FACE Comment responds to UK education issues of the day

Full list of comment:

Comment on the 2007 report on the UK’s progress towards the Lisbon objectives

Letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the Leitch Review

Consultation Response to HEFCE - Developing Strategic Plan for 2006-11

Letter to Kim Howells, Minister for State, about Aimhigher funding cuts

HEFCE widening participation and fair access research strategy

Working Group of 14-19 Reform, Interim Report February 2004

The Schwartz Consultation on Fair Admissions Policy

Comment on the 2007 report on the UK’s progress towards the Lisbon objectives

The following summary comments on the 2007 report on the UK’s progress towards the Lisbon objectives are written with the following qualifications:

• They are not formally endorsed by the FACE Executive Committee due to the  short notice of the request;
• They only relate to a limited number of sections of the report and therefore a partial, not full commentary;
• There are no references to relevant research reports and other material that might provide a different perspective on the headings addressed by the report.

General comments:

FACE as the UK’s most active member led Access and Continuing Education network broadly welcomes the UK’s report on progress towards the Lisbon objectives.

The report provides useful information on key aspects of lifelong learning policy, practice, provisions and funding. It rightly and properly identifies the differences that exist between the devolved administrations within the UK as well as the common features at this level.

There is some concern that in presenting the UK wide aspects of the current state of play the account suggests a more coherent strategic picture than is fact in the case.

The report quite accurately and appropriately itemises in Chapter 1 the key components of the strategy for lifelong learning, however the case remains that what separates and is distinctive about the various initiatives, priorities and policy measures described is far greater than what links them together into a lifelong learning policy framework.

The report overall raises a series of familiar questions and issues regularly posed in debates amongst FACE members and explored in for example our most recent publication, “Transformation, Progression and Hope: whatever happened to Lifelong Learning?”

These comments therefore draw upon this and other publications as well as direct member views and discussions as far as possible given the limitations:

• Is there to greater focus and  emphasis in the underpinning policy principles on economic competitiveness rather than the participation and attainment deficit?
• There is little evidence of progress being made in terms of government spending (post CSR) on key policy priorities which suggests a commensurate level of investment to achieve the targets mentioned in Chapter 1 is missing.
• What value do the sector divisions in relation to type and level of qualification, accessibility of learning opportunities and learning transitions offer in dealing with the challenges of closing attainment gaps, increasing social mobility and focusing on all learner groups?
• FACE has long argued the case for evidence-based policy and practice although we are not convinced that the UK record in this field is as strong as suggested in the report. We would point here for example to the low level of funding available for research and development into attainment and progression aspects of lifelong learning.
• In the field of adult and continuing education FACE members who are at the forefront of provision report that the low level of UK wide investment is contributing to rather than reversing meaningful learning opportunities for adults.
• Chapter 2 identifies some of the problems and issues with the national qualification systems and comments on some of the measures being taken. Credit based learning is referred to as central to this. FACE member feedback suggests the following  on this issue: (a) Development of credit based learning is very limited; (b) Implementation of credit-based learning opportunities extremely uneven both across different parts of the UK and also between and within the different sectors; (c) Credit-based learning and qualifications culture for learners is very much a policy aspiration rather than a reality.
• The relationship between non-formal, informal and formal learning is central to the work of many FACE members. Concerns and issues have been raised about how embedded such links actually are in terms of the reforms noted in relation to credit and qualifications, particularly for adult learners.
• The report comments on policy implementation in a number of areas. In regards to widening access and improving equality of participation it offers a useful overview. However, the picture across the UK or indeed between the different regions within parts of the UK often involves a learner lottery in terms of access for disadvantaged and underrepresented learners. A fully funded pro-active policy approach to the challenges of equal access and progression is critical to the implementation of policy in this area. As is a multi-sector partnership-led approach.

In conclusion this report does provide a useful yet necessarily selective and limited account of the UK’s progress against the Lisbon objectives. Taken overall, the report reflects the significant challenges posed to the UK’s policy, implementation and funding arrangements in the broad field of lifelong learning.  FACE as a national network for Access and Continuing Education plays a crucial role in providing a UK wide forum which brings together practitioners and others through its website, publications, conferences, seminars and support scheme for members in research and development.

John Storan
FACE Chair

FACE endorsement of the following letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

To: Rt. Hon. Gordon Brown MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road, SW1A 2HQ.

November 2006

Dear Chancellor

Lord Leitch will shortly publish the final report of his review of skills. We understand that you will respond on behalf of the Government, a response that will shape the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. As key stakeholders in further, adult and community education we have joined together to voice our concerns about the effects of recent government priorities for adult learning and education and to express to you our vision for the future.

What is exciting about learning is that individuals benefit regardless of previous educational achievement, class and subject studied. Learning helps deliver outcomes across a range of public policy agendas, not only those concerned with productivity and competitiveness but also homelessness, welfare to work, health (particularly mental health), criminal justice, drug and alcohol misuse, independence in old age, community cohesion and integration, social inclusion and civic engagement.

Our daily experience with adult learners shows that learning motivates and encourages; develops assets, capabilities and resilience, which in turn furthers our country’s economic development, productivity and social cohesion. As the Confederation of British Industry testifies, both soft and hard skills increase employability. Outside the world of work social skills foster close relationships with family, friends and neighbours, thus helping to build strong communities and protecting people against risk. Practical skills help homeless people manage tenancies, where otherwise they will often fail. Learning for pleasure promotes independence in old age delaying or offsetting, for example, the onset of Alzheimer’s.

However, on the ground we have seen funding for post-19 education fall by 3%; participation by older learners is down from 15% in 1996 to just 10% this year and is now falling even more rapidly; and, by the government’s own figures, over half a million college places are closing and one million are under threat.

This has emerged not as a result of a considered evaluation of impact but as the consequences of a skills strategy that prioritises recent school leavers and Level Two qualifications. Without new money to support this skills strategy, colleges have been forced to redirect resources away from areas that do not deliver upon centrally set targets. Adult learning is too often funded on the basis of what is left over, not on the basis of its contribution to personal and economic development. The current skills strategy does not, and cannot, offer a comprehensive vision of all the different areas that make up adult learning and education.

It is vulnerable adults who suffer the most from these consequences. Homeless people, lone mothers, people on incapacity benefit, ex-offenders, disabled people and black and minority ethnic (BME) groups are often disadvantaged learners, many of whom are the low-skilled ‘failures’ of the education system. Having low skills in a 'knowledge economy' is a contributory factor to the inequitable experiences of multiple disadvantage leaving people more susceptible to poverty, worklessness and homelessness. Research shows that disadvantaged people are most likely to return to learning through short, informal courses and activities in local voluntary and community settings they know and trust or through the privacy of a home based study course. We need to create new partnerships which expand the reach of formal education and raise quality, choice and progression routes in community learning. However, along with courses that individuals choose for labour market advancements outside of their employer’s needs, it is existing community learning partnerships which colleges are being forced to close. Adult learners will often not make the step to Level Two unless they have been through engagement, pre-entry and Level One. Removing these steps entrenches social exclusion among these groups and adversely affects the Government’s own ability to deliver its Level Two target. Recent announcements restricting access to pre-entry level ESOL will afflict speakers of other languages in a similar way, undermining their opportunity to contribute to society and the economy and running contrary to your stated views on the need for all to learn English.

People who left compulsory education without basic school leaving qualifications have done so partly because full-time, continuous learning did not work for them in their teens. A first full Level Two entitlement based on full-time, continuous learning is, therefore, not always appropriate. Some very disabled students and carers simply cannot manage the strain of a full Level Two course and cannot access public funding support if studying from home. Many adult learners, whether disadvantaged or not, prefer flexible, personalised and bite-sized programmes which adapt to their needs. Crucially, so do employers. If we are to move to a truly demand-led system it is these programmes that must be developed into a coherent framework, which has at its heart an unrelenting focus on progression. However, it must also understand that disadvantaged learners will not always progress smoothly and quickly from one level to the next but will at times stall, fall back, step sideways or even leap forward.

Post-19 education is our country’s second chance system. If it is reduced simply to being a provider of skills training we are effectively placing a dangerous age limit upon the broad based education offered at school, which is still needed for those who missed out the first time round. And employers seeking flexible, customised and not always accredited training for their staff may be disappointed by Train to Gain advisers directing them only towards a limited and often crude range of full Level Two qualifications. Train to Gain will also not serve well people whose employers do not support them to continue learning. The net effect will be a reduction in the number of learners nationwide and to forego, for many, the range of personal, economic and societal benefits articulated above.

In response to these challenges we have produced the following set of recommendations which we urge you to support:

• A comprehensive lifelong learning strategy that builds upon, but is not limited to, skills for employment
  and has at its core a social inclusion agenda.

• Co-ordination of the new lifelong learning strategy with other government public policy agendas, with
  cross-cutting responsibility for delivery and benefiting departments contributing financially.

• An ambitious Public Service Agreement target to widen and increase participation in learning, year-on-
  year, across each and every age range, particularly amongst disadvantaged groups.

• A coherent foundation learning tier that encompasses pre-entry and entry level learning, offers bite-sized
  modules and accredits progression regardless of the setting.

• A ring-fenced adult learning budget that rises in line with Department for Education and Skills increases
  and is available to high quality providers that excel at reaching disadvantaged learners.

• The Learning and Skills Council offering strong financial incentives for colleges and Local Authority Adult
  Learning Services to create new partnerships with:
  
  (1) High achieving local voluntary and community providers;
  (2) Local businesses, to help develop programmes that meet local needs.

Your response to the Leitch Review will have a huge impact upon social justice and economic prosperity in our country. The danger of not taking up our recommendations is that lifelong learning will suffer and the social justice benefits, which were articulated in the interim Leitch Review, will be lost. This is a matter of public interest and, as such, we have made this letter available to the press.

Together or individually we are happy to meet with you and / or your officials to further explore these issues. Between us we carry a deep understanding of the needs and requirements of this country’s most excluded learners and of our local economies which employ these learners. This is a moment both of great concern to us, but also of great opportunity. As you develop your response to the Leitch Review we invite you to draw extensively on our expertise.

With best wishes

Gordon Lishman CBE, Director General, Age Concern England.
Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary, Association of Teachers and Lecturers.
Linda Siegle and Tricia Hartley, Joint Chief Executives, Campaign for Learning.
Jane Rapley OBE, Head of College, Central Saint Martin, College of Art and Design.
Peter R Davies CB CBE, Principal City Lit.
Leslie Morphy, Chief Executive, Crisis.
Bernard Godding, Chair, Educational Centres Association.
Amanda Dubarry, Chief Executive, Emmaus Projects.
Professor John Storan, Chair, FACE.
Jane Slowey, Chief Executive, Foyer.
Jenny Edwards, Chief Executive, Homeless Link.
Leon Feinstein, Institute of Education.
Ceri Williams, Principal and Warden, The Mary Ward Settlement.
Paul Farmer, Chief Executive, Mind.
Philip Meaden, Principal and Chief Executive, Morley College.
Charles Fraser, Chief Executive, St Mungo's.
Paul Cavadino, Chief Executive, Nacro.
Alison West, Chief Executive, National Extension College.
Alan Tuckett, Director, National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
Janet Hunter, Director, Northern Learning Trust.
Gemma Tumelty, National President, National Union of Students.
Dr. Theo Gavrielides, Head of Policy, Race on the Agenda.
Brendan Tarring, Chief Executive, Red Kite Learning.
Theresa Drowley, Principal and Chief Executive, Redbridge College.
Professor Audrey Mullender, Principal, Ruskin College.
Ali Hadawi, Principal, Southend Adult Community College.
Dave Prentis, General Secretary, UNISON.
Paul Mackney, Joint General Secretary UCU.
Fay Mansell, NFWI Chair, National Federation of Women’s Institutes.
Dame Ruth Silver DBE, Governor Emeritus and Satnam Gill Principal Working Men's College Corporation.
Richard Bolsin, General Secretary, Workers’ Educational Association.

FACE Comment: HEFCE Strategic Plan 2006-11 Consultation Response

Submitted by the Forum for Access and Continuing Education (FACE)

FACE as a multi-sector network is pleased to provide the following comments and suggestions in respect of the proposed strategic plan for 2006-11. FACE has members in both HEIs and FECs and is therefore perhaps uniquely placed to comment on particular aspects of the plan that have implications for HE and FE. Many of our members will be contributing to this consultation through their institutions or organisations so the comments made here concentrate on and reflect the specific focus and concerns of FACE as an organisation. We very much welcome this further opportunity to comment on the plan. Since we provided the comments for the pre-consultation invitation we have consulted further and are therefore able to provide more extended comments in this submission.

Comments and suggestions

We very much welcome the fact that “Widening Participation and Fair Access” remain as one of the council’s three strategic aims. Although we recognise that the context for progressing this particular aim will be changing significantly over the period 06-11 in ways we believe that will raise new challenges to policy and practice in relation to democratic access and widening participation. Indeed the role of the council itself will also be changing and consequently the ways it will be able to work with HEIs on this key strategic area will be different with a greater emphasis on supporting HEIs to embed their WP developments for example.

We note irrespective of the widening participation and fair access aim that the strategy paper identifies in risk area C, R14 the possibility that there may be an insufficient increase in under-represented groups accessing HE. We very much share these concerns which have been highlighted by our members. Because widening participation and democratic access are critical to Higher Educations role in society we believe that these are sector wide issues and therefore need a sector wide strategic approach. We believe that without this and an appropriate level of funding, monitoring and support that they will be even greater sector stratification than there is now.

We believe that the strategic plan provides an opportunity to engage with HEIs on how sector wide progress can be made to and beyond the general commitment to improve the accessibility and representative character of HE. We are concerned that sustainability of progress made so far will be an issue at sector level. The need for example to fully fund HEIs for their success in areas of accessibility and retention will we believe be critical to maintaining capacity and building it further. We note the importance of moving to a full cost funding for WP in respect of both Aimhigher and the institutional funds for access and retention.

We note the change of emphasis with the removal of WP strategies as a condition of grant and would urge the council to give careful consideration as to which replacement instruments it will use. In this respect, we would suggest that the present four WP objectives need to be supported by key performance targets (KPTs) that are more specific than the two currently stated. The use of performance indicators as stated in the present KPTs is useful as a very broad-brush indicator but HEIs should be encouraged to use much more specific and useful indicators, which could be applied to measure progress of “embedding” such strategies within the institution. We would ask the council to reconsider a KPT which reflects this - the first KPT in the “Enhancing excellence in learning and teaching” might be useful here in relation to the use of a variety of evidence.

FACE understands the rationale for transferring the existing KPT that relates to retention, to the Learning and Teaching aim and we are pleased to note the council’s response to this point. However, we would argue that some of the most effective work on embedding WP in HEIs is where the student life cycle model has informed an institutional WP strategy. In this, WP cohorts are identified and tracked through awareness raising, admissions, first year, and so on. Inherent in this approach, is a recognition that retention of these particular cohorts is given particular concern and this is often linked to work on providing enhanced academic and pastoral support. It is also important to note that a proportion of this work will be funded by the formula funding for retention provided directly to HEIs. We therefore believe that there is a danger that losing retention of WP students from the WP aim will encourage the thought that WP is merely to do with outreach (mirroring in some ways the limited scope of Access Agreements) and that this would work against HEFCE’s wish to see WP embedded across the institution.

In developing this strategy we would ask HEFCE to either make an explicit reference to retention within the WP aim, or make an explicit reference to underrepresented groups within the Learning and Teaching aim. For example, it would be possible to elaborate on KPT3 by a mention of “under-represented groups” and then include a performance indicator which reflected this. The Council will recognise that many HEIs are using data which is more informative and less blunt that the PIs to identify the profile of students on entry and their subsequent successful progress, and often stimulating faculties or departments by providing this data analysed as course level. Such an approach which can be linked to quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement Strategies. Connected with this we would suggest that a in terms of Key strategic risks, that a further risk be added to Risk area C, “That due to ineffective embedding of WP work and subsequent ineffective support for students whilst on course, retention of students from underrepresented groups becomes a significant issue with the result that recruitment of students from these groups decline.”

Looking forward we believe the 50% target should be replaced. We realise this target is a government set target but we believe it may perversely be hampering progress to widen participation. Consistent with the overall aim to promote and provide the opportunity of HE to everyone who can benefit from it we believe that the sector should be working towards full participation. In doing so we recognise that the patterns and modes of participation in HE will need to be appropriate to a universal participation HE system.

We believe we may also be losing ground internationally in terms of participation levels and particularly with the concentration on particular age cohorts. The long term strategic aim of full participation is we believe complementary to the aim of promoting and providing the opportunity of HE to everyone who can benefit from it.

Leading on from this we believe the council needs to establish a lifelong learning strategy that can provide a meaningful framework to support sector wide progress in this direction. The problem with the proposed strategic plan is that it doesn’t include a strategic approach to lifelong learning. Although we both welcome and support the Lifelong Learning Networks initiative we are concerned that “lifelong learning” is largely confined to this aspect of the strategy. We believe the council should commit to the development of a lifelong learning strategy which would inform its funding arrangements for widening participation and accessibility. Such a strategy would give the sector confidence that there is a sustained policy commitment to creating lifelong learning HE provision. Our concern with the current plan is that it gives the opposite message.

We believe the greater emphasis in embedding WP for those HEIs who have developed capability sufficiently to mainstream and integrate their WP developments is important. However we believe this emphasis needs to be accompanied by sufficient coordination and development resources with the aim to grow institutional capacity across all HEIs.

As a network we look forward to working with the council on the strategic plan as it is taken forward through the consultation process.

Mike Hill, Secretary
John Storan, Chair
FACE

FACE Comment

Letter to: Dr Kim Howells, Minister for State, DfES

17th March 2005

Dear Dr Howells

I write in my capacity as Chair of the Forum for the Advancement of Continuing Education (FACE) to raise with you the serious concerns of members about the consequences for the Aimhigher programme of the funding cuts recently announced. FACE members and their institutions are at the forefront of Aimhigher partnership activities and are only too aware of the impact that such cuts in funding would have in providing the range of outreach support and activities required to widen participation to Higher Education.

Aimhigher is making and will over future years make an even bigger impact on supporting progression to HE for the most disadvantaged of communities in England. The partnership approach which is at the heart of Aimhigher’s programmes crucially and uniquely involves and is funded on the basis of localised planning coupled with localised delivery of outreach activities. Add to this the robust monitoring undertaken and you can see precisely why Aimhigher is so critical to widening and increasing HE participation.

Funding cuts will have a disastrous effect not only on the capacity of partnerships to carry through their agreed objectives in relation to WP, but they will by implication do irreparable damage to effective local partnerships working which has been so carefully developed over the short time since the integration process began.

There was a clear commitment made during the White Paper debate to maintain levels of expenditure relating to widening participation policies and initiatives. Income derived, for example, from additional fees, some of which might be used for outreach being seen as additional to Aimhigher funding for example. The proposed cuts would therefore be seen as not only as going back on this commitment but for many members as an abandonment of government policy in relation to widening participation and Fair Access.

For these reasons I urge you to intervene to stop these cuts being implemented and instead to regard widening participation in HE in a similar way to the framework for science investment which gives a ten year commitment to investment in developing our scientific base and capacity. Surely our HE underrepresented groups deserve no lesser investment in their futures.

Yours sincerely,

Professor John Storan, FACE Chair