Learning and Skills in a Cold Climate

1
Learning and Skills in a Cold Climate

• Mick Fletcher

2
Causes for concern

• The recession
• Impact on public finance
• Impact on private finances
• Increasing costs
• 16-19 participation
• Unit cost increases
• The plan for efficiency gains
• Evidence of policy failure

3
The recession

• Private finances
• Unemployment
• Pressure on apprenticeship places
• Resistance to fees from individuals
• Resistance to fees from employers
• Demand for learner support
• Declining asset values

4
The recession

• Public finances
• Overall squeeze on spending from 2010 onwards
• Priority to schools and NHS leaving less for
  others
• Competing demand from DWP as unemployment grows
• Pressure to reduce unit costs

5
The recession
6
Increasing costs

• Increasing participation rate
• Roll out of Diplomas
• Provision for NEETs JWT
• Reduced turnover
• More claims on learner support

7
16-18 Cohort is Reducing
8
16-18 participation is increasing rapidly
9
Learner participationProjected numbers of young
people in learning in England between 2007/08
and 2009/10
10
Unit costs are increasing and must be controlled
11
Efficiency

• Department for Children,
• Schools and Families (DCSF)
• 5.14 billion (including 650m of
• additional savings in 2010-11)
• 307 million of savings in schools through
  applying a one per cent efficiency saving against
  cost
• pressures to free up resources to support more
  personalised learning. Schools are continuing
• to improve educational outcomes while achieving
  efficiencies, including through improving
• their financial management, capability and
  skills
• 3 per cent efficiencies in the programme
  expenditure of Non-Departmental Public Bodies
• (NDPBs)
• 650 million additional savings without adversely
  affecting the quality of key services,
• including through further efficiencies across
  NDPBs and DCSF and
• Economies of scale arising from the growth in
  post-16 learner numbers over the next two
• years, which will mean that learning places can
  be delivered with greater efficiency after this
• year.

12
Economies of Scale
13
Scale EffectsRange of subjects by cohort size
14
Policy Failure

• Returns to NVQ 2 nil or negligible
• Little impact of short basic skills courses
• Deadweight problems in Train to Gain
• Diploma take up disappointing
• Deadweight issues with EMAs
• Activity Agreements taken up by 20 of eligible
  NEETs

15
Policy failure

• current policy design for workplace basic
  skills is highly inefficient. It is at odds
  with the needs of mature, self aware learners and
  with the workplace environment TLRP Research
  Briefing No.59 October 2008

16
Policy failure

• In line with much previous research we find
  negative average wage returns to NVQ2.For NVQs
  at level 3 there was no evidence of an average
  return for men while women earned a small average
  return of approximately 1 Jenkins et al CEE
  September 2007

17
Policy failure

• it is obvious from our evidence that some of the
  current vocational offer does not meet the needs
  of employers. In the case of NVQ2 and NVQ3
  qualifications, in many sectors and across a
  range of organisations, even otherwise low
  skilled individuals do not gain a large wage
  return to these qualificationsThis suggests that
  employers do not value them as much as other
  qualifications such as BTEC which provide good
  returns across a wider range of sectors and
  qualifications
• Jenkins et al CEE 2007

18
Policy failure

• In 20 per cent of cases, Train to Gain
  introduced training in establishments that had
  not previously trained their workforce.
• In terms of achieving a measurable impact on
  sales figures, turnover and profit margins, the
  majority of employers said that engaging with
  Train to Gain training had made no difference.
• Train to Gain Employer Evaluation May 2008 LSC

19
Possible consequences

• Tories may axe Train to Gain Back to Black
• Rationalisation of 16-19 through commissioning?
• Efficiency through limiting vocational offer?
• Reduction in expenditure on enrichment?
• Reduce the individual funding cap (to say, 1.5
  SLN)
• Abandon EMAs (for a pupil premium?) Policy
  Exchange
• Use fees to ration adult provision?
• Competition on price as well as quality
• Stronger link between funding and outcomes?