Skills for Jobs: What Does it Mean? Part IV
By Jan Ole Faust
The fourth part of the Skills for Jobs White Paper concentrates on making further education providers function more effectively, and offer courses which lead specifically to finding employment. While it is appropriate to make alterations so that the workforce has locally needed skills, these are permeated by vagueness. Intentions to make colleges perform better amount to swathes of centralisation, within a white paper which ostensibly declares its goal to place greater autonomy in the hands of colleges. Nonetheless, a commitment to providing locally needed jobs is thoroughly laid out, albeit one which is liable to be hindered in light of the Coronavirus crisis.
The White Paper’s measures to improve the efficacy of providers are coloured by harsh interventions in the governance of colleges, alongside some imprecise hints at more autonomy for them. Said autonomy, largely unaddressed once mentioned, is to coexist with a plethora of stringent rules. Clear guidelines are issued, as well as means of intervention; among others, the leadership of any given provider can be “reviewed” (altered) at will. When there are “long-term weaknesses”, the Department for Education is free to take any further action it wishes. These point to the Government’s intent to improve struggling colleges directly, with any autonomy nominally indicated being left vague, whereas measures to control struggling institutions are outlined in detail, alongside a new ability to do all this in a shorter time-frame. The measures posed by the Paper for improving the administration of providers may lead to a break in cycles of neglect of further education colleges in certain regions, going some way towards reducing regional imbalances.
This centralisation is wholly in tune with other proposals put forth by the Government. Recently, the Johnson administration has announced a reappraisal of Coalition (and to some extent New Labour)-era decentralisation of the health system, which gave power away to such bodies as NHS England or other, local organisations. Last year, Matt Hancock referred to those as “atomised institutions”, as opposed to a “system”, reflective of muddled lines of responsibility manifesting themselves during the Coronavirus crisis. A general government rethinking of how best to provide public services is underway, and the drift is towards greater centralisation, through which the government hopes to “level up” Britain.
The promised crackdown on independent providers underscores the extent to which the Department for Education intends to centralise power over colleges. While paying lip service to harnessing (private) independent provider's “unique” state to tackle skills shortages where the status quo has failed, no detail is provided as to the execution. On the other hand, noting that attendees of such bodies perform below those at regular colleges, the Government intends to police all board choices, and will require extensive disclosure, under the threat of wide interventions. It is telling that the body with the most inherent autonomy is to be intervened with most significantly, clearly signalling that a centralised effort to maximise local employability is underway.
To achieve that goal of providing jobs which are needed locally, significant procedural alterations are to be instituted, placing good labour market outcomes front and centre. In assessing the viability of courses offered for training and funding, data metrics of performance will be implemented to assess the employability of any given course. As one quarter of all work vacancies in the UK arise from an under qualified population, the intention to cut back on oversupplied and unproductive courses and allow for an expansion into needed ones is appropriate.
Similarly, the central government will work with Mayoral Combined Authorities to adopt a needs-based approach in local area funding, shifting away from the current allocations, which are made through historical performance as an indicator. This explicit shift to funding providers based on needs through consulting locally acting bodies shows that despite harsher, centralised control, specific regions’ needs will still be accounted for. The financial support offered to T-level providers, too, could lead to greater employability. It is appropriate that a new qualification, directly aiming to place young people into non-graduate work is financially supported.
Finally, the funding of these lofty ambitions is sensible, albeit subject to reductions in light of the Treasury's reaction to a Coronavirus-induced recession. The upcoming Local Skills Improvement Plans will outline timeframes for funding these, “subject to” government Spending Review cycles. It happens that columnists and think tanks are agreed that future Reviews are bound to be fiscally harsher, reducing spending amongst other measures. The aforementioned plans could therefore be engaging with less funding than was originally envisioned, somewhat limiting the extent of any reforms outlined in these insight pieces. In general, the fact that improvement plans are as of yet upcoming demonstrates the vagueness that hinders confidence in fundamentally well-placed governmental ambitions. £200 million are to be used on upgrading the conditions of college estates, with a further £1.3 billion engaged over 5 years on further education. The 2019 general election conservative party manifesto promised “almost” two billion spent on the college estate over the coming years, relative to which it falls short, although other expenditure could make up for the difference.