This is the response to the Government proposals contained in the paper "Success for All" It was written on behalf of the Church of England Board of Education by Anthea Turner Success for all
Churches' National Adviser in Further Education Church of England and Methodist Church
CONSULTATION RESPONSE (SEPTEMBER 2002)
REFORMING FURTHER EDUCATION AND TRAININGWe welcome the opportunity to respond to this consultation.
FOREWORD AND INTRODUCTION
We welcome the recognition of the “pivotal role” played by Further Education in the development of a learning society, and of the involvement of the churches in the diverse Learning and Skills sector. There is clear value in capitalising on the experience and gifts of the various partners in the sector, if we are to achieve the Government’s ambitious target of successful, and excellent, learning for all. We, in the churches, would want to play our full part in that, and we have noted possible links to be made in our response below.
At the outset, however, it is important to emphasise the value of the local dimension to provision within this sector. This is an area in which the churches’ involvement in communities and neighbourhoods (whether through its congregations, its schools, or its adult and youth community-based work) can be very significant, and we would look for appropriate recognition of those diverse roles in taking this consultation forward. We would wish the Learning and Skills sector to build on those strengths. There is more to be done in developing genuinely broadly-based partnerships. Reference to the richness offered by diversity is very welcome, but we are uneasy that less conventional (and more innovative) provision is still seen as “bolt-on” by some.
We note the focus on “success”, and the definition of success criteria in paragraph 10 of the Introduction. It is disappointing that the learners’ experience of high quality only features towards the end of that list, for we would put this at the very heart of any strategic planning and programme. For that reason, we particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s reference to “teaching and training which inspires, excites and enriches learners” in her Foreword. We note, too, her ambition of “transforming the sector” - but question the extent to which the partners in the sector have a shared vision. Is there more work to be done on this?
CHAPTER 3. OUR STRATEGY FOR REFORM
Goal 1 – Meeting needs, improving choice
The requirement (para.13) for providers to focus on their strengths highlights for us some significant possibilities in terms of values, and international perspectives. We welcome the reference (para.13) to opportunities for personal development, as well as skills for FE/HE progression and employment. There appears to be greater willingness now to recognise their inter-dependence, rather than caricaturing personal development as an optional, and “soft”, extra. Our experience in sponsoring the Churches’ Beacon Award for Sustainable Community Development has provided ample evidence that personal development opens the door to many varied progression routes. It remains vital, however, that similar attention is paid to personal development as a core component of all provision, at all levels.
We are surprised by the omission (para.13) of the international dimension, given the emphasis on ensuring a world-class sector, operating in a global context. Here again, the churches have the potential to make a valuable contribution, given our world-wide dimensions.
If the sector is to meet learners’ needs, however, there must be much more attention paid to the provision of high quality, properly resourced, initial advice and guidance. Learners will remain motivated, and succeed, if they are on an appropriate programme. This vital work demands real skill, and needs to be made a key component of training. The “unhealthy casualisation” (para.5) of the workforce has meant the loss of valuable experience in this area.
We recognise the tensions (para.14) between the development of specialist/generalist FE colleges, and believe this is a debate that needs to continue. Yet we also recognise the importance of critical review to ensure appropriate provision for learning in contemporary society. Where the churches are involved, for instance, as members of college Boards, they will contribute to that debate about the college’s distinctive mission, and will welcome the emphasis on longer-term planning.
We welcome the recognition (para.14) of the danger of an initiative-led culture, which puts genuine sustainability at risk. There is still more scope for linkages to be made across Government departments, where initiatives share common aims. Improvements in this area would greatly facilitate effective engagement by the churches in terms of community-based learning. We would welcome discussion about new ways of collaborating, and are pleased to note the LSC commitment to provide support to encourage such provision (para.15). It is, however, crucial that the traditional providers see such provision in the community as of equal value – rather than simply “hiving out” of college those parts of the business which are difficult or insignificant. As it stands, the tone of the paper implies that community provision should simply “fill the gaps”. Social inclusion needs to remain part of the core business of every FE college.
We welcome the honest recognition (para.18) of the difficulties in some areas of genuine partnership, and will continue to do what we can to build on best practice. It is in that spirit that NEAFE (National Ecumenical Agency in FE) is running its one-day conference in October for the sector, bringing together examples of best practice from across the country.
We note the ambitious vision of para.19, in terms of the role of local LSCs in area review and planning. It will be important that the churches’ involvement (existing and potential) in community-based learning be as well recognised as its schools provider role in those discussions. We would hope that appropriate ways of recognising, and assuring, high quality provision can be developed, without imposing the kind of bureaucratic systems that detract from the work. Much excellent work is done by the churches in the context of neighbourhood renewal, in both urban and rural areas, and this needs to be more effectively integrated into the planning and review processes. Appropriately targeted, and delivered, training here would reap real benefits, and we would value DfES support in that context. An example of successful work of this type, funded by ourselves, has been the churches’ national training conferences for FE chaplains (local clergy, ecumenically, who link with their FE colleges), where good practice is shared, and sessions have been held on, for example, OCN accreditation, and funding.
We believe that the central issue identified on meeting employer skill needs (paras.20 – 23) replicates some of the concerns of the community and voluntary sector, in so far as the sector is still struggling successfully to engage with the agendas of employees and employers. People, wherever they are, are most likely to be motivated to learn where the offer tallies with their own needs, has been jointly negotiated with them, and where it is presented in a language and format they readily understand. People’s own agendas – whether the churches’ community-based provision, or that of businesses – need to be recognised, and taken seriously on their own terms, rather than simply being seen as a means of enabling the Learning and Skills sector to achieve its targets.
We welcome the willingness to tackle inflexible and inappropriate assessment methodologies (para.23), and hope this long-standing issue can be moved forward. It is by no means only employers who recognise current inadequacies! Learning supported by the churches in their local communities and congregations offers a good example where significant innovation might be piloted ecumenically. One might, for instance, build on the workforce development concept of trade union learning reps., by supporting the training of “a learning rep in every congregation”.
We have welcomed the consultation on proposals for 14-19 (para.24). There is still much work to be done on the qualifications framework if the objectives for the system are to be achieved. We hope that the existing experience of excellent practitioners will be recognised, and its dissemination actively encouraged. Much of the most effective curriculum and staff development work in FE colleges has, for years, been built round this model, and we would urge its continuation. We believe that the sector would benefit from learning from the high quality practice of the churches’ youth and adult community-based work, and would be pleased to facilitate that. The structural change referred to in para.26 is of vital concern to those denominations which are 16-19 providers.
We welcome the Government’s emphasis on improving Basic Skills, and we have worked with the Department to build on the good practice which exists in the churches’ community-based provision. Our concerns include: the avoidance of targeting people, and thereby isolating them further; diminishing people’s sense of identity, rather than recognising the importance of the human spirit; the value of holistic family-based learning; the need for smoother and easier access to long-term funding; the danger of simply funding those who intend to focus on the most easily achievable targets, rather than really making a difference; the fact that community providers feel marginalised in consultations, and bidding processes; the importance of capitalising on the existing informal practitioner networks across the denominations and faith communities. The National Ecumenical Agency in FE is a good resource in this context, working as it does across all faiths. Churches are increasingly working with UfI/learndirect on ICT-based e-learning. These preliminary steps have established some connections, but these links (with DfES ABS, and UfI) will need to be given a higher profile if work of real value is to be developed.
We welcome the recognition of the valuable role that FE can, and has, played in making HE more accessible to the wider community (para.28). There are countless stories that can be told in this context, providing an important basis on which to build. The churches ecumenically have been glad to sponsor, through the Helena Kennedy Foundation, a badged bursary for Teacher Education There is clearly potential to develop good progression routes from church-based community provision, as evidenced in the Churches’ Beacon Award for Sustainable Community Development, particularly if appropriate support is offered as detailed earlier in this response. It is likely that the churches will have a well-rooted presence in those parts of the country where HE provision is less readily accessed, and the developing partnerships with FE colleges may provide a helpful basis for developments there. Those FE colleges which have a strong HE component are already likely to have some part-time FE chaplaincy provision. The churches are increasingly encouraging their HE chaplains to become better informed about FE, and to make links with their FE chaplaincy colleagues. This has the potential to be a valued bridge between two still separate cultures and worlds. In order to achieve the Government’s targets, and ensure the world-class workforce which is needed, the autonomy of HE providers may have to be reviewed. Those who receive public funding have to be publicly accountable.
We note with some concern (para.32) the possibility that colleges take out commercial loans. Why should public money be used to provide interest to banks? Why cannot a fund be set up which would allow the money to remain within the state’s pocket, and be ploughed back into the sector?
Goal 2 – Putting teaching and learning at the heart of what we do
We very warmly support this goal. The best colleges, their leaders and staff, have always valued this – after all, it was the reason why very many of them entered the profession, and stayed with it throughout the various upheavals of recent years. It underpinned the Inclusive Learning Quality Initiative in colleges, an initiative which had a wide impact and commanded much support from staff. It would be even more successful if this focus for the system were to be adopted, rather than that of funding units. Most teachers would welcome the chance to concentrate on improving specifications, developing appropriate styles, fostering generic as well as specialist skills, and ensuring appropriate assessment – rather than being diverted away from this, their perceived core business, by over-reliance on bureaucratic record-keeping, and audit. Teachers, properly valued, encouraged and supported, will welcome a greater focus on this central goal.
We would welcome discussion about the most helpful ways of sharing the churches’ experience in effective approaches to teaching and learning (para.34), particularly in the context of its successful work with non-traditional learners. The Connexions strategy has begun to pick up some of this, but there is more to be done. Similarly, there is much expertise within the adult community-based learning networks. Christian staff in colleges would similarly urge that the best practice of college staff not be ignored.
It should be said that providers do not always feel that there is a common inspection framework (para.35). School sixth form provision still appears to be inspected differently from that in a sixth form college. This breeds suspicion and resentment. Inspection must demonstrate that it is common to all. We are unclear what is new about the planned areas for consideration in inspection across all curriculum areas. Similarly, we query the value of “new” approaches, referred to (but not specified) in para.36. We set great value in high quality cross-curricular work, and indeed our current project with FE colleges on post16 Citizenship is based on this premise.
We would urge that the proposed major programme of training and professional development for teachers and trainers, including workplace supervisors, and for support staff, be extended to include community-based provision offered by the churches (para.37)
The section on the use of ICT (paras.38-39) appears to be very much driven by the needs of business and workforce development. Whilst we support the belief that more learning opportunities should be offered to people during their time at work, we would not want sight to be lost of the more general principle, that learning be made available to people “where they are”, and “at times when they want it”. In that context, it is disappointing that reference is not made to the use of ICT-learning in the home and in the community. It needs to be made a genuine option for all learners, as part of the recognition that access to ICT is fundamentally important. There should, however, be no assumption that e-learning will be better, or replace, other learning.
Goal 3 – Developing the teachers and leaders of the future
The churches historically have seen teacher education as a vital way in which they can support education, and the vocation to teach. We have a concern that current concepts of teacher training are too narrow, and for that reason have welcomed the requirement that all FE teachers be professionally qualified, and the new professional standards for work-based trainers. We believe that teachers need, themselves, to be well-educated, rounded individuals, and effective team-players, if they are to “inspire, excite and enrich learners”.
But the current disparity between the rewards for teachers in schools and FE does little to attract the best teachers into FE, or to encourage them to stay. We see no mention in this consultation paper of an intention to address this key issue. It is also important to recognise that many teachers in FE colleges, who may not have a clutch of academic qualifications, have moved into the profession from their skilled professional area, with a profound commitment to supporting learning. The recognition (paras.40 – 44) of initial and continued professional development is of paramount importance.
We are pleased to see the creation of a new national leadership college, and would hope that the sector might utilise the insights of the churches in the development of training programmes for college managers and governors. We are particularly pleased to note the intended provision of leadership programmes for managers in adult and community learning (para.46), seeing this as a valuable way of sharing our good practice, and of learning from others. We have noted with concern the particular difficulties experienced by black staff in progressing into management positions in colleges, especially in the light of our evidence that they have considerable successful leadership experience within their churches and other faith communities (para 47)
Goal 4 – Developing a framework for quality and success
We support the recognition that the Government inherited a weak accountability framework, and look forward to an open debate around the difficult question as to how accountability is best achieved and demonstrated.
We fully endorse the statement that “the primary responsibility for improving the quality of provision rests with the provider”. It is absolutely crucial that this underpins the vision, the aims of the system, and all our expectations.
Performance indicators must include more than the numerical (para.56) Valuing and developing the whole person contribute crucially to improved motivation, retention and individual success. The reality and spirit of what was said in para 51 must underpin this part of the operation as well. Good leadership in colleges, and community-based provision, will develop a range of indicators to inform judgments. Those who demonstrate such a culture should be allowed to get on with their work. This is not a plea for a “softer” approach, but an encouragement to look at real rigour and meaningful judgments. League tables do not fulfil this purpose.
CONCLUSION
We are grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the consultation on this important paper, and look forward to continued joint exploration of the issues it has raised.
