Old Wine in New Wine Skins? An Analysis of the Sector Skills Development Agency and the Sector Skills Council.

Dr. Michael J. Hammond

Abstract

This paper continues to look at the development of the Government’s ‘21st Century Skills’ agenda, by beginning to analyse the role of the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) and the Sector Skills Councils (SSC). The paper seeks to identify the role of the SSDA, and compare the role of this new body, with the role that was originally envisaged for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in the Learning and Skills Act (2001). The paper also seeks to identify old ideas (old wine in new wine skins) emanating from the pre 2001 model of the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) and the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) has perhaps unwittingly resurfaced in the ‘new’ thinking surrounding the SSDA and the SSCs.

Streamlining the System and Addressing the Skills Gaps?

When ‘New Labour’ came to power in 1997, it did so on the mantra of ‘Education, Education, Education’. When in opposition, the then shadow Minister for Employment and by implication skills, Mr. Blair, promised that an incoming Labour Government would invest heavily in skills training and FE education (Rentoul, 1995). The Government soon after its election commissioned the Education and Employment Select Committee (as it then was) to investigate FE. The report and minutes of the deliberations of the select committee ranged far and wide across the whole scope of FE (see Hammond, 2003) but the overall structure of the FE sector was considered. The Select committee concluded:

“We are concerned that there are too many bodies involved in the planning and delivery of further education. We urge the Government to examine the possibilities for reducing the number of these bodies. We agree that the FEFC is well placed through its regional committees to take a greater role in planning FE Provision. We therefore recommend that the FEFC’s role in ensuring ‘adequate and sufficient provision’ be strengthened, and that the Council be required to report

1

annually to the Secretary of State on the sector’s capacity to satisfy the need for FE at a local level.” (Select Committee, 1998, Para 146, p 44)

In creating the LSC, it might be argued that the Government took some notice of the Select Committee, as the LSC was an amalgamation of the FEFC and the TECs. In introducing the Learning and Skills Bill (2001) in the House of Lords, Baroness Blackstone the then Further and Higher Education Minister justified the creation of the LSC as restructuring the FE sector, and making it more streamlined. Blackstone (2000) concluded:

“Employers and individual learners alike can rightly expect a more straightforward system and a better service. At present some 250 different bodies within at least three different systems are responsible for work based learning and further education. We propose to bring these systems together under a single organisation: the Learning and Skills Council. The LSC will focus on customer need, collaboration rather than competition, and on cutting bureaucracy. This streamlined structure, will release at least £50 million of savings; money which can be used to improve the quality of learning for the benefit of learners.” (Blackstone, 2000, column 878).

In previous papers, the author has argued that the LSC is generally failing to deliver in the way that the Government intended (Hammond, 2004a; Hammond, 2004b). The Bureaucracy Task force concluded that initially at least, the LSC was unable to perform adequately, due to the very nature of the set up of the LSC on the transfer of responsibility from the FEFC and TECs to the LSC (LSC, 2002). It should be remembered, that the FEFC and the TECs, like the LSC were also set up to address the persistent ‘skills gaps’ identified in the economy. The Conservative Government of John Major (1992-1997) also perceived a skills gap as having a detrimental effect on the economy, and this view was supported by three independent reports, as well as academic writings (Confederation of British Industry, 1989; Institute of Manpower Studies, 1989; Royal Society of Arts, 1991; Macfarlane, 1993). A justification given by Blackstone (2000) for the demise of the FEFC/ TEC model was its failure to address this skills gap issue (among others). She stated:

2

“I say to both noble Baronesses that the Government are in no way embarrassed to abolish something that is not working as well as it might. While we are extremely grateful for the work of the TECs and the Further Education Funding Council and its regional committees, the time has come for change. This will not be incremental but radical change that brings both sides of provision, work-based and college based learning closer together. I believe that that is the right approach to take.” (Blackstone, 2000, column 941).

Perhaps the Government are more embarrassed, that the LSC has also failed to make much if any impact on the skills gap issue. Shiner (2003) the Director of Lifelong Learning at the DfES concedes:

“In education and training over the last six years we have made major progress such as the setting up of the Learning and Skills Council, bringing in coherence to planning and funding, and the Regional Development Agencies focussing on knowledge and skills as key drivers of economic regeneration. However despite these improvements, our skills gaps remain stubbornly persistent.” (Shiner, 2003, p8)

The Challenge, Bringing Education and Industry Together

To the Labour Government, however, many of the problems with the sector relate to the problems of educational institutions being unable to address the needs of industry, and being focused on education in its own right. Clarke (2003) the Secretary of State when addressing a conference of the SSDA placed the blame for the failures of the FE sector on education providers, rather than their creation, the LSC. In what is a neo-liberal argument championed in the Thatcher era, (although it might be argued beginning with Callaghan’s Ruskin College speech) education establishments are lambasted for their failure to address fully the needs of industry in the curriculum. Education therefore becomes the slave of industry and commerce in a neo-liberal paradigm of education (Pollitt, 2003). In the eyes of the ‘New’ Labour Secretary of State, only educationalists are wrong, industrialists who do not cooperate with

3

education do so, because they have lost confidence in the system due to educationalists. Clarke (2003) states:

“Too many educational institutions think that employment is somehow nothing to do with them- and I am talking about schools, colleges and universities. There are many schools, colleges and universities, which are very positive about their local employers, but actually there is often a view that it is not really something to do with education, and education is inward looking rather than outward looking in too many places. By the same token there are some employers who are so fed up about the way in which the education system works that they really cannot see the value in any particular kind of collaboration. So I say that at each level, whether it is in the school, in skills, at universities, in further education, or lifelong learning, we have to bring education and employers closer together.” (Clarke, 2003, p24).

Shiner (2003) is upbeat though about the potential for success of the Government’s strategy for FE described in the 21st Century Skills: ‘Realising our Potential’ White Paper (2003) in tackling the issues which have bedevilled the FE sector and the British economy since the early 1990’s and as already stated right back to Callaghan and his Ruskin College speech (Hammond, 2003). Shiner (2004) stated:

“We published the Skills Strategy in July and we set out how we intended to reform the education and training system to make it more responsive to business by engaging employers, by investing in individuals, and by building the capacity of the supply side. That is no small challenge. I and colleagues at the Department are very proud of this document because it tackles some of the big issues that have been around for some time. It is not the first time we have tried to tackle them, but this is the first time that we have seriously put business at the centre of education policy.” (Shiner, 2003, p7)

With respect to Shiner (2003), it is suggested that it remains to be seen whether the white paper can deliver the answers to the skills-gap and other problems it seeks to address. What the author would argue is, that

4

the 21st Century Skills White paper has unpicked the original philosophical basis underpinning the creation of the LSC, by replacing in actuality if not in fact, the single point source for education and skills planning for the FE sector, which the LSC represented, and replacing it with a multi-layered and multi-organisational model.

This model is based on what appear to be three distinct policy areas, being a national, regional and local policy model. The SSDA being responsible for developing long term sector skills and productivity agendas nationally, and establishing sector agreements with emerging SSCs (DfES, 2003, p32). The SSDA is responsible for feeding into and receiving information from the national skills alliance led by the national office of the LSC, and the regional partnerships championed by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). At local level a range of organisations feed into and receive data from the RDAs. The model appears to be extremely complex in nature, involving a ‘partnering’ arrangement with a large number of bodies from both business and education/training. As the author has argued elsewhere, this model means a significant diminution of power and responsibility from the LSC to these ‘other’ partners, particularly the SSDA and the RDAs (Hammond, 2004a; Hammond; 2004b). Of particular interest, is the effective hand over of control of the LLSCs from the national office to the RDAs, as such a process is inevitable if the managerial lines of responsibility are to be kept open, and confusion about accountability and responsibility is to be avoided (Hammond, 2004b).

The assertion by Shiner (2003) that the White Paper seeks to address problems of engaging employers appears to make no allowance for the fact that since 1992, successive Governments have tried to make the FE sector more employer friendly. The Conservative Government in 1992 created the TECs, which were private companies limited by guarantee, to run the private training provider market, and further, the Further and Higher Education Act (1992) provided that the corporations of FE Colleges (who were responsible under the 1992 Act for planning) should have a significant input of new members from business co-opted on to them. In addition, governors of FE corporations were required to act like executive company directors (Coulson-Thomas, 1990; Further Education Unit, 1994; Hammond, 2003).

5

Even the much vaunted SSCs are not the new creation the White Paper might have us believe, as many of these began their life as National Training Organisations, for example the Further Education National Training Organisation (FENTO) is moving towards becoming the Sector Skills Council for Lifelong Learning. In previous papers, it was argued that a shift in emphasis has taken place between the LSC and the RDAs, with the RDAs moving from a subservient to a dominant role in relation to the management of the FE sector regionally (Hammond, 2004a; Hammond, 2004b). The same it may be argued is the case with the NTOs now SSCs and the LSC. Again it is argued the LSC power has been diminished, as the way Blackstone (2000) sold the idea to the House of Lords, the NTOs were responsible for feeding information into the LSC and working with the LSC on workforce development strategies. Blackstone (2000) told the House of Lords that:

“National Training Organisations must play a central role in the new arrangements. Through their skills foresight work, they are uniquely placed to provide the LSC with information on future sector skills needs. It will be important for the LSC and NTOs to work together at national and local level in the planning and implementation of workforce development strategies.” (Blackstone, 2000, column 879).

The current Secretary of State described the process somewhat differently in his discussion of SSCs, there are to be less SSCs than there were NTOs, but with a bigger remit, and lots more organisations to play with. Clarke (2003) concludes:

“What is the permanent long term framework? First, there will be 23, 24, 25 Sector Skills Councils across the whole of the country involving business and employing altogether up to two or three million people. There will be the engagement of employers to say for our sector, “What are the qualifications we need? What are the courses we need? What are the courses we need to establish? What are the funding channels?” We need that and that will be much more effective than the much larger number of National Training Organisations that there were. Then to support that framework the Learning and Skills Council is working together with the Regional Development Agencies to ensure

6

that in every locality of the country it is working with local employers and to ensure that there really are the resources there so that both employers and the students can get the skills they need.” (Clarke, 2003, p25).

The new model takes the role of working with the former NTOs now SSCs from the LSC, and gives it to the new SSDA (DfES, 2003). From the statement of Clarke (2003), it would appear that the LSC has been relegated to an enabling role for the SSCs along with the RDAs through the LLSCs at local level. The role(s) of the SSDA therefore is to assist in the creation of SSCs through helping would be SSCs in the bidding process, and fund, support and monitoring the performance of the SSCs across the UK. The SSDA is also charged with ensuring that that there is quality and consistent standards across the SSC network, and providing what is described as ‘minimum cover for essential functions’ (not defined) in sectors that do not have an SSC. In addition, the SSDA is required to ensure that skills provision is designed to meet sector needs, as well as ensuring that generic skills are effectively covered in the work of SSCs. Finally, the SSDA is responsible for promoting best practice sharing and benchmarking between sectors, and providing a website for public bodies and individuals to enable them to access high quality sectoral labour market intelligence data across the UK (SSDA, 2004).

Restructuring the Vocational Qualification Structure

The Government also remains unhappy about the qualifications structure within vocational education, despite a plethora of changes and attempted changes dating back to the late 1980s. The Secretary of State for Education and Skills stated:

“The main barriers in my opinion are firstly a morass of qualifications where nobody is quite certain what the relevance of the particular skill course they are doing is to their work in their business. The most important thing to do there is for the Sector Skills Council employers in particular to identify which courses, which skills will make a difference to their work in each particular area. The second barrier is the availability of courses, and there are a lot of possibilities here both with on-line education and with courses being much

7

more widely spread, both through work places and in education. The third barrier, which is important is money in some circumstances, which is why we have indicated that particularly for Level 2 courses but also some Level 3 courses we are prepared to find significantly more resource.” (Clarke, 2003, p30)

Clarke continued by reiterating the need for colleges and Centres of Vocational Excellence (COVE) within colleges to engage with employees, he concluded:

“Those three, the qualifications morass, the appropriateness of where the course is, and the finance, are the three main barriers which I believe we can work together to solve: employers working with education. That means colleges having particular relationships with local employers. Many colleges have established centres of vocational excellence, for example in construction, in engineering or whatever, which are doing excellent work; but that work will not succeed unless it is of practical use to employers in the locality. It is thus a question of employers talking to their local colleges about what they offer, but more importantly even than that it is colleges talking to local employers about what they need. It is that dialogue which we have to foster.” (Clarke, 2003, p30)

In relation to standards and qualifications, the SSDA through the Skills for Business network claims to be making an essential contribution to standards and qualifications, by working with partners across the UK and the EU, with a view to making sure that the qualifications meet the needs of employers and learners. The priorities for this initiative are the development of high quality national occupational standards available through a central directory. The SSDA with its partners will design and develop models of vocational qualifications to meet employment/learner needs and can populate UK wide frameworks, and work with partners to secure high quality vocational learning in schools, colleges, universities and the workplace; although how this is to be achieved is not stated. The range of responsibility for standards and qualifications given to the SSDA is wide, ranging from the development and delivery of (modern) apprentices up to the management of foundation degree projects and work with the Quality Assurance Agency on benchmark statements to

8

support qualification design and progression. The SSDA is also required to develop a high-level skills strategy to develop and implement a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Higher Education and the management of HE politics. The SSDA is also responsible for developing protocols with the Federation of Awarding Bodies (FAB), RDA, the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) and the University for Industry (UfI).

In relation to qualifications and learning at work, the SSDA conclude:

“The SSDA are partners in the work to reform vocational qualifications. The network’s work on national occupational standards will contribute significantly to these reforms. In addition, the Skills for Business network will need to agree and support an overarching framework for recognising achievement in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that embraces sector frameworks, the National Qualifications Framework, and the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications. This framework will have to align with the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, developments in Europe and make sense across education and training.” (SSDA, 2004)

They continue:

“In practical terms, this means that the architecture of the framework (levels, numbers of sectors/subjects, and values attached to learning and qualifications credit) has to be as consistent as possible. On levels, the National Qualification Framework has been aligned with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, and eight levels (plus entry) have been assigned to it. The Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework has 12 levels” (SSDA, 2004)

9

The work allotted to the SSDA is interesting in so far as it should already exist, as it seems to the author, that a successful framework should already be in place courtesy of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications (NCVQ). NCVQ (1989) as part of the then Conservative Government’s ‘ New Training Initiative’ developed the concept of occupational standards defined as ‘national standards required for performance in employment’ (NCVQ, 1989, p3; Boreham, 1990, p1). From these standards, NCVQ developed a national framework of competence qualifications between levels 1 and 5, with level 5 being a professional level equivalent to Masters degree Level (NCVQ, 1989). The determination of many professional institutions, examination boards and FE providers to retain traditional C&G, EDEXCEL Certificates and Diplomas, Professional institutions retaining their own examinations and Universities refusing to contemplate relating their degree courses to a NCVQ standard or adopting NCVQ qualifications, means that the idea didn’t take hold in the way that the Conservative Government intended, but the author would argue that nevertheless, it is still in place.

Industrial Involvement in the Development of Foundation Degrees Within HE

The SSDA is also involved in the development of foundation degrees. Foskett (2003) argues that the development of the foundation degree can be tracked back to the report of the National Committee of Inquiry in Higher Education (Dearing, 1997). This report recommended the development of a greater variety of programmes and key skills at higher education level than had been the case previously. For example, recommendation 18 of the report encouraged higher education ‘institutions to identify opportunities to increase the extent to which programmes help students to become familiar with work, and help them reflect on such experience’ (Dearing, 1997, Summary Report, p44). The ability for HEIs to reduce their reliance on HECFE funding and also respond to Government initiatives to increase participation of people from non-traditional backgrounds meant that Universities were interested in the initiative (Smith and Bocock, 1999; Hodson and Thomas, 2001; Foskett, 2003).

Views were expressed by SSC representatives at an SSDA conference about how the funding for foundation degrees might best be managed and

10

controlled if it came through the SSCs rather than through HECFE. Randall (2003) stated:

“The authority that we might need would relate to the way in which higher education is funded. At the moment, to put it very simply, the current legislation says that the Government shall give the Higher Education Funding Council a huge chunk of money but it shall not tell it how it should be spent, and in turn the Funding Council passes it on to the universities without telling them which courses they should spend it on. That might have worked for a small elite system but for one dealing with perhaps 50% of the age cohort that is inadequate. The SSCs need to have a little more authority to say how some of that money should be spent in further and higher education, to make sure that we get the courses that actually meet our sector needs.” (Randall, 2003, p37)

For this statement, Randall received a round of applause from the other delegates. He continued:

“I would say for example that if a Sector Skills Council develops a specification for a foundation degree, then some of the money that goes to universities might be conditional upon them taking that specification and teaching to it. I would not be trying to dictate to universities absolutely everything that they should teach, but it would be saying that there is a certain amount of the funding that goes to universities that would be dependant upon their co-operation with Sector Skills Councils in terms of accepting some of the specifications that arose from our foresight work.” (Randall, 2003, p37)

There is insufficient space within this paper, to unpack all the relevant pieces of Randall’s (2003) contentions, and the author would question whether Randall, sufficiently understands the complexities of the HE system. Foundation Degrees will it is suggested, have limited appeal to ‘red brick’ and ‘old’ universities, with many foundation degrees being piloted by post 1992 ‘new’ universities, probably franchised directly to the nearest FE colleges as a replacement for the traditional HNC and in some cases, HND qualifications currently being franchised. Universities

11

also traditionally have the concept of ‘academic freedom’ at the heart of their ethos, which gives a certain freedom of determination in research and the curriculum to academic staff and their institutions. There is also no mention of Foundation Degrees Forward (FDF) which is a new organisation based at Staffordshire University to develop and market Foundation Degrees nationally, presumably they also might want some input into the foundation degree design debate.

The Government have for some years, however, been determined to tackle the issue of higher education reform. The final report of the National Skills Taskforce ‘Delivering Skills for All’ in 1999, which the Secretary of State responded to in ‘Opportunities for All: skills for the new economy;’ led to the Government developing the concept of the foundation degree. The foundation degree would appear to be a major part of the policies of modernisation for the HE sector. The then Secretary of State said:

“To complete our new vocational ladder of opportunity, I am committed to the modernisation of our higher education system. Many of our Universities are already the envy of the world, offering high quality academic and postgraduate studies. But not enough are building the kind of bridges between the campus and employers, which could substantially improve on our levels of workforce skills, productivity and innovation. Responding to the Task Force’s original conception of an associate degree, we introduced the Foundation Degree.” (DfEE, 2001, p10).

Foundation Degrees therefore are targeted at a range of people whom the Government believes are not well served by higher education, and in the Foundation Degree Prospectus, these include people such as employees seeking to enhance their education and skills and those from Advanced Modern Apprenticeship backgrounds. Secondly, foundation degrees are aimed at school and college leavers, particularly from a vocational ‘A’ level (AVCE) background, who wish to study full or part time. Finally, foundation degrees are targeted at labour market returners and the unemployed (Foskett, 2003). These concepts have led to calls for a ‘seamless web’ a ‘federal omniversity’ between FE and HE, with the two sectors working together to create an almost homogeneous experience of transition from one education sector to the other by the student (Harvey, 1995; Melville, 1999; Smith and Bocock, 1999; Marks, 2002). The

12

primary role of the SSDA though in relation to foundation degrees, is one of making sure that the business objectives of employers are met, such that these employers receive a return on their investment. (SSDA, 2004).

Towards a Demand Led System of Vocational Education

A major philosophical reason for creating the SSDA and SSCs Skills Network is the desire by Government and industry to make the skills sector a demand led sector. To make it demand led, some believe that industry must control the process, rather than academics. Studd (2003) makes this point clear, and justifies the reasoning for it:

“I am stepping back a little bit to a question you asked earlier about the reason for empowering employers and empowering SSCs. It is that word ‘empower’. If you look back over the last few years employers have spent a lot of time developing national standards, developing Scottish and National Vocational Qualifications, developing apprenticeship programmes, but once those programmes are developed, by the time they are delivered back to employers through training providers, colleges or awarding bodies, they do not look at all like they did when we first devised them. Unless SSCs have authority and influence over the whole of that delivery structure you will not have a properly demand-led system” (Studd, 2003, p38)

As has already been stated, it seems very difficult to see, how the demand led system espoused by Government and industry, could become a reality, without serious issues about academic freedom being raised, and both the college and university sector reacting adversely against such proposals. It is over the curriculum, that the hardest fought battles have taken place in the past between neo-liberal Governments and academic traditionalists (Lucas, 2001).

The author would argue, that the SSDA is a typical neo-liberal creation of the new right in that it is based on new managerial concepts and marketisation (Levitas, 1986;Hall, 1988; Clarke, 1991;Pollitt, 1993;

13

Clarke and Newman, 1997). The lack of trust in public sector supply side organisations such as FE colleges is clear from the set up of the SSDA. The SSDA is intended to be a demand led organisation, which seeks to remove power from democratic public structures to less democratic private sector structures (Pollitt, 1993). The Chairman of the SSDA makes this position specific, she states:

“Fundamentally we are shifting the balance of power between those that supply education and training and those that demand it, and we have made some really encouraging progress. We have nine licensed SSCs; both trailblazers and those with full five-year licences. They already cover a third of the workforce in the UK, and we now have another 13 SSCs well through the development phase; so by the middle of next year we expect the Skills for Business network to cover around 85% of the UK’s workforce.” (Salmond, 2003, p20)

Another education minister, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills for Vocational Education, Mr. Ivan Lewis MP also endorsed that shift of power from the supply to the demand led side. Lewis (2003) stated:

“We must have a situation where education and training responds to the demand side. There is an alignment between what demand is and what the supply side offers. In some areas we already have some good practice. This is always presented as a faulty model and yet I know for example in my own local college what an important part of their role is working direct with business, particularly SMEs, and how effective they are at it. The assumption is that all colleges are not responsive to business but that is nonsense. It is like saying all business don’t give a damn about skills; it is just a generalisation that is meaningless. That does not mean that we have a demand-led system. We have a supply-driven system largely, and that needs to change.” (Lewis, 2003, p45)

What is interesting, however, is the personal association that Mr. Charles Clarke the current Secretary of State for Education and Skills feels for the SSCs, and it is suggested that this might show how vulnerable the model may be to political fluctuations. The minister concluded:

14

“The debate about the role of Sector Skills Councils being at the heart of what we are trying to do has been moved on both by the strategy, and quite frankly by the Secretary of State’s passion about Sector Skills Councils. Every time Charles Clarke talks about this agenda, sometimes he forgets all the other organisations that are involved and only refers to Sector Skills Councils.” (Lewis, 2003, p46)

Sector Skill Agreements

How then does the SSDA plan to take over and control the skills agenda in the UK? The answer appears to lie in the concept of Sector Skill Agreements (SSAs). SSAs are a mechanism being led by the SSDA, to address ‘priority skill needs’. The SSA is designed to provide a mechanism where the employers and employees in each sector of the British economy can identify the skills and productivity needs of the sector. They then through the SSA can collaborate with the providers of education and training so that the skills demand can directly shape the nature of the supply of education and training provided to meet that need (SSDA, 2004). As the SSA is an agreement, it acts as a ‘framework’ for employers to sign up to a key set of sector skill priorities with the main funding and delivery agencies. The framework then allows the parties to agree what actions they will take to meet these skill priorities and provide strategic employer leadership, as well as putting in place a mechanism for identifying the shared objectives and contributions between employers and agencies, and establishing a clear set of accountable actions.

As suggested by the author in a previous paper, partnering between the various agencies is the current philosophy being postulated by the Government. The SSA initiative is a good example of the partnership philosophy:

“The SSA project is being led by the Sector Skills Development Agency (SSDA) in partnership with the Sector Skills Councils (SSCs), the Departments for Education and Skills (DfES) and Trade and Industry (DTI), key delivery partners including the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), Regional

15

Development Agencies (RDAs), higher education institutions as well as other key partners including the Trades Union Congress, the CBI and the Small Business Council.” (SSDA, 2004)

In SSDA (2004), the ‘five key phases in the development of SSAs are defined. In developing a Sector Skill Agreement, an SSC with support from the SSDA, LSC, DTI, RDA and others will need to go through five different processes. First, there is a need to assess current and future skill needs. To address this issue, the SSC will need to carry out a ‘sophisticated’ analysis of sector trends, drivers of productivity, areas of ‘low skills equilibrium’ and consequent workforce development and skill needs required to increase competitiveness. This process will involve the SSC in prioritising a range of what are called ‘key strategic issues’, from the perspective of short, medium and longer-term strategic time frames. Secondly, an SSC is required to assess current provision through an assessment of the effectiveness of the current workforce development activity, and their ability to meet the needs of the sector. Thirdly, the SSC needs to identify the gaps and weaknesses in workforce development. Fourthly, the SSC is required to undertake an assessment of the scope for collaborative action by employers, with a view to identifying how skills deficiencies might be tackled and what form this action might take, and an assessment of what employers are likely to contribute to the agreed measures. Finally, the SSC must develop a costed action plan with key delivery partners, which should include a rationale, the actions to be taken, the proposed contribution of each partner both private and public, quantified outputs, estimated impacts on productivity and competitiveness and an evaluation mechanism (SSDA, 2004).

The system described above requires a significant amount of partnering, and in a previous paper, the author suggested that partnering might be perceived to be a rather ‘utopian’ view of how the sector might work (Hammond, 2004b). There is always a possibility that one ends up with each agency seeking to be the first among equals in any system of partnership, regardless of who is being given the lead officially. If Government and opposition parties intentions to reduce the headcount of civil servants continues, then some form of rationalisation of these ‘partners’ seems inevitable at some point in the future, and may lead to factional infighting, rather than the partnering proposed.

16

Funding and Power Under the New Model

A possible source of conflict is the concept of funding of the FE sector. Although as has been argued in this and other papers by the author, the LSC are losing a lot of their planning functions, their funding function appears to have been left in tact by the 21st Century Skills White Paper (DfES, 2003; Hammond, 2004a; Hammond, 2004b). Although the SSDA and the SSCs have no official position on this issue, various SSC members expressed views at a conference organised by the SSDA, which suggests that they feel that monies should be transferred from the LSC to the SSDA/ SSCs for funding purposes. Edward Stanners from Skillsfast-UK, expressed a very robust view of this:

“Hopefully the Ministers can’t hear this! We were being revolutionary in our concept; the LSC have about £9 billion to spend and we think probably the SSCs are getting something of the order of £30 million or £50 million ultimately- and incidentally I personally as Chair of Skillfast would like to know how much is being spent on these initiatives. However our view was that if productivity is such a key issue to the UK’s economy why can’t you spend some real money? Because if you have a 0.1% increase in productivity, forget the 22% we think may be possible if you compare us with the States, what does that give us in additional GDP? Does it not justify spending £100 million or £200 million on these initiatives. LSCs in many of our minds are not working; they are not as answerable as they should be, as accountable as they should be, so lets have a big slug of their cash and see if we can’t make a better job than they are doing (my emphasis)” (Stanners, 2003, p33)

Stanners received an unscripted round of applause for his comments, and more support came forward for divesting the LSC of some of its funding requirements, so Martin an SSDA board member commented:

17

“We discussed the funding regime on our table and we felt that combining LSCs and the Higher Education Funding Councils together and having one funding regime would give much more joined up allocation of funds to address these issues” (Martin, 2003, p33)

In Martin’s answer there seems not to be a concept of the LSC as a planning body, only as a funding body, which was not the original conception for the LSC when it was created (DfEE, 1999). Effectively however, DfES (2003) has in relation to skills made the LSC simply a funding body like its predecessor the FEFC. A problem, which appears to present itself in relation to this, is that the FEFC was a lightweight organisation with only some 300 employees nationwide (excluding the inspectorate) whereas the LSC both nationally, and in the regions is significantly bigger, with a large number of staff numbered in the thousands, rather than the hundreds (Hammond, 2003). More support from the floor came forward for the view that SSCs and thus the SSDA should be a funder as well as a planner, with resources deflected from the LSC. Thus Marshall from SummitSkills also called for the transfer of funding, he stated:

“The politicians have already half-bought the notion of transferring the money from the LSC to the Sector Skills Councils. I think this is what Sector Skills Agreements are all about, and there is a partially open door there that we need to lean on harder.” (Marshall, 2003, pp 33-34)

This view was immediately supported by Digby of the CHN group, who stated:

“ If we are looking at the point of being employer led then what is really important is that the funding supports that. The employer that I work for is certainly keen to have funded learning for over-24-year-olds, so if we had that pot of money and it was employer-led in terms of how it was spent then we could I guess make more informed decisions about whether the focus is on younger people or whether there is a better balance across all age groups.” (Digby, 2003, p34)

18

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Skills for Vocational Education Mr. Ivan Lewis MP appeared to pour cold water on this issue however, and signal no change for now. He said:

“This is a debate and we have looked at it, but do we want numerous funding streams? Do we want a lack of clarity about where the resources are going to be put? It is not essential that the money is routed through different routes to create a more demand-led system. I simply do not accept that if people were doubtful whether Sector Skills Councils in themselves would be sufficiently powerful and influential to create more of a demand-led system, then the creation of the Sector Skills Agreement model answers that question pretty fundamentally.” (Lewis, 2003, p46)

The Chief Executive of the SSDA however saw funding as a major issue, and despite the statements of the minister, pointed to some budgetary movement, albeit in consultation and agreement with the LSC, he also expressed concern about the LSC planning procedures. He stated:

“The flexibility issue around budgets is a key one for the Sector Skills Councils. Chris Roberts who is here who looks after Workforce Development at the LSC and might want to comment, and it is a key one for Sector Skills Councils because we need to understand how the planning process within the LSC will work and how the Sector Skills Councils in their plans for employer priority can influence that. I am a little concerned that there will not be quick wins here because it may take a number of years to change a system which is very strongly embedded, and I am absolutely certain that there is a huge amount of willingness in the Learning and Skills Council to think creatively, to look ahead and to work with us, and we are beginning to look at these options. However it is the key issue I think as far as Sector Skills Agreements go, and we need to know what the parameters for flexibility are.” (Duff, 2003, p51)

19

It might be argued that the problem of the sector not getting quick wins, is fundamental in its problem with Government, which requires quick wins in what is quintessentially a four year cycle, which may go some way to explaining why the sector has been the subject of almost constant radical change since 1992. The views expressed on funding by the minister and the SSDA Chief Executive, did not it is suggested chime with many of the SSCs present at the conference Proskills concluded:

“One point I would make is that we are taxpayers. The government doesn’t have any money, we give it to them and then they give it back to us, so I don’t think we should be shy about taking resources and using them effectively. I believe that the Sector Skills Councils are the way to provide the resources to individual areas. National or regional boundaries such as are reflected by the LSC can be quite damaging; they can move businesses that don’t need to be moved and create imbalance. I really hope this is a partially open door, because certainly in our little team we intend to push very hard at it even if it is shut, and it will open I am sure.” (Falder, 2003, p34)

As a result of this debate, and in the spirit of partnering envisaged by the Government, the Chairman of the conference the television presenter Nick Ross put the following question before the delegates:

“Do you believe that there should be a huge transfer of funds from the Learning and Skills Councils to the SSCs, to the sector? so it is more from regions to sectors and maybe even close the Learning and Skills Councils down, which would be the most radical thing. It is certainly a huge transfer of resources.” (Ross, 2003, p34)

In the resulting vote 72% of delegates thought that money should be transferred from the LSC to the SSCs, and 17% not, with 11% abstaining or failing to vote. It is argued, that these figures show a large intention by the SSCs to seek to become funders and planners, rather than simply planners. There is a precedent for allowing the SSCs to receive public money, and that is based on the fact that the TECs were also private companies limited by guarantee, which handled public money. Against

20

this proposition however, would be the historical baggage left behind by the TECs, which was in some cases examples of fraud, sleaze and mismanagement which concerned ‘New ‘ Labour when it took office (DfEE, 1998; Hammond, 2003). Alongside this, there were the difficulties the Treasury had in giving public money to the TECs as private companies, without the usual safeguards of management and accountability. Primary research by Hammond (2003) suggests that Treasury were never happy with the arrangement relating to the TECs and therefore will probably lobby hard to ministers, to prevent the same path being followed with the SSCs (Hammond, 2003).

Balcon (2003) concluded that the issues of funding might be rolled up into a discussion of roles of the various bodies under 21st Century Skills. He concluded:

“The debate about funding will continue for a long time, and the issue for me is about clarity of role within the network. For me there needs to be work to look at the clarity of role within the LSC, the Sector Skills Councils, the RDAs for example, clarity of accountability and also of authority. Once those three are articulated and understood the appropriation of fundings across the network will become far simpler.” (Balcon, 2003, p35)

Drawing the New Accountability Lines

The author has suggested both in this paper, and in other papers, that currently, 21st Century Skills (2003) has muddied the waters, and has made accountability lines fuzzy and difficult (Hammond, 2004a; Hammond, 2004b). SSC representatives also expressed this view.

“As an employer in the paint and coatings industry we consider that to be competitive we need focus. We see SSCs potentially providing that and cutting out the scattergun approach of umpteen different organisations many of which you have been quoting. One thing that does concern us though, is would you not agree that there is a potential conflict between national and regional activities? Will the

21

Regional Development Agencies for instance be required to make provision in their budgets for SSC activities, because what we are looking for as an industry and as an employer is a common standard across the country that we can rely on” (Rieck, 2003, p56)

The minister replied:

“Yes there is, and our job is to try and make sure that we get that right and certainly much better than it is now, and be absolutely clear about the respective roles of the different organisations that function nationally and regionally. Let me tell you two tangible things that we have done about it. The reason that we were all meeting in that boardroom earlier today was not just because we thought it was a good idea. It was the first meeting ever of all the national delivery organisations responsible for delivering skills, around the same table. I find that phenomenal, but it has taken I don’t know how many years to create a structure which brings all of those organisations around the same table to tackle some of these fundamental and important issues. The thing they identified today as being their Number One priority was this issue about the national vis-à-vis the regional and getting that dynamic right.” (Lewis, 2003, p56).

He continued:

“The second practical thing we have done as part of the Skills Strategy is said clearly region by region to the RDA ‘You now have lead responsibility for bringing together RDA, LSCs, Job Centre Plus, Business Link within those regions and ensuring that from a customer perspective in terms of skills we have a simple system to access, rather than the bureaucratic muddle and nightmare that it is now for the employer and the individual learner. What I am saying to you is that we have not solved this yet, but I really believe that the structure is in place now for the first time to make a difference in these areas.” (Lewis, 2003, p57)

22

The SSDA Chief Executive however,felt that there was a need to redefine responsibilities more clearly, as the government had created the SSDA and the SSCs after much of the thinking in relation to regional agenda and other developments had been carried out. Duff (2003) stated (in part directly to the minister):

“Yes, there is a need for better clarity over roles and responsibilities, particularly since we are now on the scene and in some force and substance. It is probably time to re-evaluate and re-think. To give you the example around the regional development agenda; the priorities that were established were before Sector Skills Councils came along and there is a need to re-evaluate those strategies, because I don’t think you would have invented those ones, because they do not reflect employer priorities necessarily. They reflect regional economic development priorities so a difference in emphasis there, and it is time to revisit those issues.” (Duff, 2003, p57)

As already stated, the author has suggested in previous work that the various bodies commissioned to manage FE might be tempted to engage in power struggles against each other, rather than seeking to develop the partnership relationships much vaunted by the Government (Hammond, 2004a;Hammond, 2004b). It is suggested that the Government fear this, as in his closing remarks to the SSDA conference, the minister stated:

“There are two things; first of all let’s not make the same old mistakes of talking down structures that we have only just created, because if you do that another Minister, another Government, will come along in five years time and create a whole new infrastructure. Don’t talk down the SSDA, don’t talk down the SSC, don’t talk down the LSC, don’t say all colleges are no good at working with employers, and don’t say that all business people don’t give a damn about investing in skills. Let’s build on the tremendous amount of positive energy and consensus which it now seems to me is now there.” (Lewis, 2003, p60).

23

Conclusions

This analysis of the SSDA and the structures around it, suggests that the Government still appear to view partnering as the way forward, to achieve the desired model that they see as being essential to the development of the FE and HE sectors in addressing the skills needs of the economy. From the available data, it appears that the motivation behind the SSDA, is to create a vehicle with the SSDA and the SSCs to switch the emphasis of vocational education and training away from a supply led system, towards a demand led system, with real power for driving the system being wrested not only from the LSC, but also from ordinary FE colleges and Universities. This paper has argued that the effect on HE may be smaller than anticipated, as it is likely that the majority of foundation degrees will be piloted in the Post 1992 ‘New Universities’, which traditionally have a large base of sub-degree work. It is also appears likely that many foundation degrees will be franchised by these universities to FE colleges for delivery there as many HNC and HND programmes are currently. The impact on the HE sector therefore is likely to be patchy, but it is argued turbulent, if the SSCs begin to tread on the perceived concept of ‘academic freedom’.

Funding of the SSDA and the SSCs will remain a bone of contention, with the Government arguing at least publically, that funding for vocational education and training remain within the LSC. This may be due to the unfortunate incidents involving the TECs last time public money was given directly to private companies to manage in the vocational education and training sector, and may also be a reflection of Treasury pressure, rather than actual ministerial commitment. This paper has indicated that the funding issue has created and has the potential to create a significant amount of tension in the Government’s partnering model. It is suggested that there is also a healthy disregard for the LSC, shown by some of the people involved in the SSCs.

The lines of accountability within the sector are blurry, this is an argument put forward by the author in previous papers, and it is argued that others hold this view in the sector, including those who ultimately will be responsible for partnering. The interrelationship between what is national and what is regionally policy, and how these fit together is an

24

acknowledge problem. The relationship between the RDA and the LSC national office as to who actually manages the 47 regional LLSCs is less certain. In the model, the RDAs are the line managers, but if this is so, this begs the question raised in other papers by the author, as to what the role of the LSC national office actually is (Hammond, 2004b). There is also the question of how the SSCs and the SSDA will inter link with the RDA and the regional partners in addressing skills issues within the regions. One delegate as seen above, felt that the regional structures of the LLSCs would actually hamper effective partnering, and also more importantly the release of funding to address the problems identified by the SSDA or the SSCs.

As the title of the paper suggests, much of the thinking is not it is argued as original as the Government perhaps would like to think it is. For example, many of the ideas about rationalisation of the qualifications framework for vocational education were once the preserve of the Conservative created NCVQ. Interestingly, the Government has trumpeted the fact that partnering between Government departments is also taking place, but this forgets that NCVQ was the creation of the Department of Employment, rather than the Department for Education and Science as it then was (Lewis, 2003). Thus, joint working, or maybe rabid inter Governmental departmental rivalry is not new either. The NCVQ system was supposed to create an inclusive level 1 through 5 NVQ qualification route with a corresponding technician route at levels 1- five, with other qualifications withering on the vine, but it didn’t happen, and it will be interesting to see whether the SSDA and the SSCs will do any better.

Over the next few years, it is argued that the model will begin to sort itself out, and analysis of how it is performing carried out. It seems to the author likely, that the withdrawal from the LSC of many of their initial functions, plus an increased amount of lobbying from the SSDA and the SSCs for more funding, may lead to a more radical restructuring, and reduction of the organisations with responsibility for FE in due course. It may be in time that we will return to a single point source for planning and funding for vocational education like the LSC, but probably called something else, or maybe we will return to a more determined situation, where funding and planning are kept separate, a sort of neo- FEFC, but with again a different name. Like 21st Century Skills, this will be a presented by that Government as a new model to succeed where previous models have failed. The author, however, cannot help wondering if it will not just be a case again of ‘old wine in new wineskins.’

25

References

Balcon, T. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003. Sector Skills Development Agency.

Blackstone, T (2000) Motion to read the Learning and Skills Bill [H.L.] for 2nd time. Lords Hansard Text: 17 January 2000 London, Hansard.

Boreham, N. (1990) Occupational Standards and the education of adults in the 1990’s. Education- line Leeds, University of Leeds.

Clarke, J. (1991) New Times and Old Enemies: Essays on Cultural Studies and America , London, Harper Collins.

Clarke, J. Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare London, Sage.

Clarke, C. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Confederation of British Industry (1989) Towards a Skills Revolution London, Confederation of British Industry.

Coulson-Thomas, C. (1990) Professional Development of and for the Board London, Institute of Directors.

Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society: Report of the National Committee of Inquiry in Higher Education, London: HMSO.

DfEE (1998) Green Paper: The Learning Age , London, HMSO.

DfEE (1999) White Paper: Learning to Succeed, London, HMSO.

DfEE (2001) Opportunity and Skills in the Knowledge-Driven Economy: A final statement on the work of the National Skills Task Force from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment , London, DfEE.

DfES (2003) White Paper: 21 st Century Skills: Realising Our Potential , London, HMSO.

Digby, J. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

26

Duff, C. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Falder, S. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Foskett, R. (2003) Employer and needs-led curriculum planning in higher education: a cross-sector case study of foundation degree development Education- line Leeds, University of Leeds.

Further Education Unit (1994) Further Education Governors: Supporting the Curriculum , Coventry, FEFC.

Hall, S. (1988) The Hard Road to Renewal: Thatcherism and the crisis of the left, London, Verbo.

Hammond, M.J. (2003) An Analysis of Changing Government Policy towards the Further Education Sector: 1992: 2003 Doctor of Education Thesis, University of Lincoln.

Hammond, M.J. (2004a) ‘From Bambi to Stalin: The Politics of Control and Power within the Further Education Sector under the ‘New’ Labour Government Education- line , Leeds, University of Leeds.

Hammond, M.J. (2004b) ‘An introductory analysis of the potential effect of the ‘politics of the English regions’ and their regional development agencies on the further education sector within the West Midlands region.’ Education- line Leeds, University of Leeds.

Harvey, L. (1996) ‘The nature and Role of Quality in Federal Omniversity’ ‘Dilemmas in Mass Higher Education. 10-12 April 1996, Staffordshire University.

Hodson, P. Thomas, H.G. (2001) ‘Higher Education as an International Commodity: ensuring quality in partnerships Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education vol. 26 (2), pp101-112.

Institute of Manpower Studies (1989) How many Graduates in the 21 st Century? The choice is yours , London, Institute of Manpower Studies.

Learning and Skills Council (2002) Trust in the Future: The Report of the Bureaucracy Task Force: November 2002, Coventry, LSC.

27

Levitas, R. (1986) The Ideology of the New Right Cambridge, Polity Press.

Lewis, I. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Lucas, N. (2001) In the shadows: Did Callaghan’s landmark speech change things for Colleges? The Great Debate Education Guardian Tuesday 16th October.

Macfarlane, E. (1993) Education 16- 19: In Transition , London, Routledge.

Marks, A. (2002) ‘2+ 2’ = ‘Access’: Working towards a higher education and further education overlap to facilitate greater adult participation. Teaching in Higher Education vol. 7 (1), pp113-116.

Marshall, K. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Martin, R. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Melville, D. (1999) A place for everyone in a joined- up lifelong learning sector. Times Higher Educational Supplement 20 August, p.14.

NCVQ (1989) National Vocational Qualifications: Criteria and Procedures London, NCVQ. P3.

Pollitt, C. (1993) Managerialism and thePublic Services 2nd Ed. Oxford, Blackwell Business.

Randall, J. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Rentoul, J. (1995) Tony Blair , London, Little Brown and Company.

Rieck, P. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Ross, N. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

28

Royal Society of Arts (1991) Beyond GCSE London, The Royal Society of Arts.

Salmon, M. (2003) ‘The Skills for Business Vision’ ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Sector Skills Development Agency (2004) Skills for Business http://www.ssda.org.uk

Select Committee (1998) Further Education vol1 House of Commons, London, HMSO.

Shiner, J (2003) ‘A Strategy for Skills’ ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Smith, D. Bobcock, J. (1999) Particiapation and progression in mass higher education: policy and the FHE interface Journal of Education Policy vol 14 (1) pp283 –299.

Stanners, E. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

Studd, S. (2003) ‘The Network Skills Convention 2003: Demand for Change’ 28 October 2003, Sector Skills Development Agency.

The Lord Chancellors Department (1992) The Further and Higher Education Act London, HMSO.

The Lord Chancellors Department (2000) The Learning and Skills Bill London, HMSO.

29