19 September 2006

FE’s place in the sun which has lasted for much of the last 18 months and taken in the ‘agenda for change’ reform programme, Sir Andrew Foster’s Review and the March 2006 White Paper, has left it feeling a little sore perhaps in some places but generally with its mind and body in good shape. It’s remarkable, as this Select Committee Inquiry Report notes, how much genuine affection there is for FE but where’s the lotion applied next? An FE Bill this autumn, further changes to the funding system, more soul searching about how to engineer a demand led system?

Certainly a lot of questions remain and this Inquiry has done a useful job in sifting through them and clarifying what further action is needed. It heard a lot of evidence during its sittings between November 2005 and April 2006 and although it kept away from the big issue of the skills infrastructure, that’s next in its sights, it did look at another contentious issue, that of funding adult learning, a topic outside the scope of both Foster and the White Paper. In effect, it has tried to identify “those areas which we think are of particular significance and where we felt our Inquiry process could add most value.” As a summary of the FE landscape, as of autumn 2006, maybe look no further.

The headline messages are not particularly new and reflect familiar concerns. So there’s concern about FE’s “organisational overlay,” the various bodies and agencies “which oversee, direct and audit FE;” concern about what ‘a more central focus on skills for employability’ actually means; concern about the relationship with employers “while it’s right that emphasis should be placed on improving provider responsiveness, a parallel emphasis on improvements employers should make is not always evident;” and concern about how the views of learners might be represented. As ever, FE is full of concerns.

Three conclusions stand out.

Firstly, and most pointedly since this was not addressed in either Foster or the White Paper, is what’s happening to adult learning. “There is compelling evidence” the Inquiry concludes “that certain types of adult learning are being inadvertently put at risk by current funding priorities.” It recognised the rock and the hard place between which Ministers are caught but called for much greater clarity on “the dividing line between what is of value to individuals and the economy and what is less so;” the pilates versus plumbing argument as Alan Johnson so memorably put it. It also noted constant volatility in the ‘funding landscape’ and the difficulties this creates in terms of planning and stability. “At the moment, secure long term funding is not a reality on the ground and there are even questions about whether it will become the norm for the majority of providers – rather than those who perform exceptionally – in the medium term.”

It was particularly disturbed by two other factors. One was the supposition in the White Paper that personal and development learning would be sustainable either through existing funds or through greater fee charging, “there will increasingly be an expectation that individuals should pay for this kind of provision where they can afford to do so” White Paper para 2.45. In its view, this is ‘highly questionable’ and needs ‘close monitoring.’ The other was the introduction of higher fee levels in FE. Several witnesses expressed concern about and the Inquiry duly calls for “an impact assessment to be undertaken this autumn of how the new fees regime is affecting the overall socio economic profile of adult learners.”

The second main conclusion is the overlaying issue, what Foster described as the galaxy of bodies around FE. The Inquiry takes a strong line here, “we do not think that proposals to improve the administration of the functioning of the DfES and the LSC go far enough.” Foster’s attempt to clarify the roles of the DfES and the LSC, one strategic, the other operational, had been well received and the Inquiry welcomes some progress, “such as reducing staffing numbers where there are overlapping functions and the DfES ceding control of certain operational areas to the LSC.” However it believes that there’s still a trust issue, this was “not covered in sufficient detail in the recent White Paper” and is restricting the LSC’s ability to take a more proactive role in championing FE. On whether there should be a Minister with a specific brief for FE, views remain mixed, “we do not feel the evidence for this is clear cut.” The issue of FE being marginalised within this portfolio thus still remains.

The Inquiry was, however, more supportive of the concept of a National Learning Model, sketched out by Foster and adopted in the concluding section of the White Paper. Described there, the Model would “bring together the analysis of skills needs from the demand side with trends in provision of learning, in order to drive decisions on priorities and funding allocations.” The Minister confirmed support for such a Model and this Inquiry offers further backing, “we recommend that the development of a National Learning Model should be an absolute priority for the Government” though it “must not be a post hoc justification of decisions already taken about priorities and targets.” But where’s FE’s voice in the planning?

The third conclusion that stands out was about how best to proceed. “We see risks as well as opportunities in the incremental approach that Sir Andrew advocated and which the Government appears to have largely accepted as the way forward.” The Inquiry welcomed the setting up of a joint DfES/LSC programme board to oversee the changes but noted “with disappointment” the absence of a user group.

A major issue here is what a skills mission means for FE. “It is apparent from the evidence we took that, despite broad support for skills and employability as a central focus, agreement about what that actually might mean in practice is some way off.” The Inquiry calls on the Government to spell out “what skills and employability actually includes and excludes” so that FE can be clear where its primary function lies. It also has an interesting section on learners and employers. It wants “colleges to be required to publish annually their findings on students’ views” for the former and the Government “to consider the merits of promoting the more widespread use of levies” for the latter. Its recommendation that the “Government needs to take a step back and review whether a demand led system is becoming a reality” suggests that it recognises the tensions inherent in this.

FE remains crucial to at least four of the Government’s lead education policies, namely 14 – 19, Train to Gain, widening participation and HE and Welfare to Work. Its place in the sun is thus hugely important; it mustn’t be browned off.

© 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