All
change
The details of many of the proposed changes (see below) have yet to
be decided but it would seem that few agencies within the region are
going to escape change in the months to come.
Changes at a glance
• LSC is undergoing a “transformation” with
the new structure to be in place by April 2006. Staffing levels
to be reduced from 4700 to 3400 across the board. There will be
a move to local partnership teams, economic development teams and
a strengthened regional office.
• The development of new skills brokers services to support
the new National Employer Training Programme. Roll out from April
in Devon and Cornwall and Swindon and Wiltshire, August roll out
for the rest of the region. Again this could radically change the
learning landscape.
• Restructuring of Business Links. In April 2005 responsibility
for funding and co-ordinating Business Link across the South West
transferred from central government to the South West RDA. A major
effort is now underway to look at how to further improve the Business
Link service, and whilst still under discussion it is expected
that the outcome will be fewer, larger BLs in the region.
• Question marks hang over the future of Connexions services
in the region as the Youth Matters Green Paper proposes shifting
control to local government.
• LSDA to be replaced by Quality Improvement Agency and
Learning and Skills Network. These will come into operation from
April 2006.
• SSCs now in place, developing a regional presence and
issuing Sector Skills Agreements. Skills Academies may be a new
addition to skills delivery in the region.
• Jobcentre Plus restructuring (again!)
• Foster Review proposing "evolutionary
change" of FE.
|
We'll be keeping you up to date with developments as they occur.
Foster Review
"Under performing colleges to be closed down",
may have been the rather glib and narrow press headlines which heralded
the launch of
the Foster review, but beneath these headlines there lies a rather different
story.
The Review is an attempt to look forward and is necessarily
a wide-ranging review of a complex issue. So away from the hype, what does
Foster really say?
To some extent we have been here before. The Success for All Strategy
indeed covered some similar territory. Nevertheless, this is an important
review that attempts to bring some clarity to an important sector of our
learning and education system.
It is also important to point out that the review is
broadly supportive of the role of FE, describing it as the "neglected
middle child", and calling on Government to create the “conditions
in which FE can both prosper and deliver”. The Review acknowledges
that:
• Colleges play a vital role. Over three million learners attend
annually and numbers are growing. They offer a rich diversity of learning
opportunities.
• There are a number of challenges that, whilst not FEs alone (compulsory
schooling system also bears a major responsibility), need to be addressed.
Yet, nevertheless there is a strong sense, widely shared, that the FE sector
is not performing to its full potential and could make a greater contribution.
• There are concerns about the wider system within which FE operates,
e.g. confusion about the planning roles of colleges and the local Learning
and Skills Councils (LSC) and insufficient clarity about the roles of the
national LSC and the DfES.
• There is a need for “evolutionary change”:
“the way forward, we believe, is to articulate clear purposes and
a renewed dedication to quality, and to make a modest number of principled
changes in the way the system is led and administered that will catalyse
improvement over time” (Overview document
p2)
So what are the critical recommendations?
• The most crucial recommendation
is that colleges should sharpen their focus and direct the main force
of their effort towards improving
employability and supplying economically valuable
skills. To do this they will require the full support of their local partners,
the relevant national
bodies and government. The first task being to work through the practical
implications of this strategic refinement, including those for the content
and funding of, and payment for, college programmes.
• The Review also has a lot to say on the subject
of quality improvement, recognizing the complexity and crowded nature of
the quality improvement
landscape. A reformed approach to quality improvement is
proposed which will include clamping down on persistent underperformance.
And, whilst
recognising that poor provision is concentrated in a significant minority
of general FE colleges, the Review states that "time should be called
on those institutions that have relentlessly failed their communities".
The Review calls for a "transparent
and staged approach to failing colleges, supported
by a stronger element of contestability".
Basically, this means that colleges not making the grade would be served
a notice
to improve requiring specified improvements on an explicit timescale. The
Quality Improvement Agency and Centre for Excellence in Leadership would
then work with the LSC to support them during the improvement period. Colleges
or departments that do not meet required standards should be subjected
to a contestability review, organised by the LSC, which could lead to another
college or alternative provider assuming responsibility.
Over time, services should be commissioned increasingly from the FE colleges
and other providers best able to supply them on a quality and value for
money basis, with the most effective providers being allowed to deliver
services.
Whilst not proposing an early move to an
open market system, the Review
expects that this may evolve in the fullness of time. It sees the National
Employer Training Programme as a potential catalyst for this.
It also proposes giving greater impetus to the development
of specialisms in general FE colleges as a powerful
quality driver. It points to the valuable start made with the successful
Centres of Vocational Excellence (CoVEs)
programme. And the new Skills Academies, working with Sector Skills Councils,
offer an exciting opportunity to develop in a systematic way, across the
country, networks of specialist provision with a focus on raising standards
and meeting employer needs.
• Another interesting
comment, and one which is sure to be welcomed by colleges, is that the
most significant shaping influences
on colleges
should be lateral and local rather than vertical and national. This recognizes
experiences in other countries where colleges thrive in a less centralized
and regulated framework. "FE colleges should operate
within a framework of local commissioning, led by local LSCs, and influenced
very strongly
by links with employers". Collaboration between local FE providers
within the local commissioning framework, and across hub and spoke networks,
will be a distinguishing feature of systems that set out to supply learners
with an integrated, locally accessible pathway or package of opportunities
and facilities that respond to the pattern of their needs and flex over
time as needs change.
• Recognising the problems with getting consistent and robust information
on college performance and value for money, the Review makes some strong
recommendations on the need to improve analysis within the sector eg. Enabling
comparisons to be made on outcome costs, asset utilization and procurement.
It also comments on the poor use to which existing data is put, adding
that the challenge is to collect less but know more. It recommends consideration
of a single purpose agency set up to collect relevant data and transform
it into intelligence.
• Again
recognizing low morale and issues about parity of esteem, the Review recommends
the production of a new national workforce development strategy, led
by DfES but developed with the Association of Colleges, colleges
themselves and other stakeholders. Its suggests that this should be developed
based on an assessment of need and published within the next 12 months,
and must include a clear plan for improving leadership and management across
the sector. (On this latter issue the Review is quite critical of the standards
of management and leadership within the sector).
• Learners. The
Review proposes that the voice of learners should be strengthened suggesting
that colleges should consult learners on major
issues which impact on their learning and learning environment. The local
learning system needs also to be made easier to navigate for learners and
enable seamless progression to higher levels, through increased collaboration
(which should be a requirement).
• Funding. There
must a more transparent and widely understood model of need and resource
distribution.
A national learning model covering
learner pathways and resource channels through schools, FE and higher education
should be developed as the basis for resource distribution. Capital investment
is needed to transform FE but must follow this new purpose rather than
determine it and support more efficient uses of premises and the provision
of more community outreach facilities.
• Employers. FE
colleges also need to improve their services to employers – through
improving both the pool of recruits and their responsiveness to specific
local and regional employer needs. In turn,
the review suggests that employers need to think more systematically about
their future needs and different models of partnership should be developed
to enable FE colleges to respond to them. The Leitch Review of Skills is
looking at skills needs to 2020 and will be making recommendations in mid
2006.
Initial reactions
Now of course these are still only proposals, and the
government has yet to respond to them. And as was witnessed following the
Tomlinson Review,
the Government may have ts own agenda and imperatives. Initial reaction
to the Review, however, has been warm and broad support has been received
from the Association of Colleges (AOC), the TUC and CBI. The CBI has interpreted the report as heralding support
for exposing the system to the benefits of market competition. In fact,
it calls on the
Government to be "bolder still", by opening up further education
funding to any organisation or institution which can deliver the best training
regardless of public or private sector origin.
The AoC in its response chooses to highlight the criticisms leveled at
DfES and LSCs and the comment made about the systems complexity and lack
of clarity. Dr John Brennan, AoC Chief Executive stated:
"This report is thoughtful, perceptive and comprehensive – a reflection
of the thorough and wide-ranging review which Sir Andrew has undertaken. "It
is a huge and welcome opportunity for colleges. Sir Andrew has affirmed
just how important they are to this country's young people, adults and
businesses. Colleges will welcome an even sharper focus on generating
skills for employment, and a closer relationship with employers. "But
Foster also reflects the frustrations which so many colleges feel about
the structures imposed on them, which often hinder rather than help our
services to learners. These need to be unequivocally addressed.
TUC General Secretary Brendan Barber referred
to the review as a "historic
opportunity for further education to lead the way in improving our national
productivity and social inclusion".
|
