The release of Ofsted’s evaluation of the impact of Train to Gain on skills in employment was met with interest, not least because it finds that whilst the service has had a positive impact on up-skilling the workforce it has not increased employer demand for training. This is an important finding that should encourage the Government to examine its skills service for employers and whether it is meeting its aims to drive up employer demand for training. The report also notes that the service was sometimes weak when referring and providing effective information advice and guidance to learners and inconsistent when it was.
These are not new findings; when the LSC first released the Learner Evaluation of Train to Gain, CFE highlighted the crucial role that information, advice and guidance (IAG) had played in the success of learner experiences (to read the full article click here), but noted that there was an ‘expectation gap’ in terms of what the learner was expecting and what the service actually provided. Now as the Government prepares to put £1bn of public funds into Train to Gain by 2010/11 the role IAG plays needs to be further examined to ensure the effective use of this investment for the learner.
The ‘Train to Gain Learner Evaluation: Report from Wave 1 Research’ identifies that nearly three quarters of learners reported that the training they received helped them to do their job better, good news for Train to Gain. But seen another way this means that approximately one in four Train to Gain learners have not been helped to do their job better. Look further and you see 13% had thought it would, but in reality it did not help them and that 14% had never expected the training to do this anyway! This also doesn’t take into account the 3% of learners who left their training prior to completion.
The Learner Evaluation identifies that "where learners have expressed dissatisfaction this is often linked to a lack of IAG at the outset". Currently, IAG is not a core requirement of the Train to Gain model, although it is stated that there should be a general pre-entry information session for employees interested in training which may delivered one to one, or to a group. If we use the ‘matrix standard’ (a standard which all Train to Gain approved providers must have) criteria for IAG delivery as our starting point for delivering a high quality intervention, we can see if Train to Gain can do anything further to improve the level of IAG they are delivering, improve the learner experience, ensure that learners may improve their skills to help them in their job, and stimulate the desire for further learning.
The ‘matrix' standard criteria requires that: people are made aware of the service and how to engage with it; people's use of the service is defined and understood; people are provided with access to information and support in using it; and people are supported in exploring options and making choices. There are key differences between this and what is being provided as standard for all Train to Gain learners.
Crucially however, the Learner Evaluation does not give us much insight into the type of advisers who are currently delivering IAG in Train to Gain. Despite learners having high satisfaction with the quality of the initial discussions and skills assessments, there is no full description identifying: who is providing this IAG? Do they have recognised professional qualifications in advice and guidance such as NVQ Level 2 or 3? In some cases the guidance may be given by the learners’ employer in which case it would not necessarily be classed as an impartial intervention.
Most importantly to a successful IAG intervention perhaps is the availability of access to impartial and objective information, advice and/or guidance. Some information sessions may be run by employers themselves potentially making the learner feel pressured to take part and to feel unable to voice concerns with their learning, or ask questions about how it may impact on their future options. Alternatively if information sessions are run by providers there may be some bias in the advice and guidance given in relation to appropriate courses in order to promote their own training offer. Train to Gain needs to offer as standard impartial IAG for all its participants, or else give detailed signposting to service where they may access it.
The ‘matrix' standard also highlights the importance of the learner having a good understanding of their options, where they are going next, and how the information given can support their choices. The Learner Evaluation identified that learners who considered their intervention to be high quality highlighted that they had individual learning plans (ILPs) which mapped where they were going and what they hoped to achieve with the training. This type of support is crucial in order to avoid feelings of frustration that may impact negatively on overall satisfaction with the service received. However the Ofsted evaluation found that less than one in ten learners had clear ILPs and neither evaluation indicates how many considered their experience may have been improved if they had an ILP. How these work and the possibility of making these available to all Train to Gain learners needs to be explored in order to allow learners to fully understand the requirements and impact of their training.
The learner evaluation demonstrates that Train to Gain has had success in encouraging further learning when learners have received IAG at the end of their course. Learners report that when IAG is continued after completion of a course they are more positive about further progression, and of those, over three quarters (76%) of learners said they were fairly or very likely to sign up for future training compared with under two thirds (63%) who hadn’t received any further IAG. This implies that extended IAG creates a more positive attitude to continued advancement than a one-off intervention, further promoting Train to Gain’s potential as a key source in encouraging advancement if high quality IAG was built into the service on a wider basis.
Neither the ‘matrix' standard nor Train to Gain guarantees clients a one to one intervention, Train to Gain learners noted in the Learner Evaluation that group IAG sessions are common, and used to relay information about a course once the learner has expressed an interest or signed up for it. However, one to one sessions were more likely to be important to those who have level 2 qualifications and are working towards a level 3, particularly if they have already established a relationship with their training provider. This suggests that one to one sessions are still important for employees with higher skills and need to be made widely available in the delivery of advice and guidance where confidentiality issues may be a factor, such as desire to change employer once they have increased their skills. This additional support is equally important, as whilst Train to Gain does not fund learning above Level 3, it can stimulate an individual’s desire for further learning and advancement that good quality IAG throughout the learning process can help make a reality.
There is no doubt that the Government’s continued commitment to investment in Train to Gain is to be commended, particularly in light of the current economic downturn. However, Train to Gain represents the Government’s commitment to supporting employers rather than learners - that’s not to say that the Government doesn’t want to support learners, however their core method of delivery for this is separately invested in the proposed adult advancement and careers service, Skills Health Checks and Skills Accounts.
So how can we link these two strands of Government policy to make the investment work most effectively?
IAG needs to become a mandatory aspect of Train to Gain so as to ensure the individual is getting maximum benefits out of their opportunity for learning and to encourage them to continue in learning. Train to Gain brokers also need to establish strong partnership links with the planned Adult Advancement and Careers Service (AACS), Skills Health Checks and Skills Accounts as recognised in the AACS prospectus. The need for establishing these partner links also becomes apparent when looking at the increasing unemployment rates, as these continue to grow there is a need for Train to Gain to be further extended to support those not currently in employment gain the skills they need to re-enter the workforce. Therefore, links with the AACS and Jobcentre Plus will help Train to Gain brokers reach this group and provide them with effective support and IAG.
With one in four Train to Gain learners not thinking that they had developed skills to help them in their current job, effective and impartial IAG is crucial in allowing learners to fully understand what they are studying for and what the learning outcomes will be. Also important is how it will impact on them and allow them to make an informed choice as to whether this is really the right training for them in order to build a more personalised course that will meet their needs, and raise their skill levels and desire for further advancement. Therefore Ofsted’s recommendation that Train to Gain providers should provide or direct employees to additional information and advice on training and development at the start of, during and on completion of their programmes, is both timely and important to ensure a successful and positive learner experience.