In April 2001, the UK's Labour government established a new Learning and Skills Council responsible for the funding and planning of all post-16 education and training (except higher education). Its creation represents the latest chapter in a story of ongoing institutional reform and upheaval of the UK vocational education and training system. This feature examines some of the challenges the LSC is likely to face and its prospects for success
Since the late 1970s, UK policy-makers have repeatedly stressed the key role played by effective vocational education and training (VET) in securing national economic competitiveness. Problems of weak economic performance have been defined as problems of poor skills supply, linked to the under-performance of the UK's VET system relative to its major competitors (UK0010196F and UK9910133F). In an effort to crack 'the skills problem', policy-makers have embarked upon wave after wave of institutional reform. Two assumptions have underpinned the basic approach. First, that boosting the supply of skilled and educated labour holds the key to progress and, second, that 'voluntarist' or 'market-based' solutions offer the most effective means of getting employers to increase their investment in training. This feature examines the latest chapter in this story, namely the decision of the current Labour Party government to establish a new Learning and Skills Council in April 2001, and considers the challenges it faces and its prospects for success.
Historical background
Since the early 1980s, the UK's VET system has been subject to a high degree of institutional change. In broad outline, the main developments, as far as they apply to England, have been as follows.
- In 1981, the Conservative Party government abolished the majority of the Industrial Training Boards (ITBs), in operation since the mid-1960s. ITBs were sectoral bodies comprised of employers and trade union representatives with the power to raise a training levy on firms within their industry. They were replaced by a new structure of what eventually came to be titled National Training Organisations (NTOs). Unlike the ITBs, they are designed and run by employers, with trade union involvement subject to invitation, have no powers to set a levy, and focus on encouraging firms to carry out more training.
- After 1973, the 'tripartite' Manpower Services Commission (MSC), comprising both employer and trade union representatives, presided over many of the new reforms to the VET system. In accordance with Conservative government's desire to create an 'employer-led' and 'employer-controlled' VET model, the MSC was abolished in 1988, and replaced with a network of over 80 local Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) responsible for funding and promoting training. Funded by central government, they were set up as private sector companies with their managerial boards drawn mainly from the world of business, and with trade union participation once again subject to invitation.
- In 1991, alongside the TECs, the Conservative government launched a set of performance measures for the UK's VET system - the National Education and Training Targets (NETTs). These quickly drew the approval of both the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Trades Union Congress (TUC). The NETTs were relatively ambitious and were supposed to represent the minimum standards which it was felt the UK workforce must achieve if the nation were to remain competitive with the countries such as France, Germany and Japan. By 1995, it was apparent that the lifelong learning targets would not be met and that they would therefore have to be revised, a pattern that was to be repeated in 1997.
The Learning and Skills Council
The latest instalment in this story of continuing institutional reform came in 1999 with the Labour government's white paper, Learning to succeed. The TECs were to be abolished, along with the National Committee for the Education and Training Targets (NACETT) and the Further Education and Funding Council (FEFC), and replaced with a single funding body, the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), supported by 47 local Learning and Skills Councils (LLSCs).
The LSC, in operation since April 2001, is responsible for the funding, planning, management and quality assurance of all post-16 non-university education and government-supported training in England. Its remit covers further education (FE), sixth-form colleges, school sixth forms, work-based learning for young people, workforce development and adult learning. It is also responsible for setting the national learning targets and has a statutory duty to encourage participation in education and employer participation in the promotion of education and training. It is the largest non-governmental body, or 'quango', in the country, controlling an annual budget of GBP 5.5 billion. The national council comprises 12 members, chaired by Bryan Sandersen, and includes representatives of employers, trade unions, learning providers and community groups. They are appointed by the secretary of state for education and skills, and serve in a personal capacity rather than as representatives of the 'social partners' as is the case in other European countries.
In addition, the national council is aided in its work by two committees - the Young People and Learning Committee and the Adult Learning Committee- responsible for offering advice and support on how best to meet the needs of, and targets for, both groups of learners.
Mission and objectives
The LSC's aims are certainly ambitious:
- 'Our mission is to raise participation and attainment through high-quality education and training which puts learners first.'
- 'Our vision is that, by 2010, young people and adults in England will have the knowledge and productive skills matching the best in the world.'
More specifically, it has been set five key tasks by the secretary of state:
- to raise participation and achievement by young people;
- to increase demand for learning by adults, and to equalise opportunities through better access to learning;
- to engage employers in improving skills for employability and national competitiveness;
- to raise the quality of education and training delivery; and
- to improve effectiveness and efficiency.
Local Learning and Skills Councils
There are 47 local LSCs (LLSCs). The average LLSC will have a budget in excess of GBP 100 million to fund around 100,000 learners and will have 80-90 staff, most of which will be recruited from the TECs. Their responsibilities are extensive and include:
- analysing local labour market and skills needs;
- varying funding to meet skills and learning needs where there is particular local priority;
- driving up the quality of local provision;
- drawing up local workforce development strategies to meet local needs;
- agreeing a plan and budget for FE colleges and adult and community education, in partnership with local authorities and colleges; and
- tackling poor basic skills.
Corporate plan
A major task of the national LSC has been to draft a 'corporate plan' to cover the council's operations up to March 2004. The LSC has set new targets to: extend participation in education and workforce development; raise achievement of both young people and adults; improve basic skills; and enhance the quality and effectiveness of education and training. At local level, each LLSC must develop a 'local strategic plan' designed to help meet national targets as well as respond to the local needs of employers and learners. In his foreword to the draft corporate plan, Mr Sandersen stressed the importance of developing an integrated planning process, based on the 'right relationship between the 'top down' and the 'bottom up' processes' so that 'national and local levels will challenge each other to raise standards'.
Response of the social partners
Both main 'social partner' organisations have responded positively the establishment of the LSC. The TUC has welcomed what it sees as a more strategic and coherent approach to post-16 education and training, and the fact that 'trade unions are now represented as of right, at national and local levels on the LSC', thereby opening up the 'potential to shape the education and training system'. TUC general secretary, John Monks, is vice-chair of the national council and also chairs its adult learning committee. The CBI has welcomed what it calls 'an ambitious and radical reform', along with the fact that employers represent the largest minority (40%) on both national and local bodies. However, CBI director-general Digby Jones recently urged the LSC to step up its efforts to 'understand business needs'. The CBI has also stressed the importance of LLSCs having sufficient 'flexibility and autonomy to meet local needs' and 'to minimise bureaucracy for employers'.
Commentary
It is, as yet, too early to judge how successful the new LSC will be. However, there is no mistaking the sheer scale of the undertaking it has been assigned. It will be interesting to see if the LSC can successfully manage the tension between the national and local levels, and how well it works alongside NTOs in attempting to forecast skill needs and set targets. A key issue is whether the LSC will have the quality of data necessary to develop reliable skills forecasting and planning. A further tension lies with the LSC's commitment to be learner-driven, allowing individuals the power to choose what courses they study, whilst, at the same time, ensuring that local skills needs are serviced. It remains to be seen whether the provision of better information, advice and guidance can square the circle.
Although the LSC has been heralded as a radical reform, it is underpinned by the same basic assumptions that have informed previous VET initiatives. These are, first, that boosting skills supply holds they key to tackling the UK's skills problem and, second, that a 'voluntarist' or market-based approach offers the only available means of getting employers to train. In so far as this policy has failed to produce the results intended in the past, it begs the question as to why this latest 'throw of the voluntarist dice' should fare any better. Commentators on the UK's VET debate have pointed out that such an approach fails to tackle the weak demand for skill in the economy, traceable to firms' choice of product market strategy, work organisation and people management approaches. If this is correct, then the LSC may simply find itself facing the same seemingly intractable problems that befell its predecessors, the TECs. (Jonathan Payne, SKOPE)