Councils who will simplify and approve vocational training; Launching a new 'pledge' for
employers to voluntarily train more employees at work. If insufficient
progress has been made by 2010, introduce a statutory right for
employees to access workplace training; Increasing employer
investment in higher level qualifications, especially in Apprenticeships
and in degree and postgraduate levels; significantly more training in
the workplace; Raising people's aspirations
and awareness of the value of skills, creating a new universal adult
careers service to diagnose skill needs with a skills health check
available for all; Government to introduce
compulsory education or workplace training up to age 18 following
introduction of new Diplomas and expanded Apprenticeship route; Integrating the public
employment and skills services to deliver sustainable employment,
enabling more disadvantaged people to gain skills and find work,
developing employer-led Employment and Skills Boards As skills policy in the UK being
a devolved issue the Review has worked closely with the Devolved
Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its analysis
has implications for infrastructure, policies and targets in each
country. The Commission for Employment and
Skills will be an employer led body to deliver leadership and influence
formed by the merger of the Sector Skill Development Agency (SSDA) and
the National Employer Panel (NEP), reducing the number of bodies
involved in skills delivery. A network of employer-led Employment and
Skills Board would report to the Commission New remit for Sector
Skills Councils include: Taking the lead role in
developing national occupational standards and approving vocational
qualifications (only SSC approved vocational courses should qualify for
public funding); Leading in the collation and
communication of sectoral labour market data; Raising employer engagement,
demand and investment; Consider collective action to
address specific sector skills needs. Skills Pledge The skills pledge would be a
specific promise from employers to its workforce that every eligible
employee would be helped to gain basic skills and a level 2
qualification. If by 2010 the skills improvement rate is insufficient, a
statutory entitlement to workplace training may be introduced. The LSC
is already allocating £10 million to support national employers who
'pledge' to train to level 2. The pledge builds on the recent experience
in Wales (currently 10% of employees are covered by a pledge to
guarantee them access to training in work). Apprenticeships Employers should drive and
control the content of Apprenticeships through their SSCs and SSCs
should work with employers to increase the supply of high quality places
for young people and adults. Management and Leadership
SSCs and skills brokers should drive up employer investment in management skills. The DfES Leadership and Management programme for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) should be extended to firms with between 10 and 20 employees. The Leadership and Management Advisory Panel may report to the Employment and Skills Commission. Joanna Tait,
March 2007
|