Delivering World-class Skills in a Demand-led System

The Vision and the Detail

Mick Fletcher

26th April 2007

Overview

• “Demand-led” is a distraction

• Key change is from “market-led” to “programme-led”

• Proposals seem to diminish the significance of existing brands

• An agenda for the 50% outside higher education?

Two Documents in One

• Strategic Reform – “following” the Leitch proposals closely

• Technical Changes - carrying forward important detail eg closing the funding gap

• Lots not said

The Zeitgeist 1

• TECs and FEFC used price or Rates

• LSC used planning or Allocations

• Leitch proposes to use Eligibility

Qualifications and Curriculum Reform

The Zeitgeist 2

DfES/LSC prioritise• Programmes over providers

• Competition over collaboration

• Responsiveness over stability

• Employers over individuals

• Sectors over regions

Funding Models

• A common 16-18 funding model

• Two models for adult funding– Learner Responsive Provision– Employer Responsive Provision

• New arrangements for ALS/SEN/ALN/ASN

Balance of Funding

Timetables

• 2007/08 – Trials of Learner Accounts– Simplified planning– Poor quality provision removed

• 2008/09– First 5 specialist diplomas– New Common Funding Approach– QCF becomes operational– SSCs prioritise shortlist of qualifications

Timetables

• 2010– “all adult vocational skills (apart from

community learning) through learner accounts or Train to Gain”

– “Full set of progression pathways implemented across the FLT”

– Fee assumption to increase to 50%– 100 extra institutions offer the IB

Timetables

• 2012– Sector becomes self regulating

• 2013– 14 specialised diplomas– Leaving age raised to 17

• 2015– Leaving age raised to 18

14-19 provision

• Some important detail on the FE system

• Some important developments 14-16

• Strategic changes not highlighted but nevertheless there

Common 16-18 Model

• 16-18 FE & 6th form Colleges

• Mainstream School 6th forms

• 16-18 Foundation Learning Tier

• Possibly apprenticeships

• But not Academies!

Common 16-18 Model

Option 1 Strategic Commissioning

Option 2 Strategic Commissioning plus reconciliation

Both options have new common rates methodology and no change (yet) in eligibility

Key Changes are for Schools

• Individual school success rates

• Disadvantage based on IMD

• 3% top sliced for ALS

• Use of October census data

• And discussions/competitions about growth

Specialist Diplomas

• 16-18 could use LSC method

• 14-16 could also but– Group sizes different– Disadvantage based on cohort– Success rates based on cohort– Area costs may differ

Schools Funding Consultation

• Accepts a funding model like the LSC’s is needed

• Accepts the case for a national base rate for vocational options

• Offers 3 models for distributing funds– LEA purchaser model– Hybrid model– School purchaser model

Indicative Sums 1

• AWPU for 14-16 is around £3,000 per pupil per year

• Assumes 1 day per week on voc options will cost £1,200 per pupil per year

• Assumes school will find savings on average of £300 per participating pupil

• Therefore DfES will add £900 per participating pupil

Indicative Sums 2

• 6 hours X 40 weeks is 240 GLH

• Load-banded provision at 240 GLH earns– £1233 at PWF A– £1603 at PWF C– £2121 at PWF E

Funding Adult Learning

• More radical changes than 16-18

• Less generous funding

• All through two new approaches by 2010 except for PCDL and Offender Learning

• Balance to shift towards employers over time

Balance of Funding

Who said this?

Here’s a paragraph from Funding body A’s current consultation on funding, which ends in March/April

  “Nevertheless we are committed to providing

institutions with stability in funding.. and to allowing time for managed periods of transition when we do alter funding levels… We therefore propose that the old and historic buildings premium should be turned into a fixed allocation based on its current cash value”

•  

And who said that?

• And here’s a paragraph from Funding body B’s current consultation in funding, which ends in March/April

•  • “Competition will be supported. Providers

demonstrating high-quality provision will be able to expand. New entrants to the market will be encouraged and unwarranted barriers to entry removed. Suppliers of unwanted or lower-quality provision will not be protected from the resulting loss of income”

Learner Responsive Provision

• Indicative allocations (but no guarantee)

• Competitions for new provision

• Costed at new standard rates

• In year and post year reconciliation against actuals

Learner Responsive Provision

• All funding through Learner Accounts by 2010• Trials at level 3 from September 2007• The accounts offer

• Access to Guidance• A choice of providers• An information pack• Registration• A statement• Personalised support

Think JCP

• New Deal for over 50s

• New Deal for Lone Parents

• Leitch’s proposals for a Skills Development Fund

Skills Development Fund

• “The SDF will resemble the Adviser Discretion Fund (ADF) operated by Job Centre Plus. Under the ADF, Job Centre Plus Advisers can grant jobseekers up to £100 to tackle immediate barriers…..Similarly the SDF will be used by advisers in the new careers service…”

Learner Responsive Provision

• Level 3 pilot accounts– Full level 3– 2000 learners– EM and SE regions– Link to JCP and T2G– Providers bid for indicative allocation

Employer Responsive Provision

• Covers– Train to Gain– NES provision– FE delivery on employers premises– Adult apprenticeships

– Possibly 16-18 apprenticeships– Possibly CoVEs Skills academies

Employer Responsive Provision

• “within light touch planning”

• 80% commissioned 20% regional responsive fund

• Indicative maximum allocations

• Payment linked to recruitment

• Rates based on common methodology

• Eligibility increasingly restricted

“Turning off funding”

• Impact assessment for learners, employers and providers of withdrawing funding from provision not prioritised by SSCs

Intermediaries

“Sector Skills Councils will speak authoritatively on behalf of employers…Learners will have the absolute certainty that the qualifications they study are those that are valued by employers..”

Additional Needs

• Single system

• Discrete provision via rates

• Up to £5.5K (95%) via formula

• Over £5.5K via 1:1 equivalent hrs

The ALS Formula

Y = 0.8647x e-0.4052X

Proposed ALS Formula