|
Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru |
National Assembly for Wales |
|
Pwyllgor yr Economi, Seilwaith a Sgiliau |
Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee |
|
Partneriaeth Sgiliau Rhanbarthol |
Regional Skills Partnerships |
|
EIS(5) RSP06 |
|
|
Ymateb gan Grŵp Colegau NPTC |
Evidence from NPTC Group of Colleges |
The RLSP region is so
large and diverse it is challenging to represent all vocational
areas, and geographical areas within the RLSP, equally and
fairly. Growing Mid Wales (GMW) is a cluster group who
represent Powys and Ceredigion. The Network groups are limited in
their membership and may not have the voice of all employers within
the region, this can result in decisions around cutting FE FT
provision and increasing WBL which does not reflect actual need and
skills profiles of individuals at 16 –19. In some instances
it has been seen that certain employers influence decisions they
see is an area of need and is not reflective of the whole region.
The EMSI tool which gives a much better reflection of local and
regional needs and is linked to job vacancies across the region
highlighting future demand. RSPs are in discussions with WG about
using this with all Providers.
SW&M Partnerships are based on those that engage and may not have representation from employers from all of the Skill Sector Areas (SSA). Recommendations are made to reduce Curriculum delivery in non-priority sectors without the understanding of what employability skills are developed in these programmes, and the potential for progression onto HE or self-employment.
Growing Mid Wales has a different agenda to an area such as Port Talbot which has an anchor company such as TATA located within it. The Mid Wales Cluster Group is generally made up of representatives from the Public Sector (Health and Education) and SMEs / Micro businesses with very specific/bespoke skills needs. There is an opinion that GWM becomes a region in its own right to focus on the Growth deal.
The RLSP board has providers as members so their voice is heard and their contribution valued.
It may be perceived that too much focus and funding is linked to these highly populated areas to the detriment of rural areas and deprived wards. Some funding is being linked to Mid Wales Growth deal (£200 million) which is low compared to the 2.5 Billion City deals for Cardiff and Swansea. Poor Transport infrastructures from valleys and towns not linked to these deals increases the problem in growing the economy in rural and deprived areas in the Upper Afan/Swansea/Neath Valleys and Powys. A focus on these large slow burn deals prevents addressing smaller initiatives which will provide future employment. General inward investment within local authorities should be considered as part of the RLSP remit. Sparsity funding within FE allocations is vital to help support education and training in these regions.
Depends on what research and development reports they are using to inform recommendations and decisions. There are many examples of SMEs in Mid Wales where bespoke training is required for very specialist roles. Hydrogen vehicle technology in LLandrindod Wells is an example. There needs to be investment in facilities that can be used to support low numbers and develop Higher Level Skills in specialised areas. This requires strategic thinking to identify skills that the workforce will require in 15 years time and will in some cases require a large amount of capital investment and match funding from the private sector.
They have sufficient knowledge and understanding but due to the constraints of funding to support their work and the lack of flexibility within qualifications to support bespoke industries they may not be able to achieve the required outcomes.
Demand for skills in
the medium of Welsh is anecdotal and different for various areas
within regions – Health and Social Care and Childcare Welsh
speaking skills are important in Carmarthenshire/Upper Swansea
Valley, but not so much in towns such as Port Talbot and Neath or
border towns in Powys. Public Services require these skills but
this needs to be addressed through compulsory education at KS2/3
curriculum and Teacher Training programmes. If policy and
ministerial priorities focussed and invested in training and
development on the global skills needs that industry flag, for
example, literacy, numeracy, resilience and confidence rather than
GCSE resits and Welsh Language, employers would get more work ready
employees (which is their priority) following their progression
from FEIs/HEIs/Schools.
The RLSPs are all
funded to the tune of £150,000 annually – the SW&M
partnership is funded via an allocation to Carmarthenshire County
Council- not aware of how this money is spent to make a
judgement.
Is there an appropriate balance
between the work of the RSPs and wider views on skills
demand?
RSPs do what they can
based on the engagement of employers. For validity and confidence
at least 60% of sector employers, representing the whole region and
not one area, should feedback before recommendations on FE
provision are made in that SSA, which includes sub-sectors which
are often ignored. The current network cluster groups have a small
% of the actual employers represented. Obtaining employer
engagement is often challenging, some areas/ vocations are not
represented.
RSP reports used to
inform FEIs /HE and WBL providers do not have sufficient
intelligence and robust data to give confidence to providers that
the recommendations are correct and take in to consideration the
complexity of regional footprints. In addition vocational pathways
in schools are not covered so decisions made are only relevant to
FEI and WBL which defeats the whole objective of regional planning.
In addition asking for small reductions means the potential for
running economically unviable size groups.
Demand for courses at L1 is still high in many sectors- The large proportion of school leavers not obtaining Level 2 threshold at KS4 shows there is a need for level 1 entry. Reducing L 1 provision would increase the NEET population and access for many into a vocational route which will lead them to employment.
In addition many pupils have to enter at L1 to get the competency skills in areas such as Construction /Catering/Engineering. This does not exclude them from progressing to and obtaining level 3 it just might take them a year longer. Expectation of employers is high and often the best outcomes are achieved by allowing students to progress though the levels obtaining the wider employability skills along the way.
Learner choice remains key, careers education needs to start earlier so they can plan employment opportunities and therefore course choice for the future. Reducing the availability of some courses could enhance the flow into England for our Powys campuses.
Some changes have been seen where SPP funding has allowed providers to develop higher level skills curriculum and train staff to deliver these qualifications.
The direction of
travel with skills development has started within the region in
line with the RLSP requirements through working collaboratively
with the other FEIs. However if small reductions are targeted it
could mean running less economically viable courses. Re-deploying
some staff in areas of great reduction would be impossible which
would result in redundancies and specialist equipment/ space
unused. More collegial work could be undertaken between WBL,
Schools and FEIs providers to enhance progress.
A better understanding of employer need has resulted in more focused curriculum planning within the region. The development of Degree Apprenticeships and local higher education provision with employer input has been initiated.
Unit delivery and bespoke delivery based on employer requests has been enabled via the SDF project.
CPD/Industrial Placements for staff has increased as a result of SPP. Most Colleges have invested in Business Development Units and have developed detailed Employer Engagement Strategies which has enabled close working relationships with employers to meet their individual needs. FEIs have a wealth of employer information which should be shared and considered by the RSPs. This would ensure a wide as possible understanding of employers needs are met.
There has been
improved collaboration between FEIs and the RLSP in the SW&M
region via regular meeting with Employers to discuss curriculum and
skills needs. This has helped the understanding of their needs
whilst sharing the restrictions FEIs and WBL have regarding
curriculum content, frameworks and the academic cycle.
Lack of consideration of School 6th forms/HEIs and private training providers from England as they are still allowed to deliver Vocational provision without the scrutiny that FEIs have. This has to be reflective of the activity of all post 16 training including Gen Ed programmes which can influence priority sectors especially in STEM. Schools offer Vocational programmes and are not asked to reduce provision based on RSP recommendations whilst FEIs are – this is not a level playing field.
Schools should engage more with employers to assist progression into careers. Respecting learner choice is also important so good and early careers guidance is imperative.
Wales is part of a global economy and we should not forget the opportunities that holds for youngsters, not all want to stay in Wales, so planning should reflect the wider possibilities other than the RSP region. This is essential in the border regions or there will be a larger flow to England for training and qualifications.