|
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) RSP15 |
|
|
Ymateb gan Colegau Cymru |
Evidence from Colleges Wales |
ColegauCymru welcomes the opportunity to respond to the National
Assembly for Wales Economy, Infrastructure and Skills
Committee’s inquiry into Regional Skills Partnerships.
ColegauCymru is a post-compulsory education charity; we promote the
public benefit of post compulsory education and learning. We
also convene the further education (FE) Principals’ Forum,
which represents the thirteen further education colleges and FE
institutions (FEIs) in Wales.
Skills planning and provision has always been vitally important but Wales currently faces an unprecedented challenge in terms of trying to prepare for the UK’s departure from the European Union. The imminent challenge, particularly of a ‘No Deal’ exit, alongside the historic and long established problems of deindustrialisation means that the Welsh Government is right to consider the local economic and skills priorities of Wales.
However, the current geographical split of the three regions does not appear to have a sufficiently strong evidence base. The particular challenges of addressing the divergent needs of urbans South West and rural Mid Wales is a clear point in case. The designation of the three regions seems to owe more to convenience rather than congruence. In particular, it is important to note that rural communities share specific skills challenges and that mobile labour markets transcend both the southern regions, as well as the border between England and Wales.
Regional Skills Partnerships (RSPs) currently form a key part of the Welsh Government’s approach to skills planning and the role of RSPs has expanded in recent years. Given the observations made in this response it is important to note that ColegauCymru, whilst recognising the vital importance of skills planning, can only give a guarded and cautious welcome to the extension of their role in determining actual course provision. This is particularly the case since recent Welsh Government policy has seen RSPs take on a more direct role in influencing further education provision whereby FE planning now takes the annual employment and skills plans of the RSPs into account. Likewise, RSPs now play a role in resource allocation. For the 2018/19 academic year, the Welsh Government announced an additional £10m Skills Development Fund to support the upskilling of adult learners in areas that employers have indicated are priorities for the region, via RSPs. Clearly any inadequacies and deficiencies in the model of RSP-led planning could have negative and long lasting impact on the currently high level of learner outcomes achieved for individuals and employers.
In 2018, the “Public Good and a Prosperous Wales – the next steps” consultation document proposed that the new Commission should maintain a strong relationship with the RSPs or any similar regional body. In response to this, ColegauCymru raised concerns that RSPs are in danger of being seen and treated as statutory bodies when they do not hold this status. Similarly, annual skills plans are not statutory. The future role of RSPs and their activity needs to be clarified and agreed.
There is also a lack of consistent transparency over the governance and membership of RSPs. While some publish minutes and meeting dates, this is not consistently across all three RSPs. Likewise, it is not always clear who is a member of each RSP, how they were chosen or appointed, or whether a skills audit has been undertaken to identify gaps in the RSP Board. The make-up of each RSP board is different and while this is understandable in order to reflect local priorities, there should be a more consistent approach to the levels of representation from the public sector (including local authorities), further and higher education, and large and small business. The lack of clear governance mechanisms for the RSPs was recognised in the independent report commissioned by the Welsh Government, but has yet to be adequately addressed.
Assessments of the RSPs from vary, depending on the questions asked or the topics under review. While regional priorities can and will be different, a degree of consistency over role and expectations would not hinder this.
These issues, in addition to those outlined below, need to be addressed if RSPs are to play an effective role in providing meaningful intelligence for skills planning in Wales. This is very much a role ColegauCymru would welcome, provided that the key weaknesses are addressed.
ColegauCymru’s responses to the questions put forward by the Committee is informed by information from across the FE sector.
1.1
Issues were raised by FEIs over the data used by RSPs not always
being current or suitable for the purpose to which it is put.
For example, data that is intended to inform long-term outlooks is
not necessarily suitable for use in short/medium term curriculum
planning. Some colleges also noted that the intelligence from
RSPs contradicts or is not supported by that from their own
employer engagement channels.
1.2 There are essential considerations beyond data and evidence of existing demand. Future skills needs, changes in employment and the impact of automation are all important issues that need consideration in any discussion of skills but the extent to which these are taken into account by RSPs is unclear. The proposals which arise from the data must also prove to be beneficial to all employers and not only those represented at the RSP.
2.1
Responses varied depending on the particular RSP but the
significant amount of public sector and often education
representatives in comparison to those from the business sector,
especially SMEs, was noted as a concern by some.
2.2
Larger companies often have the resources to allow staff to play a
role in RSPs and meetings. Nevertheless, some very large
regional employers are not actively involved in RSPs, such as the
NHS. More creative ways to engage a range of SMEs need to be
explored. Employer engagement generally needs to be improved and
cannot be seen as just the responsibility of representative bodies
such as FSB Wales.
2.3 Involvement of the FE sector in RSPs is not consistent, with greater representation of FE in the North and South West RSPs. This is problematic, given the significantly greater size of the South-East region and the larger number of colleges operating in it.
2.4
There is also a need to acknowledge that training, especially in
SMEs, is often through companies providing on and offline courses
to existing employees and not in formal further or higher education
settings. The extent to which these types of providers are
included within the membership of discussions of RSPs is
uncertain.
2.5
Administrative arrangements and organisation across the RSPs are
not clear. There is not a specific statement of the governance
arrangements, rights of representation or the organisational
structure below Board level set out for each RSP. Where some
of this information does exist, it is not always kept up to
date.
2.6 FEIs often question the lack of consistent input from schools and local authorities, particularly as they seek to develop vocational provision. Clearly the provision of A Level learning can also have an impact on the take up of vocational learning and the longer term development of higher level vocational pathways. It is important that the voice of schools is heard therefore around the RSP table.
3.1
Again, this varies depending on the specific RSP. The South
West RSP has the lead role for delivering one of the 11 City Deal
projects, the Skills and Talent initiative, and in doing so,
supporting the other 10 projects.
3.2 In North Wales, there are concerns to ensure that the RSP maintains independence from the Economic Ambition Board who are driving the Growth Deal.
The RSP receives Growth Deal updates from various Local Authority representatives, members of the Ambition Board and the Chair of the RSP. There is now also a Business Leaders Forum to provide “challenge” to the development of the Growth Deal, due to a lack of employer representation on the RSP. There is a genuine risk that as a result of this, and other requests for input from business, employers of all sizes are overwhelmed with demands on their time, making them unsure of where best to exert their influence.
3.3 More
generally, there is a need to acknowledge the competing priorities
and influence of Growth Deals, City Deals, Welsh Government policy
and UK Government policy which are not always well-aligned.
4.1
There is an inherent challenge in any asking any organisation to
actually reflect current and future skills demands that needs to be
recognised. As a result of this, any analysis of skills needs
is at least partially selective and heavily dependent on factors
such as attendance at meetings, (limited) responses to surveys, as
well as employers who argue their case the
‘loudest’.
4.2 The
North Wales RSP tends to focus on high level demand projects e.g.
Wylfa Newydd, Advanced Manufacturing/Airbus as opposed to
discussions around low volume/high value areas of niche
demand. RSPs need to have more direct conversations with
smaller, local employers to genuinely gauge demand. Their
limited resources currently restrict this and therefore the risk is
that their steer for skills provision comes from large
employers.
4.3
There is a tension in South East Wales between RSP discussion and
dialogue around skills demand, shaped by the aspiration of most
stakeholders to support and grow ‘high value’ jobs.
There is an understandable desire to try to support and promote
economic growth in the region by focusing on higher level skills
and sectors where technology is driving significant change.
However, the LMI data continues to show that a significant number
of employment opportunities across the region in coming years will
continue to be in lower skill areas (including occupations in care,
hospitality, retail and food preparation).
4.4 There is a gap in understanding that for some employers, the very highest level of skills (above level 6) will inevitably be only required in a minority of jobs across the region. The most significant demands will continue to be around addressing the Basic Skills deficit for many adults and for upskilling and reskilling the current workforce, particularly around Level 3 and 4.
4.5 The impact
of leaving the EU and the resulting impact that this will have on
future skills needs has not been considered in detail by each RSP.
Through their own engagement with employers, FEIs are aware that
there are certain sectors who anticipate major skills related
impacts. These sectors include farming and food production,
hospitality, health and care and tourism.
4.6 Lastly,
the idea of annual skills plans needs to be revisited. Two,
three or even five year plans, properly monitored, would allow for
flexible provision to meet ongoing need rather than reflecting
annual short-term priorities.
· Foundational economy
5.1
The levels of understanding and knowledge of the foundational
economy varies across the three RSPs. For example, it is
identified as a priority area in the Regional Skills Plan for North
Wales but is poorly represented on the partnership. In South
East Wales, the RSP has recognised the importance of the
foundational economy in its various skills plans and assessments.
The RSP recognises the sector, and in particular health and social
care, as a priority skills sector for the region.
5.2
There is a need to raise awareness and understanding of the
foundational economy with those involved in RSPs and Wales more
broadly. The recent Welsh Government activity on this via a
workshop in February 2019 is welcome.
5.3
ColegauCymru believes that all too often, the misplaced priority of
Foreign Direct Investment still continues to dominate the thinking
around economic planning and consequently the demands placed on
FEIs.
· Welsh language
5.4 The North
Wales RSP produced a document reviewing the use of and requirements
of the Welsh language in the area. FE colleges in North Wales
are the largest providers of post 16 Welsh language provision in
Wales and yet had minimal involvement with the RSP in aligning
delivery to demand. Conversely, the same colleges have a far
greater involvement with the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol and Welsh
Government in planning Welsh Language provision. In South
East Wales, there does not appear to have been any significant
consideration of the demand for skills provision through the medium
of Welsh.
5.5 The role
of the Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol in relation to the RSPs should be
clarified in order to ensure the most effective partnerships around
Welsh medium skills provision, and to avoid duplication across the
further and higher education sectors.
6.1 One of the major problems is that while the role of RSPs is growing, their remit is not clear. For this reason, it is difficult to assess whether resources are adequate to needs. The role of RSPs needs to be clarified and agreed, with resources then set as necessary, if RSPs are the right vehicle to undertake the responsibilities identified.
6.2 However, in a climate of reduced public sector funding, we should be wary of creating a costly, bureaucratic body. Nonetheless, if RSPs are to be tasked with critical roles like wide-ranging regular employer engagement which FE can use to develop provision, they need sufficient resources to do so and that is not the case at present. Currently, RSPs do not appear to have resources to interact with employers outside of the partnership, but seem able to co-ordinate meetings and prepare the annual Employment and Skills Plan.
6.3 RSPs have
tended to develop around a number of participant groups who have
volunteered time, supplemented by a very small staff team. This has
not been sufficient to address the growing role of the RSP. At the
same time, the future resourcing level of the RSP should require
and assume the support and commitment of the various stakeholder
groups, while ensuring that any unnecessary duplication of
work/effort is avoided.
6.4
Importantly, the issue is not just about the amount of resources
but also the need to ensure that those employed by the RSPs have
the right skills, knowledge and experience to undertake the role,
and that they have adequate support and development.
There is a need for improvement in this area. There is a sense that in some instances, the findings of the RSPs to date, which are necessarily limited, have been given more weight than other tried and tested ways of gathering LMI to inform priorities. Detailed intelligence on “niche” skill gaps that new employers require or the impact of new working practices is needed. Likewise, future skills needs, changes in employment and the impact of automation are all important issues that need consideration in any discussion of skills but the extent to which these are taken into account consistently by RSPs is unclear.
8.1
For further education and work based learning, the detail is
generally appropriate. There is significant detail provided to the
RSP around further education and work based learning provision. The
RSPs express an opinion on the sectors and provision that should be
grown and those areas where there should be a
reduction.
8.2 However,
the level of changes required by Welsh Government in terms of
increases/decreases in required enrolment numbers is often very
small, leading to challenges. Reducing enrolment numbers by,
for example, six students, means running smaller classes without
generating any savings to offset the reduction in income. The
value of this extremely close scrutiny exercise is
questionable. Likewise, it is difficult in the short term to
reduce numbers in one curriculum area and to increase another area
by the same number.
8.3 Too often,
it appears that RSPs and indeed some elements of Welsh Government
are ignorant of the reality of maintaining viable and accessible FE
provision. For instance, a viable class size can often be much
smaller within vocational provision than for academic teaching but
only at a higher cost. Increasing learner numbers might give rise
to increased costs and not simply economies of scale. Likewise,
concentrating specific vocational provision in a specific campus as
opposed to at a number of sites, might appear to make reduction in
numbers a viable proposition. This however, does not address the
need to maintain local provision as a means of reducing the
barriers to participation such as distance to travel, caring
responsibilities or indeed the disincentive to participate in
vocational training posed by poor access to public
transport.
8.4 Rather
than focusing too rigidly on operational detail, a medium term
strategic direction for the region should be agreed. Within
this, FEIs should be allowed to manage their offer at the micro
level within that overall direction.
8.5 The
further education sector works closely with the RSPs on skills
demand but there is no consistent approach with schools and higher
education. The arrangements for reviewing recruitment versus
planning are significantly more detailed and operational in FE and
work based learning compared to the arrangements in HE and
schools. This needs to be addressed with similar,
proportionate and reasonable levels of monitoring applied to
post-compulsory education. The new body proposed as a result
of the Hazelkorn Review is an opportunity to assist this.
8.6 The current ‘higher skills’ narrative particularly with an emphasis towards level 5 and 6 qualifications, whist relevant to a small number of key employers and sectors, does not necessarily reflect the need for wider transferrable skills and general occupational capability. FEIs will also be engaged in a range of remedial work on essential skills which is not necessarily reflected and understood by the other members of the RSP. They will also be engaged in a wide range of activities to address work readiness and learner motivation within their learning programmes.
8.7 These are
all part of the social mission of further education and their role
as anchor institutions within their communities. These aspects of
foundational services are in danger of being overlooked by a narrow
sighted view of colleges simply as ‘skills factories’.
International research shows that flexibility is not only key in
the labour market but also in the ability of colleges to respond to
individuals’ circumstances as well as emerging needs of the
market. As the future direction of the economy looks increasingly
uncertain, it would be foolish to believe and plan on the basis
that linear projections of need always prove to be accurate and
reliable.
9.1
On the whole, there are few tensions between RSP and WG
priorities. Where these do arise, they tend to concern
misunderstandings of progression and higher level skills. For
example, it is not possible to always deliver Level 3 skills to
young people straight from school when they often need additional
skills development at Level 1 or 2 before they can progress to
Level 3. In many vocational courses, it is necessary to
achieve Level 1 and Level 2 before progressing to Level 3, even if
the learner already holds a qualification at one of the lower
levels. Reducing funding for lower level courses impacts on
the pool of people able to progress to the higher levels and is
ultimately detrimental. It is also important to note that HE
does not seem to be involved in conversations about learner
demand/progression into HE on a regional basis
9.2
Predominantly focusing on higher level skills risks reducing the
number of lower level courses. In effect, it cuts off the
‘progression pipeline’ and reduces the opportunities
for learners with negative experiences of school to identify an
entry point into vocational learning. This has potential unintended
consequences such as increasing the numbers of young people who are
not in education, employment or training.
9.3 The role
of adult learning, upskilling and reskilling needs to be an
important part of this discussion. Many adults require access to
support their development of literacy, digital literacy and
numeracy skills. These requirements are an essential precursor to
gaining higher level technical and vocational skills for many
people.
10.1 The
skills offer is constantly changing within FEIs but this is often
more influenced by direct dialogue with employers. There have
been managed increases in, and reductions in, particular areas of
the FE and work based learning provision in response to RSP
identified sector priorities. However, a significant and sustained
growth of provision generally in the STEM area at a regional level
will require more young people to be encouraged to pursue this
throughout their education – and this falls outside of the
influence of the RSP.
10.2 It is debatable as to whether RSPs or Welsh Government have
significantly influenced the provision of higher education
programmes at first degree level.
RSPs can provide a valuable forum for bringing key stakeholders
together to hear updates on developments from Welsh
Government. Regional Skills plan can also provide a
clear direction for skills development. Some good use has
been made of the funding available through RSPs – the Skills
Priorities Programme and the Skills Development Fund – to
develop and then “pilot” initial delivery of new
programmes that respond to the needs identified by the RSP.
However, it is not certain that this is the most effective channel
for distributing such funds.
12.1 One of the
unintended consequences seems to be an almost exclusive focus on
skills provision and delivery in FEIs. There is frequently
very little information on other education delivery in the regions
and more could be done to gain a joined up picture of the situation
in schools and HE. This is necessary if planning is to be
coherent and effective. This would also take account of the
progression involved in the education system. FE is just one
piece of the jigsaw as planning structures evolve and
develop.
12.2 As
RSPs are given increasing influence over the prioritisation and
spending of increasing amounts of public money, it is essential
that robust and transparent governance arrangements are in place
which is not the case at present. FEIs welcome the
opportunity to contribute to the development of such arrangements
and look forward to continuing to play a central part in the
development of RSPs.
Conclusion:
ColegauCymru offers the following key points in conclusion:
·
The role and activities of RSPs need to be clarified and
agreed. This includes whether RSPs are the right body to
undertake the activities identified.
· Governance arrangements need to be strengthened across all RSPs and this should be a transparent process.
· Annual skills plans should be replaced by skills plans covering two, three or five years, with suitable monitoring. Longer-term skills needs, changes to the employment landscape and analysis of the impact of automation should form part of these.
·
A more joined-up approach to skills planning and provision should
be taken that focuses less on just further education institutions
and more on the postcompulsory education sector as a whole.
· Understanding of the foundational economy should be improved among those involved in RSPs and the wider regions.
· ColegauCymru welcomes the opportunity to contribute verbal evidence to the Committee review and would also be happy to supply further information on the extent and range of current provision.