LS5

Proposed Learning and Skills Measure Committee

Submission by NTFW on the proposed Learning and Skills Measure for the Learning Committee’s hearing on Thursday 25^th September 2008

Introduction and General Issues

The National Training Federation for Wales Ltd is an organisation of around eighty training providers all of whom are involved in Work Based Learning in Wales, although not necessarily exclusively. It is a varied membership consisting of multi-nationals through to small niche providers. It includes for example, charitable organisations, FE Colleges, a school, local authorities, voluntary organisations, and private providers etc. In this respect the membership may well be best described as ‘independent’ providers as the term ‘private’ is too restrictive.

During a twelve month period some c40,000 learners receive training from our member organisations ranging from ‘skillbuild’ courses, through to apprenticeships and on to level 5 and above in respect of management programmes. It is estimated that some 30,000 employers (many of whom are SMEs) are engaged with the membership covering almost every employment sector in Wales and in every part of Wales. Consequently, there is a deep understanding of employers’ needs and demands through the constant contact Providers have with them, and especially with SMEs and micro businesses, which make up the majority of the employer force in Wales.  The constraints we have met in meeting employers’ demands have arisen from delivering frameworks which are not fit for purpose.

The National Training Federation for Wales welcomes the opportunity for consultation on the proposed Measure for Learning and Skills.

NTFW is concerned and disappointed that, in promoting a new learning entitlement no provision is being made for an important class of young learners, those 16-19 year olds in work but not in any form of meaningful training.

The Measure confines learning entitlement to those in ‘formal’ education – school or college. Such a distinction, in our view, conflicts with the whole ethos and thrust of the 14-19 agenda and learning pathways, that young people should be able to pursue learning through a variety of routes, and that the routes should ‘enjoy’ parity of esteem.

Yet the Welsh Assembly government is promoting only a learning entitlement for those in school or college.

We, strongly, urge that young people, 16-19 at work should be entitled to an appropriate learning experience every much as those remaining in school or college.

We note that the Education and Skills bill that has been before Parliament offers a right and an obligation upon all learners until the age of 18, including 16-18 year olds at work. Yet the Welsh Assembly government’s alternative policy does not bestow even an entitlement to learning/training to 16-19 year olds at work.

We welcome the amending clauses to the Education and Skills bill, which provide future reserve powers to introduce both an entitlement to and an obligation upon 16-18 year olds at work. We understand, however, that the Welsh Assembly government has no intention of exercising such powers in the foreseeable future, preferring its alternative policy of encouraging entitlement.

Young people at work but not in any form of training should also be entitled to the most appropriate learning/training.

If it is legislatively, impossible to include such a provision in this Measure, then powers to introduce such an entitlement should be sought in parallel with the promotion of this Measure.

Learning Pathways 14 to 19, although a radical and welcomed review of learning in Wales has been unfortunately dominated by the school and further education bodies.  This approach has seen funding to implement the 14 to 19 agenda channelled via local authorities to FE colleges and schools and by default has largely marginalized integration of Work Based Learning provision into the Learning Pathways Agenda.  Furthermore within local 14 to 19 networks, largely dominated by schools and colleges, there is not a full understanding of the WBL network, its programmes or its more dynamic nature in part due to provision not being restricted to physical institutional limitations.  WBL is also not necessarily a ‘localised’ learning provision due to its nature that is often peripatetic and flexible.  The lack of understanding of this flexibility is undermining real progress in extending choice and range in developing the local Options Menus through a domination of a ‘physical institutional identity’ within the geographic area of participating Networks which prevents a real breakthrough in the approach to developing wider choice and flexibility in respect the learning Options Menus.

Funding for beneficial interventions such as training Learning Coaches and to implement the Welsh Baccalaureate have also been largely been targeted at schools and FEIs.  It would be interesting to look at what percentage of funding spent on these interventions has supported WBL providers across each of the 14 to 19 Local Area Networks across Wales to assess the impact that these have made on improving WBL to support the 14 to 19 agenda.

Local audits of provision also often fail to recognise what is available via WBL locally and potentially via cross Network provision.  The Geographical Pathfinders have also failed to grasp the dynamic nature of WBL and cling to concepts of major institutional reforms that concentrate learning on major capital developments of new campus facilities.  The flexibility of e-learning and virtual environments in more local structures appear to be ignored with the funding of huge investments in new infrastructure that impacts on greater localised choice.  This situation has been exacerbated because of the way the 14 to 19 agenda has been rolled out allowing the domination by local authorities, schools and FEIs where  of course, there are vested interests based upon the physical institutions for which they are responsible for.  As an aim of the Learning Pathways is to ‘transform provision’ it is unfortunate that more lateral thinking is not being applied as to how this transformation will become a reality as it not challenging the institutional paradigms that exist.  It is imperative that vocational choices must be real and not only classroom based using the skills and experience available in the WBL sector.  The hope that collaboration will transform provision is an ambitious one.  It can only work if all organisations are willing to share their resources in the knowledge that one FEI institution/WBL Provider/school cannot provide all the options that need to be available.  It may be that some sectors have a capacity greater than is needed that could involve closure or more formal clusters, however these are formed e.g. take overs etc.  Is this a realistic proposition.

We, therefore, particularly draw attention to the observations of the Webb Review upon the Draft Measure in relation to collaboration.

“The proposed Assembly Measure for 14 – 19 year olds introduced an entitlement to a range of options and places a duty on Local Authorities to ensure such provision is met.  This is a positive step but it does not define either the quality of vocational provision or the need for schools to engage with employers and provide learning in a working environment.  Schools could comply with the measure by developing their own provision rather than linking into Work Based Learning or FEI provision – both of which are likely to provide a more vocationally relevant experience.  Although the Measure includes a requirement to collaborate there are no incentives to drive collaboration…”   (Para 3.12 Page 28, Promise and Performance).

We fully endorse this critical assessment of the current draft and profoundly hope it will be strengthened to deliver the robust collaborative model envisaged in the Webb report.

The proposed Measure must ensure that its desire has a specific requirement that these conditions are met.  Currently WBL through Skill Build programmes which supports the most vulnerable post-16 learners, who for whatever reason have been failed by mainstream education are fully engaged in the Assembly’s radical 14 to 19 reforms.  It would be helpful if future related publications and political statements gave more recognition to WBL provision and so encourage  greater parity with schools and FEIs.

We recommend that the clauses relating to the planning of the curriculum should include statutory participation of Welsh Work Based Learning Providers in the planning processes.

Conclusion

We, therefore, recommend that the draft Measure be amended along the following lines;

That Clause 25 “33H” be strengthened to ensure the establishment and promotion of collaboration of the kind proposed in the Webb Review;

that Clause 10 “116G” and Clause 24 “33G” be amended to include statutorily Work Based Learning Providers in the planning of the curriculums.