04 April 2006

4 “major areas of weakness,” 2 “new” drivers, 4 “stretching targets,” 80 settled recommendations and 6 “key areas of reform.”

The ‘FE’ White Paper issued on the 27th March and which carries the signatures of the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Education Secretary, brings a lot of activity around FE together as it attempts to set out a new sense of purpose for FE. And it is purpose rather than vision that’s being offered. This is a consolidation Paper, the most over used phrase in the Paper is ‘build on what’s already there.’ Chapter 2 sets the tone. Need new specialisation in the system? “We will build on existing forms of specialisation so that it affects the ethos and mission of the entire institution.” Building on what’s already in place is, however, no bad thing; as Foster said FE has faced so much change over recent years that the last thing it needs is even more upheaval; build on its strengths, don’t knock it down to start again.

So what about the Suduko numbers at the top? The 4 major areas of weakness are well known but a little bit of iteration always helps; post 16 staying on rates (“26th out of 29 developed nations,”) low levels of adult workforce skills (“17th out of 30 countries,”) variable quality of provision (“20% of colleges have at least one area unsatisfactory”) and poor employer engagement (“82% of employers surveyed failed to use colleges.”)

The ‘new’ drivers are equally familiar, namely 14 – 19 and adult skills. “These twin urgent requirements are the drivers for the reforms set out in the White Paper.” The 4 targets include a 15% rise in participation rates of 16 – 19 yr olds by 2015; a 75% increase in Apprenticeship completion rates for young people by 2008; 3.6m adults gaining a L2 by 2010 and 50% of 18 – 30 yr olds participating in HE by 2010. The 80 recommendations are the Foster recommendations and these are dealt with in a separate Annex. Chapter 8 of Foster’s Report actually listed 116 recommendations so no doubt some have been compressed but those all present have been ticked off, even contentious ones like the DfES hosting a bi - annual conference, so a good strike rate has been achieved here.

And so to the ‘6 key areas of reform’ that make up the heart of the Paper.

The first is “strengthening the focus of the system on a core economic mission with increasing specialisation in colleges,” in effect endorsing the Foster skills mission for FE. The ambition is to move “towards a truly specialised system” and the stick is that from 2008, the LSC will only buy quality provision. There’s plenty of talk about this not being “narrow occupation specific training” and commitment to learning for personal fulfilment but the message is loud and clear.

There are 3 particularly interesting bits to this section. First a proposal to build on, (that phrase again,) the CoVE programme by developing from the end of this year, new sector led accreditation. Again carrots and sticks here. The carrots are “priority access to capital funding” and pole position for training contracts; the sticks are the need to demonstrate excellence in working with employers and effective management across the institution. Second, the development of a new National Skills Academy (NSA) driven specialist network of provision. The learning network model has been under discussion for some time and as envisaged here would be inclusive, bringing in a wide range of providers, be based around an NSA hub, and be self improving. Third, are proposals to consult on a standard for a new Centre for Excellence for 16 – 19 general rather than vocational provision and aimed at expanding the Sixth Form College sector. The Paper supports the Foster view that these institutions should be treated separately.

The 2nd area of reform lies in developing a system to meet the needs of employers and learners. Ironically while the Government continues to lament the lack of responsiveness in the public sector, FE has responded so often of late that a Review had to be set up last year to find out what it really did do. But choice + voice are the drivers of public service reform and this section responds to that.

3 instruments are identified for meeting employer needs better. First the forthcoming Train to Gain programme, itself an instrument for transforming employer training but here with careful clarification of what role brokers should follow, “they will not interfere in established training relationships which are working well but will make new matches between employers and providers.” It also interestingly commits to extending T to G to HE level provision from Sept 2006, no doubt in line with Ruth Kelly’s recent Grant Letter to HEFCE. Second, Sector Skill Agreements will set out explicit links between skill needs and training programmes, and third, the development of a new “good practice framework” for employer engagement.

As to meeting learners’ needs better, arguments for 14 – 19 Diplomas and a revised adult Framework are rehearsed but the 2 big proposals are for a new entitlement to free tuition for 19 – 25 yr olds to gain their first L3, as signalled in the Budget, and a new system of learner accounts for adults. These will tested from autumn 2007 initially for L3 and, given previous problems, will hold virtual funds, be quality assured through LSC approval and backed by a Unique Learner Number.

The 3rd key area of reform is that of raising the quality of teaching and learning and boosting staff development, areas which raised concerns for Foster. The main proposal is to introduce from Sept 2007 “a regulatory CPD requirement” that all lecturers fulfil at least 30 hrs of continuous professional development (CPD) a year and maintain a portfolio showing, for instance, records of industrial experience. Also a new CEL based Principalship qualification to be gained within 3 yrs of post. Further reforms will be introduced for initial teacher training from Sept 2007 and there will be a CPD concentration on Skills for Life teachers in the light of recent concerns. In terms of the quality of provision clearly a lot is now expected of the QIA and from the impact of the Quality Improvement Strategy launched this summer.

The 4th key area is that of tackling poor provision and of opening up the market to new providers. This remains a contentious area with the AoC concerned that the media has overplayed the extent of poor quality in the system and the CBI continuing to press for a more diverse provider market. On the former, the Paper does at least admit that “outright failure in colleges is now very rare” but maintains that provision could be improved in “up to 50 colleges.” It therefore calls for “a robust intervention strategy.” Cases requiring intervention will be identified through inspection and other performance data and be served notice to improve, generally within a year. If this doesn’t work, options include removing the management to opening up the provision to competition. Legislation will be passed to grant the LSC new powers in this area.

Foster had been very keen to see better data produced on performance levels and value for money and the Paper proposes building on the agenda for change proposals and introducing a single, standard set of key indicators covering 3 areas; responsiveness, quality and resources. Collated data in these areas will allow a balanced score card to be compiled for each institution and the LSC will consult on a possible model this summer. Again there are sticks and carrots. A poor score card will trigger ‘improvement actions,’ a high score card will attract learners and employers.

As for encouraging new providers into the market place, for 16 – 19 provision, the emphasis will be on the already established 16 – 19 competitions but the competition concept will now be extended into adult provision where poor quality is identified. Significantly from 2007/8, the LSC will only “award approved supplier status to providers based on their performance in terms of the achievement rates of trainees.” Elsewhere colleges will be encouraged to partner, collaborate, federate, even, yes, “to form a trust.”

The 5th key area of reform is funding. For 14 – 19 yr olds the aim is to develop a funding approach that enables the entitlement to be delivered through more than one provider. “We propose to examine whether funding for 14 – 16 yr old learning should be distributed so that where a young person attends more than one institution each is funded proportionately.” There are a number of difficult issues here including balancing national strategies with local discretion, differential programme costs, simplicity of admin but the Paper floats a few models. For example the host school could act as the banker and purchase provision as required as could the Local Authority as many already do; either way models will be tested out through 14 – 19 pilots as the entitlement is not in place until 2013. As for adult learning, the aim is that the share of the training budget that is demand led will rise from 20% to 40% by 2010/11 and higher after that. Commissioned funding, broker power and learning accounts should all drive this.

Elsewhere, the funding priorities as set out in the 2003 Skills Strategy remain as do the expectations that certain groups will pay more. On top of that, “we are now confirming that the national fee assumption for certain adult learners will rise to around 50% in 2010/11.” There is also to be a big push on capital investment with a focus on supporting 14 – 19 reform and extending the Building Schools for the Future vision to reflect this. “This will mean that for the first time there is a fully integrated capital strategy which will deliver for 14 – 19 yr olds across schools and the FE system.”

The 6th and final key area of reform is around simplifying the infrastructure in the guise of that old warhorse, a ‘new relationship.’ Central to this is a changing relationship between a college and the LSC, with the college becoming more autonomous and self regulating and the LSC more strategic and supervisory. There is a sense that that the shackles are lifting . “For most colleges and providers, conversations will take place just twice a year, once to agree a plan and once to review performance against it.” This suggests a very different type of relationship, one in which the ‘line of sight’ as Foster called it between national and local priorities becomes much clearer.

In addition there will be a single gateway for publication and data returns and all such papers will be issued once they’ve been checked for “clarity, relevance and ease of implementation,” an interesting move if it can be carried off. A web based system to streamline exam admin for general quals and 14 – 19 Diplomas will be introduced by 2008, a risk based more proportionate form of centre monitoring by awarding bodies will be trialled in 2007/8 and a review of exam fees and their presentation in an easier to use, common format will start with GCSEs and A levels this autumn. Elsewhere work goes on developing the Managing Information Across Partners (MIAP) structure and, as proposed by Foster, the DfES is examining whether HESA or a similar body can act as the single agency for the collation of post 16 data.

Beyond this, the Paper acknowledges comments from Foster and others about the complexity of the infrastructure around learning and skills and as such sets out to clarify who does what. Most of the clarification is around the role of the LSC who will “focus on strategic commissioning…work with Local Authorities on 14 – 19 strategies…gain stronger powers to tackle poor provision.” The LSC Chair will advise on a new accountability structure down to local level which will be regularly reviewed.

All of this will support a new learning model as proposed by Foster, one that will ‘bring together the analysis of skill needs from the demand side with trends in provision of learning in order to drive decisions on priorities and funding allocations.’ Working with the Skills Alliance, the Government will draw everything together into “a nationally agreed and published learning and assessment plan” to be published on a 3 yr rolling basis with the first one published in 2007 and linked into the Comprehensive Spending Review.

The Paper remains open for comment until 30 June 2006 and the intention is that there will be “a new dynamism in the system” by 2008. The future’s planned out, little has been left to chance.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2005. Steve Besley is General Manger of Education Policy at Edexcel. Policy watch is a service intended to help busy people understand developments in the world of education. Visit Edexcel at www.edexcel.org.uk