12 August 2009

As the landscape changes designed to transform 14-19 and adult skills provision steam ahead, three interesting developments emerge.

The first concerns the proposed Skills Funding Agency (SFA.) The positioning of this body seems to have been the subject of speculation for a while particularly since it came under the remit of BIS (the Dept for Business Innovation and Skills.) A recent letter from Lord Mandelson, the Secretary of State for BIS, has set this speculation in context. “I can confirm” he writes, “that I am considering the case for modifying the existing plans for the creation of the Skills Funding Agency to allow the skills landscape to be simplified by making the RDAs the single body with responsibility for producing the regional skills strategy and being the champion and advocate for skills at the regional level.”

This may have an attractive ring to it but there are some downsides. For a start, the current legislation going through Parliament in the form of the ASCL Bill which will formally legislate for the SFA , makes little mention of any new relationship between it and RDAs, especially one of RDA based regional skills strategies which in the words of the letter would “constitute a binding investment plan on the SFA.” Secondly, positioning RDAs in this way runs the risk of turf wars particularly with Local Authorities over just who is responsible for what at a regional level. The Local Government Association has already expressed concern about any ‘fiddling around the edge of the SFA.’ So what’s the case for it? Probably four things: partly system simplification, partly the need for savings, partly some necessary tidying up and partly politics in the sense that all major political Parties are talking the language of localism. The Conservatives for instance are apparently considering the case for handing control of welfare benefits over to local councils although they have yet to demonstrate the same affection for RDAs.

Lord Mandelson is characteristically forthright about how such a system might work. “Under this scenario, RDAs would be assigned the lead role in identifying, as part of their wider responsibilities for regional economic development, demand-side needs for skills in their regions. Those needs will be expressed in a regional skills strategy, led by the RDA, which will constitute an investment plan which would become binding on the SFA.” In turn, “the responsibility for allocating funds to, and managing the relationship with, colleges and training providers on the supply side would rest with the SFA…which would operate a national contracting and account management function for providers.”

We may have to wait until later this year to see how all the bits around the SFA fit together. The Bill Committee sessions don’t start up again until mid October, further simplification work from the UK Commission for Employment and Skills follows in the autumn and another National Skills Strategy White Paper is promised. For the moment then it’s the earlier New Industry, New Jobs Paper that continues to set the agenda for much of the skills landscape.

The second development attracting interest is 16-19 commissioning. As we await the launch next month of consultation on a National Commissioning Framework, recently released research for the Local Government Association into “early experiences” in this area helps set the scene.

Entitled ‘mapping the terrain’ and based on research undertaken mainly last year, the Paper refers to a ‘journey’ that seems to be proving bumpier for some than for others, leading to what the Paper euphemistically calls “differing levels of advancement.” Reasons for this include: the strength or otherwise of existing collaborative arrangements, a critical factor given most arrangements were being built on pre-existing relationships; the willingness or otherwise “to accept and embrace the change,” a factor often related to resources and capacity; and the diversity of provision in some areas with different types of schools, academies, post-16 provision, training provision and so on, all making the collation of individual learner data and the mapping of needs harder to achieve.

Broadly two types of commissioning model emerge; one at an LA level and the other, less commonly, at a sub-regional level where a commissioning team is based in one LA but acts on behalf of all LAs in the group. Some progress was being made although some of it may have come as an unwelcome surprise given this comment: “some LAs said they had developed an appreciation of the complexities of both the FE system and tasks involved in commissioning.” Overall, three problems stand out. First, difficulties in communication. This is often an issue in the early stages of big initiatives such as this but a real sense of groping in the dark emerges here. The Paper suggests gently that the DCSF “might wish to consider providing detailed explanation and guidance about how the commissioning process might work.” Others may put it more robustly. Second, and a worry that those working in the FE system have had for some time, is that while the complexities of the FE system might be better appreciated, it’s not necessarily better understood. This is particularly the case when it comes to the funding system: “providers perceived the most challenging aspects of the transfer was LAs’ apparent lack of knowledge of the complex and diverse provider and FE system and the current funding system.” Hopefully the shadowing arrangements between LAs and the LSC will help here. And third, some fundamental concerns remain about meeting the timeframe: “the risk is there is a delay in the process and this builds in uncertainty.” It’s only eight months to go now to the April 2010 transition date.

The third recent development is the ‘Backing Young Britain’ campaign which was launched by four Cabinet Ministers a couple of weeks ago. Some may remember the ‘I’m backing Britain’ campaign of the late 1960s, it became a symbol of ‘groovy’ Britain. This latest campaign has a much more serious purpose, that of trying to prevent a lost generation of young people emerging from this recession as happened in the past. Unemployment has been rising fastest amongst the 18-24 age group and this week’s unemployment figures show that nearly 1/5 or just under a million, of young people have no job, all this at the same time as places at university and on apprenticeships remain uncertain.

The government is putting considerable resources into this campaign to support an extra 55,000 places in learning and training under the September Guarantee scheme, 47,000 youth jobs through the Future Jobs Fund and 20,000 extra internships for graduates and others. It hopes through the ‘Backing Young Britain’ campaign that other groups such as employers and charities will pitch in and help them. It’s one campaign that the Government needs to win.

© Edexcel Policy Watch 2009. Steve Besley is Head of 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