It is time to make a decision. The consultation process for the Learning and Skills Bill is nearly complete, and although there will be a new funding system put in place on April 1st of next year, no one knows exactly how it will look or function. The Department for Education and Employment is still searching for colleges to use as a reference to devise different approaches, so optimism is not high that the DfEE will get it right on the first go.
There are tensions between the Treasury and the DfEE, with the Treasury attempting to funnel as much of the £6 billion for further education directly to providers. Conversely, the DfEE seeks to reserve some of the funding for specific key areas. Consequently, around 150 principals and chief executives from across the country convened in London yesterday to voice their concerns at a conference organized by the Association of Colleges.
Despite a cautious welcome to the general outline of the funding proposal, there remain several serious anxieties regarding coherence and differentiation. A key concern is the way the proposal differentiates the 16-19 age group and adult learners, with the perceived risk that adults will not receive the same level of funding even if they are taking the same course as a 16-year-old.
The disparity in funding becomes of even more concern when learning needs are taken into account. Adult learners’ learning needs are often much greater than someone who has gone straight from school and into further education. Ruth Silver, Principal of Lewisham College, stresses that the new proposals classify 16-19-year-old provision as education but everything else as training. This classification creates a risk that a government that has done so much to widen participation will end up closing it down again.
There is also confusion about the differing levels of provision. Sixteen-19-year-olds will be publicly funded up to NVQ level 3, whereas adults will only be funded up to level 2. This is of great concern to colleges, as a lot of research suggests that NVQs levels 1 and 2 make no difference to a person’s employability or earning potential. While there may be outcomes other than economic, this is not a good use of resources because it may generate disaffection among those who are trying to improve their position in the workplace.
Aside from the uncertainty that is worrying everyone, there are concerns about provisions for special needs learners and that some colleges would pass sub-standard students to receive 20% of NVQ fees payable by output. This action may further undermine the credibility of vocational qualifications.
Despite the rising concerns, Ruth Silver remains optimistic that this is a learning government that will respond to these concerns.
