Richard Steer

Modernisation and the Role of Policy Levers in the Learning and Skills Sector.

This paper examines the changing use of policy levers in the English postcompulsory education and training system, often referred to as the learning and skills sector (LSS). Policy steering by governments has increased significantly in recent years, bringing with it the development of new forms of arms‐length regulation. In the English context, these changes were expressed during the 1980s and 1990s through neoliberal New Public Management and, since 1997, have been extended through the New Labour government’s project to further ‘modernise’ public services. We look here at the changing use of policy levers (focussing in particular on the role of targets, funding, inspection, planning and initiatives) over three historical phases, paying particular attention to developments since the formation of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in 2001. We conclude by considering the range of responses adopted by education professionals in this era of ‘modernisation’.

Endless change in the learning and skills sector: the impact on teaching staff

This paper explores the impact of change on tutors and managers in 24 learning sites in England, in vocational courses at Level 1 or Level 2 1 in further education (FE) colleges and in basic skills provision in adult community education and workplaces. We discuss the views of these participants in the research project, The Impact of Policy on Learning and Inclusion in the Learning and Skills Sector, funded through the Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP) of the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), in relation to other research on professionals in the sector. We then consider in turn the diversity in a group of tutors and managers we interviewed; their perceptions of the sources of change in their sector; and changes in the learner groups with whom they work. Three examples of changes affecting staff, and their responses to those changes, are then discussed, one from each of the research contexts: FE colleges, adult and community learning (ACL) and work‐based learning (WBL). We raise serious questions about the pace of policy‐led change, the management of change and professionals’ responses to turbulence in the sector, and stress the need to consider the impact on staff, and to listen to those who work closely with learners.

How policy impacts on practice and how practice does not impact on policy

The TLRP project reported on in this article attempts to understand how the Learning and Skills sector functions. It traces how education and training policy percolates down through many levels in the English system and how these levels interact, or fail to interact. The authors first focus upon how policy impacts upon the interests of three groups of learners: unemployed people in adult and community learning centres, adult employees in work-based learning and younger learners on Level 1 and Level 2 courses in further education. They focus next upon how professionals in these three settings struggle to cope with two sets of pressures upon them: those exerted by government and a broader set of professional, institutional and local factors. They describe in particular how managers and tutors mediate national policy and translate it (and sometimes mistranslate it) into local plans and practices. Finally, the authors criticise the new government model of public service reform for failing to harness the knowledge, good will and energy of staff working in the sector, and for ignoring what constitutes the main finding of the research: the central importance of the relationship between tutor and students.

‘The heart of what we do’: policies on teaching, learning and assessment in the learning and skills sector

One of the stated aims of government policy in England is to put teaching, training and learning at the heart of the learning and skills system. This paper provides a critical review of policies on teaching, learning and assessment in the learning and skills sector over the past five years. It draws upon data collected and analysed in the early stages of an ESRC‐funded Teaching and Learning Research Programme project. 1 Using evidence from policy sources, we argue that despite policy rhetoric about devolution of responsibility to the ‘front line’, the dominant ‘images’ that government has of putting teaching, learning and assessment at the heart of the learning and skills sector involves a narrow concept of learning and skills; an idealization of learner agency lacking an appreciation of the pivotal role of the learner–tutor relationship and a top‐down view of change in which central government agencies are relied on to secure education standards.

A new learning and skills landscape? The central role of the Learning and Skills Council

This is the first paper from a project which is part of the Economic and Social Research Councils programme of research into ‘Teaching and learning’. The project, entitled ‘The impact of policy on learning and inclusion in the new learning and skills sector’, explores what impact the efforts to create a single learning and skills system are having on teaching, learning, assessment and inclusion for three marginalized groups of post‐16 learners. Drawing primarily on policy documents and 62 in‐depth interviews with national, regional and local policy‐makers in England, the paper points to a complex, confusing and constantly changing landscape. In particular, it deals with the formation, early years and recent reorganization of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC), its roles, relations with government, its rather limited power, its partnerships and likely futures. While the formation of a more unified learning and skills system is broadly seen as a necessary step in overcoming the fragmentation and inequalities of the previous post‐16 sector, interviewees also highlighted problems, some of which may not simply abate with the passing of time. Political expectations of change are high, but the LSC and its partners are expected to carry through ‘transformational’ strategies without the necessary ‘tools for the job’. In addition, some features of the learning and skills sector policy landscape still remain unreformed or need to be reorganized. The LSC and its partners are at the receiving end of a series of policy drivers (e.g. planning, funding, targets, inspection and initiatives) that may have partial or even perverse effects on the groups of marginalized learners we are studying.

All Change for the Learning and Skills Sector

Using data from a three‐year project funded under the ESRC Teaching and Learning Research Programme, this article examines two major questions: (1) How has the organisation of the learning and skills sector (LSS) in England changed as a result of recent policy? (2) What are the implications of these reforms? We draw on the theoretical work of policy analysts such as Ball and Newman, as well as our own conceptual work, to make sense of 15 major policy documents and over 130 in‐depth interviews with European, national, regional and local policy‐actors carried out during the period 2004–2007. Having described recent reform in the LSS, we argue that the government appears to have moved from a ‘planned’ and unified to a more directive and market‐oriented model of governance. We discuss the implications of this policy shift and introduce the concept of a ‘devolved social partnership system’ as a possible way forward for the sector.

Flowers in the desert: the impact of policy on basic skills provision in the workplace

In this paper we argue that learning in the workplace can bring considerable benefits for learners and employers. It draws on data from in‐depth interviews and secondary sources from eight sites of work‐based learning as part of wider research into the effects of five national policy mechanisms within the Learning and Skills Sector. We also have evidence of the positive effects of policy initiatives, in this case, Skills for Life, Union Learning Representatives and Employer Training Pilots, and of legislation such as the Care Standards Act. However, initiative‐based resources cannot substitute for longer‐term, more secure funding. We have found what may be described as ‘flowers in the desert’—provision that grows, develops and blossoms quickly with the injection of funding, but which is very susceptible to changes in resourcing and, like flowers in the desert, can wither as quickly as it grew. We conclude by arguing that initiatives and exhortation are unlikely on their own to ensure that the full benefits of learning in the workplace are realized. There is, therefore, a need both for more sustained funding from government and employers and for greater regulation, such as the ‘licence to practise’ approach taken in the Health and Social Care professions.

Learners in the English Learning and Skills Sector: the implications of half-right policy assumptions

The English Learning and Skills Sector (LSS) contains a highly diverse range of learners and covers all aspects of post‐16 learning with the exception of higher education. In the research on which this paper is based we are concerned with the effects of policy on three types of learners—unemployed adults attempting to improve their basic skills in community learning settings, younger learners on Level 1 and 2 courses in further education colleges, and employees in basic skills provision in the workplace. What is distinctive about all three groups is that they have historically failed in, or been failed by, compulsory education. What is interesting is that they are constructed as ‘problem learners’ in learning and skills sector policy documents. We use data from 194 learner interviews, conducted during 2004/5, in 24 learning sites in London and the North East of England, to argue that government policy assumptions about these learners may only be ‘half right’. We argue that such assumptions might be leading to half‐right policy based on incomplete understandings or surface views of learner needs that are more politically constructed than real. We suggest that policy‐makers should focus more on systemic problems in the learning and skills sector and less on problematising groups of learners.