25 June 2007

Political parties are being fairly cagey at present about making grand policy pronouncements – it is after all a time of considerable political transition. Developing policy rather than announcing it is the order of the day, a welcome relief perhaps after ten years of being battered with policy announcements. Anyway there’ll be plenty of time for all that policy stuff later this year as the Conservative Party Policy Reviews report back and Gordon Brown’s policy position is established.

For the moment therefore it’s a time for red pens and reflection as various Papers are brought forward for comment. One such is the recent Paper submitted to the Shadow Cabinet setting out Conservative thinking on the learning and skills landscape. It’s a mixture of something old, something new, something borrowed and something blue. Thus the concept of skills brokers, something old and borrowed, is included but with a proposal, both new and blue in policy colour, that they should either become employees of a new Advisory Service or, like Financial Advisers, “join the private sector and become licensed and regulated.” “In contrast to the largely supply Train to Gain programme,” the Paper goes on, “ their revenue should in the long term depend on their placement performance in respect of appropriately accredited courses.”

This is a Paper then that means business; it is focused on raising skill levels and is direct in approach, there’s little mention of entitlements, personal circumstances, incentives (“we do not address this issue here,”) and, some might say, sentiment. Quite simply raising skill levels makes sense so let’s get on with it.

The Paper’s starting point is that our present vocational training system is ‘not fit for purpose.’ The case for the prosecution is built around the Leitch analysis which is swallowed whole but other dragons need slaying as part of the response. There’s our poor basic skill levels particularly amongst school leavers, a drop in starts for work based learning, a “confusing” vocational qualification system, a “failing” Apprenticeship system, our poor international standing in terms of skills and the biggest, most hungry dragon of all – our “convoluted” skills system itself. “The money that does reach such training” the Paper exclaims at one point talking about the funding of intermediate level skills training, “comes through so bewildering an array of funding streams as to leave all those involved gasping for breath.” It’s a vivid image and little is spared in the analysis.

Indeed, it does feel on occasions as though the charge is started before all the facts are in line. To take one example, the Paper shakes its head at how all the public funds are being spent, the implication being that much of it is wasted. “£1.8bn of the LSC’s annual budget of £10.4bn does not go directly into education and training,” it argues at one point. Yet a large chunk of that money, £406m to be precise, is being spent on encouraging young people to stay in learning through Education Maintenance Allowances, £376m is on capital costs to provide appropriate learning facilities and £150m on supporting local activities. On top of that, it’s only fair to point out that the LSC is acting under orders; it receives an annual grant linked to particular priorities and allocates accordingly. It’s common practice to throw stones at the “confusing” qualification framework or the “complex” funding system but it’s less common to peer through the windows and see what changes are being made and in both cases, they are considerable.

If the diagnosis raises questions, the vision, with its emphasis on greater trust and less central control, may be more appealing though it needs to be recognised that these are enshrined in a particular political philosophy.

On the first of these, trust, the Paper states strongly that it “trusts the consumer to choose what is best in respect of current and future training needs, provided that the relevant information is available.” This relevant information is to come through a new “Careers Advisory Service (CAS) separate from and partly replacing the current Connexions Service.” This will be the familiar ‘one stop shop’ model offering skills training advice via Advice Desks and funding advice via Funding Desks. Skills training advice will come from a range of integrated sources including Jobcentre Plus, Business Link and the Small Business Service.

As for funding, what is being proposed is “the introduction of a simple set of DfES produced eligibility criteria that will weight the allocation of funding towards the skills needs of the market as identified by Sector Skills Councils (SSCs.)” The central premise is of “a single integrated arrangement for state funded vocational skills training in which money follows the trainee.” The language is demand led but the reality appears market led with SSCs acting as the key agencies; “our recommendation is that SSCs should play a major role in ensuring that taxpayer spending on vocational skills training is market led.” An “empowered, professionalized cadre” of SSCs in effect gets three roles: skills research and market trends, designing training programmes with partners, and working with awarding bodies to ensure qualifications match industry needs. With funding coming direct from Government and needs being channelled through the CAS to SSCs and back, the implication is that other agencies, like Monty Python’s parrot, would just “cease.”

Linked to this and in support of the second principle of a more hands off system, the Paper sanctions another structure that the Party hasn’t always loved, namely Local Authorities. They, along with SSCs, are the other big ‘winners’ in this model. “In our view, with a system in which money follows the learner, Local Authorities can more adequately replace the current, complex funding architecture of LSCs, SSDA, RDAs and LLSCs.” Two of these are already being replaced but the point is made – Local Authorities are to act as bankers of individual training grants. “They are” according to the Paper, “already geared up to administer individual grants as part of both education and regeneration.” This goes considerably further than the recent Lyons Review of Local Government which said it was “virtually impossible to come to a definitive view about whether funding is adequate even to fund central Government commitments under the current system.”

Little mention at present of how provision will be commissioned or inspected, of how learners will be supported or incentivised or of how providers will lock into such a system but at this stage that’s not the point. ‘A radical overhaul of state funding’ and ‘a simpler system’ are the points and fairly sharp ones at that.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2007. 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