There is much to be welcomed in the Government’s latest national skills strategy Skills for Growth that was published yesterday.
In particular, CFE is encouraged by plans to fund 35,000 new advanced and higher level apprenticeships for 19 to 30 year olds and to ensure these qualifications get UCAS points to improve the current (very low) rate of progression into higher education. However, as we are currently in the midst of the longest recession since records began and we have already seen an increase in the number of apprentices being made redundant, offering a wage subsidy to employers may be the only way of ensuring there is a significant increase in apprenticeship starts. In terms of progression to higher education, Skills for Growth has little to say about learners that wish to continue studying alongside their job on a part time basis. Many young people that have worked hard towards an apprenticeship are reluctant to then stop working for three years to study full time with all the associated costs this entails.
The establishment of University Technical Colleges for 14 to 19 year olds, as detailed in the strategy, is potentially a very effective way of increasing the flow of young people into the labour market with the practical skills demanded by employers. For too long we have lamented the quality and quantity of vocational education whilst resisting specialisation at an early age for fear of ‘pigeonholing’ young people. Technical Colleges could ensure greater parity of esteem between academic and vocational education and offer real choice to young people, so it is critical that in their implementation they do not become a dumping ground for the less able.
We welcome the government’s commitment to fund a fifth round of National Skills Academies. Having worked closely with the LSC and BIS over the last two years it has been encouraging to see employers who are genuinely dedicated to driving up the skills levels of employees within their sectors; committing money and time to improve the quality of provision. The challenge remains however for NSAs to demonstrate their added value and impact. At a time when the government is committing to reduce the number of publically funded skills bodies by 30, it is imperative that those bodies they choose to continue to fund give the tax payer (in which we include employers) and learners the best value possible.
Both this strategy, and the recent UKCES ‘Towards Ambition 2020: skills, jobs, growth’ report (on which it draws heavily) say nothing about job losses when outlining simplification options. While all of the mainstream parties agree there is a need to cull the number of agencies that clutter the skills landscape, none have outlined how many individuals will be added to the unemployment figures as a result. Historically, when agencies have disappeared their employees have tended to find a position elsewhere in the newly ‘streamlined’ system; the uncomfortable truth is that this explains, at least in part, why previous attempts to simplify the skills system have achieved so little. Removing the number of agencies in the system and reducing the number of people that work in the system are not one and the same.
The proposed ‘traffic light’ rating (mirroring that set out in the HE framework last week) has the potential to provide the clarity required for businesses and individuals to make informed choices in a truly demand led system. The challenge now is to ensure the ratings are based on accurate and relevant data - this will require a radical overhaul of the quality of data currently collected and collated by providers in the skills system. With regard to the system itself - consider the following paragraphs that describe how the system will operate in the post-simplified world at a regional level:
A crucial question for each English region in implementing the proposals to simplify the skills landscape is how to be sure that their Single Integrated Strategy properly reflects the needs of all areas within the region. Where there are Employment and Skills Boards and multi-area agreement partnerships Regional Development Agencies will need to work closely with them in the development of the skills elements of the regional strategy.
For areas without a sub-regional partnership, Regional Development Agencies will work directly with the relevant local authorities to make sure their needs are accommodated in the regional strategy. Single Integrated Strategies will be formally signed off by Local Authority Leaders’ Boards, who can make sure that the needs of their local economies are reflected.
Simple!
Continuing with the theme of simplification, the statement that ‘there is no longer a requirement for nine Regional Skills Partnerships as separate bodies to the Regional Development Agencies’ is taken with some caution. Naturally it makes sense to reduce the number of bodies that clutter the skills landscape where there is duplication of effort and evidence of little or no added value. However, the beauty of RSPs was, in most cases, their employer leadership and joint accountability for delivering regional priorities across all of the partners. Assuming that RDAs and RSPs are one in the same is a foolish statement and one which is at odds with the drivers behind this government’s original reasons for creating RSPs in the first place. At a time when the employment, skills and economic development agendas are becoming more integrated than ever, we must be careful not to wipe out the very infrastructures that have accelerated the achievement of integrated services over the last four years.
James Kewin and Sarah Hakeney
Joint Managing Directors
Skills for Growth - A national strategy for economic growth and individual prosperity can be found here.