FE: how do we shift from rhetoric to action? ၏ စာသားမှတ်တမ်းအပြည့်အစုံ

for resources going forward. 13 00:00:12,000 --> 00:00:13,000 Sir Michael Barber 5:32 14 00:00:14,000 --> 00:00:15,000 Right. I mean, Alison's right. There hasn't been enough investment in FE, so I was going to come to that. The reforms are good, but the investment behind them isn't enough. As Alison said, that successive what are now called fiscal events, FE's got small amounts of money, but it hasn't got the big investment that childcare got from Jeremy Hunt about a year or so ago, and schools before that. So there is a real investment challenge. I think we can all kind of feel it's the Cinderella or whatever adjective or metaphor we want to use. But the question is how to make the case. And I think two things that are happening will help with that. One is the growth of degree apprenticeships, which puts the ladder apprenticeships right into the top universities so that you set up advocates there. And the second is these employer representative bodies. So, for example, I've been in touch. I live in the South West. I've been in touch with Tata, who are going to build the biggest EV battery factory in Europe, near Bridgewater in Somerset. And it's called Agratas, that subsidiary of Tata will do that. They really want to know how to get a strong pipeline of women and men, engineers, and all the other skilled workforce that they need. And the South West, so far, hasn't yet been applied but will not provide. So if we can get employers like that demanding skills, plus top universities, speaking up for skills, we can begin to change the dialogue a bit. And I think that's why the 2022 legislation that Alison obviously knows inside out, did have cross-party support. So whatever happens in the election, there's a strong case that and then the final thing, I think that there's a problem that skills are not seen as a crucial element of economic growth, which I find absolutely bizarre. But the evidence that skills, making sure people in the right places have the right skills to do the jobs of the future is fundamental to economic growth needs to be spelled out and made again and again, because I listened to Jeremy Hunt's recent budget in his Autumn Statement. He talks about skills occasionally, but he rarely makes the case, if ever, that skills are fundamental to growth, but they are and that case needs to be made. 15 00:00:15,000 --> 00:00:16,000 Shane Chowen 7:48 16 00:00:16,000 --> 00:00:17,000 Yeah, Alison, how do we make that case in a more forceful way? 17 00:00:17,000 --> 00:00:18,000 Baroness Wolf 7:52 18 00:00:18,000 --> 00:00:19,000 I'd agree with that, but can I circle back to the bit of what Michael said that I agree with very strongly? I do think that there is real potential in the new employer groups. And it is, I think, up to the FE sector as much as anybody else whether they realize that potential. The point about having these employer groups is that they are employer groups, you know, we've had a succession of Whitehall-created quangos which were supposed to reach out to and bring employers on board. But the point about these is that they are actually employer groups, and most of them are Chambers of Commerce. The idea there was not that they would duplicate number crunching, which is done perfectly adequately at the national level by ONS and others, but they would actually be locally based bodies that would have a clear view about what they needed, that were genuinely employer representative, and which would then talk to the colleges. Now, of course, colleges have to have some money with which to respond to requests; otherwise, you know, it sort of doesn't amount to much. But I think that it's tremendously important if those realize their potential. We've never had chambers that had the position in the skill system that they have in Germany or Austria, or, indeed at the local town halls, not nothing regional, haven't in France. And I think that if we don't develop that, there is a real chance that we don't move forward. I think it is incredibly important. And it's incredibly important that the colleges support this. I mean, there's been cross-party support for the skills legislation of all sorts that's gone through in the last few years. I mean, the Skills Act and the LLE. What you are actually seeing a bit of is sort of pushback from the mayors who go, "well, you know, we should be doing all of this." I think the idea is not to recreate lots of mini Whitehalls where we once had one. The idea was to genuinely commit links between local employers and local colleges and Michael, what'd you say about Tata being sort of really up for it, I think is truly important. But as a stuck disc I will then come back to the fact that there also has to be something with which to respond to that, you know, Tata wants something, okay, they can pay for some of it. But it's time for there to be resources at the local level, which means you can respond to that rather than being tied to shovelling out cheap, low-level qualifications. 19 00:00:20,000 --> 00:00:21,000 Sir Michael Barber 10:29 20 00:00:21,000 --> 00:00:22,000 I think we all agree that some significant investment is going to be needed, and we all agree that the fiscal and public expenditure climate and context is very difficult. 21 00:00:23,000 --> 00:00:24,000 Shane Chowen 10:40 22 00:00:24,000 --> 00:00:25,000 So, do you think the days of this sort of narrative about FE being sort of weak in comparison with other public sector stakeholders and lobbyists and this risk of you know, not offending anyone important in FE so we can mess about with it as much as we can? Would you, do you both think as people that have been on the inside that those days are over now? 23 00:00:25,000 --> 00:00:26,000 Baroness Wolf 10:58 24 00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:27,000 No, but I think that there is potential in organising employers on FE side. 25 00:00:27,000 --> 00:00:28,000 Sir Michael Barber 11:04 26 00:00:28,000 --> 00:00:29,000 I

agree with that. And I think the tone is important. There's a real opportunity on the skills agenda. Now, you look at the future of the economy. I see it visibly in the South West with a spaceport and the rebuilding of the docks in Devon autumn, that whole green agenda around extra in the Met Office and charter and Bridgewater, you look at that economy, it's coming. And you see that skills are fundamental to it. And I think that the skill system has a slight tendency to sound gushy, quite understandably, as a kind of victim. Whereas what it should be saying is look at the opportunity here, seize the opportunity. So instead of being a victim, saying, We're doing brilliant things, you look what Bridgwater and Taunton college is doing with the new nuclear power station that's being built in Somerset, look at what they will do, really well-run college, what they will do with Agratas and Tata, you look at what Exeter college does with a whole range of employers in the area, talk about the great things that are happening and that's why it needs investing in because this is the key to growth. That's one thing. And then the other thing and employers are as often in the past as guilty, as they said, the education system of when there's a problem. They say what's the government going to do about it and kind of wait rather than say, there's a problem, this is what we're doing about it. Come on government get behind us. There needs to be a sense of momentum and not being a victim, but a change agent. I think that would unlock resources in time. 27 00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:30,000 Shane Chowen 12:27 28 00:00:30,000 --> 00:00:31,000 Interesting, I think, while we're on employers, both labour and conservative governments have both talked about, you know, a powerful, influential role for employers in the FE system. Some, though, argue that employers have too much control. But what I think is interesting about where we are now is, the British Chambers of Commerce have said recently that the local schools improvement plans are great. But there is a friction between what the employers are saying that they want and what the centre is willing to let go in terms of power and also the funding around particular courses, right. So British Chamber of Commerce is saying their members are asking for short courses, modular courses. Employers don't want full big qualifications anymore. They want short, snappy things, to deal with their skills issues as they see them in front of them. So do you think the next government could and should be maybe a little bit braver in terms of what it relinquishes from the centre in terms of control? How about Michael, I'll to you first, 29 00:00:31,000 --> 00:00:32,000 Sir Michael Barber 1323 30 00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:33,000 First of all, there's always going to be some friction. And I don't think that's a problem that you need a proper dialogue. And no one stakeholder has the right answers on this or the right answers anyway. So I'm not quite sure that I do agree with the assumption that employers have been demanding better investment in skills rather when you actually often ask them what they want, it's all quite vague. Whereas if I talk about a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point or agrilus, they know exactly what they need. So it's the employers have got to be precise on what they demand and not kind of a give a short courses rather than one month. What do you... what are the skills are needed? And the colleges, the good colleges are responding to that. So there's got to be a variety of things. And the government does have an obligation to define standards in any system, whether it's the health system or the education system, or policing and whatever. So there is a role for government. And the question is to get the dialogue at the right level and the right granularity to make the change. I think I use the word relinquish. I think it's getting the right combination of local, regional and national. And it's not about just government relinquishing stuff, it's about getting the right quality of dialogue. 31 00:00:33,000 --> 00:00:34,000 Shane Chowen 13:23 32 00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:35,000 Anything to add there, Alison? 33 00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:36,000 Baroness Wolf 13:31 34 00:00:36,000 --> 00:00:37,000 I have actually, which is that I really think the mayors need to step up a bit, actually quite a lot of the money is already devolved to the MCA's, Mayoral Combined Authorities. And what has been to me very depressing is how little they've actually done to take advantage of their new freedoms. Now, I do sort of understand the underlying politics of this, that if you do something new over here, it may mean you stop doing something else over there, but they are local, they are talking to their local employers. I just am really disappointed by how few seem to me to have done anything more than essentially just sort of carry over the quite restrictive a pot here a pot their funding regime, which they inherited from DfE. So, I do think that we should also be telling the mayors, well you know, you wanted a devolved adult education budget, some of you have now got the bootcamp money as well. Okay, fine. Now, let's now let's see what you do with it. 35 00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:38,000 Shane Chowen 15:36 36 00:00:38,000 --> 00:00:39,000 Yeah, great point. 37 00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:40,000 Sir Michael Barber 15:37 38 00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:41,000 I agree with that. And I think each part of the system can challenge each other, though, we all know skills are important. So the FE system can be saying to government. This is what we want to do. Can you help with the employers can we challenge the education sector to provide the right combination of courses for each region and for each set of skills. And all of them can be challenging government to think this through, I don't think we're ever going to get a perfect system. But if the dialogue right, and there's momentum there, we can

make really good progress here. And I think just to go back to the beginning where Alison started, we all agree FE needs more money. So doing things well will attract investment. That's my basic argument, rather than simply wringing your hands and being a victim. 39 00:00:41,000 --> 00:00:42,000 Shane Chowen 16:20 40 00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:43,000 Well, let's talk about another part of the system then, which has had a lot of momentum. And that's the apprenticeship system, which has probably had the most political attention in FE throughout the whole of this period of conservative led government since 2010. Alison, you've been an outspoken critic of the apprenticeship levy, which is probably one of the government's most radical reforms in this space since 2010. And you've criticised Labour's plans to replace it with a different levy that can fund normal training as well as apprenticeships. I'm quite interested at your time in Number 10. Did you hear calls from businesses to change the levy? 41 00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:44,000 Baroness Wolf 16:53 42 00:00:44,000 --> 00:00:45,000 Well, basically, they just wanted to be able to spend it or whatever they wanted. That wasn't true of all businesses, I have to say there are some sterling examples of people who will say publicly, that the levy made them think about their training in a way which actually has been fantastically good for them. And so they have shifted to taking apprentices where they wouldn't have done before. And it's been transformative. But what you mostly got in Number 10 was a combination of businesses lobbying to be allowed to do whatever they want to with the money and Treasury going this is a tax get off our lawn, I actually think there is now an appetite for reform, this may be wildly optimistic. I mean, clearly there is an appetite in labour. I was never against a levy. In fact, I wrote a piece for The Social Market Foundation quite a while back, arguing that a levy which is what the most successful apprenticeship systems have something like that a levy or a tax was a good idea. What I certainly never envisaged was the to me completely crazy system. We have at the moment in which all the money has to come from the levy, because Treasury treats it as though it was a sort of a hypothecated pot, even though technically it's not. And so you've got a few companies paying for everything. And I think I also even if I had known at the time that they were going to dream up this completely unique English approach, I would not have guessed quite how passionately determined companies would be to spend the money rather than see any of it go back to the Treasury if they could possibly help it. I actually think this is a deeply inefficient system, which encourages people to spend money on things, which they wouldn't normally and keeps money in large companies that would be far better spent elsewhere in the system. So I actually am not against the levy, I'm against our levy, I think we should do

what much the rest of the world does, and have a single system for everybody in which everybody pays in, but you have a sliding scale. So yes, I am very critical, both of the thinking behind the current system, and of the way that it's actually turned out to operate, which I do think leads to a huge amount of wasteful allocation of resources. 43 00:00:45,000 --> 00:00:46,000 Shane Chowen 17:52 44 00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:47,000 Did you come across any resistance while at Number 10, for calls for change? 45 00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:48,000 Baroness Wolf 19:16 46 00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:49,000 You can only work on so many things at a time. And I think when I was in Number 10, it wasn't a political priority. I think it was becoming so actually just before I left, but then you know there are always all sorts of other problems. I do think there is now quite a general recognition that something has to be done, which possibly five years ago there wasn't because also as Michael says, in some ways, the current system is good. I mean, it is good that companies pay indirectly and are directly involved. And it is good that we have a system of standards, which I think is genuinely more demanding higher standard better than its predecessor. But I do think that the current system needs reform quite badly. And what worries me is that Labour made a commitment. Oh, you can spend half of it on training. And, you know, the trouble is if you don't spend half of it on training, there really will be nothing left for the rest of the economy, because companies will manage to spend all of it very easily. 47 00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:50,000 Shane Chowen 20:25 48 00:00:50,000 --> 00:00:51,000 Michael, what sort of discussions if any were going on at the Treasury while you were there about the apprenticeship levy and possibly reforming it? 49 00:00:52,000 --> 00:00:53,000 Sir Michael Barber 20:32 50 00:00:53,000 --> 00:00:54,000 I'm very sympathetic to pretty much everything that Alison has just said about reforming the levy. I think we need a levy, but the current one could be definitely improved. And, as Alison said, the Treasury is very protective of its levy. And they kind of fend off Number 10. In other parts of the system, but a levy is a good idea. And I just want to widen out because the theme was apprenticeships and we've ended up debating the levy, Alison came back to at the end, the new apprenticeship standards at different levels are a big step forward. The ladder that goes all the way through up to level seven and degree apprenticeships is a big step forward. And Julian Keegan and Rob Hoffman and Alison, before the... and Gavin Williamson actually deserve real credit for putting that in place. That's a big thing that Labour if they're elected can build on. So I do think we've got a better apprenticeship system than we've had before. And we've got significant numbers that we could do with more. But I just want to emphasise this thing about degree apprenticeships, I think they're what they help do is change the status of the word apprenticeship and the idea of apprenticeships in Britain, which because until most of our lives and Alison has been campaigning against this, most of our adult lives, apprenticeships have been seen as a kind of low-class thing for the people who can't get into university to put it crudely. And we know that isn't true and should never have been true. But that is now changing, you train to be a teacher through a degree apprenticeship, you can train to get into all kinds of health careers through a degree apprenticeship, you can train to get into finance through a degree apprenticeship, we have 15 different tracks of degree apprenticeship at Exeter where I am the Chancellor engineering would be another example. When you get the top universities like Exeter and Warwick and others behind the idea of apprenticeship, you begin to shift the climate. So that, UCAS now gives advice on apprenticeships as well as classic university courses. This is beginning to shift. And if you look at what the six formers are saying, look at the recent evidence from what school, not the sixth formers but 14 to 18-year-olds are saying about the careers advice they're getting, they're beginning to see apprenticeships as a genuine possible option to a career. And that leads into my final point, which I think we should do better. I would like to see whoever the next government is a single regulator for post-18 education and looking more consistently at the emerging range of options than we're able to do with the current system. 51 00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:55,000 Shane Chowen 22:57 52 00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:56,000 I do definitely want to come on to that before I do, though. Alison, you wrote in the Financial Times recently that there should be a call of what you described as expensive apprenticeships and over supplied occupations. How should the next government after the election sought that situation out? 53 00:00:57,000 --> 00:00:58,000 Baroness Wolf 23:10 54 00:00:58,000 --> 00:00:59,000 The simplest thing to do actually, if you want sorted out quickly, because we are going to run out of money. That's the downside of the growth of degree apprenticeships, the single simplest thing that I would do and of course, it's a slightly blunt instrument, and I would actually reduce the funding rate for currently employed older apprentices. Because part of the problem is that a very large number of apprenticeships are currently going to people who are employed and in non shortage areas and who are older. I mean, I do not think that the most important thing that this country needs is senior leadership or indeed accountancy apprenticeship, we have just a terrifying skill gaps in some of the areas which apprenticeship in fact, has always been super backed, including construction at all levels and an engineering and we are simply not getting the money into those so. So I actually think that you can

shift the incentives quite easily if you're willing to. 55 00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:00,000 Sir Michael Barber 24:10 56 00:01:00,000 --> 00:01:01,000 I just wanted to make that point you made about the funding. If we ever kind of zero sum part of this is the funding for apprenticeships than the trade off, you just described as inevitable. And it's a problem. I can see that. But if you had a single regulator and some of the funds however we reformed the way it's currently the university funding system and in hand looked at this as a whole picture. You could see some of the higher level apprenticeships being funded by in the future the LLE, we just need to begin to see this as a spectrum of opportunity across post-18 education. Because while we're stocking the pot that you're talking about, I can exactly see the tension you're making. So that's why I'm arguing for a single regulator. 57 00:01:01,000 --> 00:01:02,000 Baroness Wolf 24:55 58 00:01:02,000 --> 00:01:03,000 No, I think that's absolutely right. And of course there is enormous potential. but it's a huge job and what worries me at the moment is that effectively, the number of apprenticeships open to 18-year-olds is ..has been shrinking. And we're just not getting people into these coming back to skills mattering to for growth. I mean, it's just critical that we get more apprenticeships in these areas where we are just screaming for that for the skills. One of the other things that has disappointed me over the last five years, which is that colleges are still not as important in apprenticeship training, as you would expect, they would be and they don't seem to have increased their role there. And Michael, I don't know whether with your sort of in depth knowledge of the South West, you can say anything about this. But you know, in most countries, if you want an apprentice, and you're sort of an SME, or indeed a larger employer, you will know exactly where the training takes place, and it will be a local college or apprenticeship centre. And I certainly don't want to imply that all independent training providers should close down because some of them are fabulous. But it just seems to me there's an imbalance. I don't understand why so many colleges do so little apprenticeship provision. 59 00:01:03,000 --> 00:01:04,000 Shane Chowen 26:15 60 00:01:04,000 --> 00:01:05,000 Yeah, that's definitely been pointed out over several years, several ministers have, you know, stood on stage at the Association of Colleges Annual Conference and really challenged the sector to step up on apprenticeships, not to give it not to give too much away. But here at FE Week, we've been investigating apprenticeships in the social care sector and the declines there. And it's very, very easy to spot how you know, whereas five years ago, the number of the number of colleges delivering those apprenticeships was, you know, maybe 20% of the provider base right now, that's pretty much halved over the five years, we've talked a little bit about the sort of national system of regulators, funders, quangos, and a little bit about the provider base. But I just want to move on now to what you think the next government should be hoping to achieve long term. So what should its success measures for maybe not apprenticeships, because we've talked about that a fair bit, but maybe for young people and for, you know, adult education for people with low levels of skills, because we do still have quite a lot of adults in the working population without basic skills in English and Maths, despite all of the reforms over the last 14 years. So what should the next government's longer term ambitions be for young people? And those and those adults, students? How about Michael, I'll come to you first. 61 00:01:05,000 --> 00:01:06,000 Sir Michael Barber 27:27 62 00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:07,000 let's say, over a 10-year period, we should aim to be the leading provider of skills to the 21st-century workforce in the world, some of the reforms that we've talked about already takes in that direction, some of the reforms in the pipeline, like the LLE, take us further in that direction. And we should aim definitely to do the levelling up that you implied about the kids who have fallen behind them, make sure they get opportunities in the way we distribute funding, we should... And in order to do all that, we need a single regulator, and we need the skill system to operate in the kind of coherent way that has been implied in some of our conversation. It will need more funding over time. I mean at the moment, FE colleges find it really hard to recruit maths teachers, because they pay less than the school. I am in favour of maths teachers in school being paid well, I'm not in favour of FE colleges having to pay people less, we do need to make some reforms. And over time, there will need to be significant investment in the skill system over and above what's been provided in the last few years. And that's where I keep coming back to we have to prove, demonstrate, argue, win the argument that getting skills right is fundamental for the future growth of the economy, I can see it viscerally around me in the South West. I chair the South West social mobility commission. We can't get the social mobility, we can't get the growth, we can't get the higher wages, we can't get the skills that we need, without demonstrating to people investing in skills will lead to faster economic growth for our country and for this region. 63 00:01:07,000 --> 00:01:08,000 Shane Chowen 29:00 64 00:01:08,000 --> 00:01:09,000 Thank you, Alison, what would your long-term goals be for the next government? 65 00:01:09,000 --> 00:01:10,000 Baroness Wolf 29:03 66 00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:11,000 Actually, it wouldn't be more adult basic skills, we put a very large proportion of our current funding into this. It's always a challenge, although, as since our school system has been improving for the last few decades, but hopefully it will get less extreme. My top priority would actually be to build on the success of the boot camps and the potential of the LSIPs (Local Skills Improvement Plans) and employers I would like to see, five to ten years from now, a much larger proportion of college activity focused on often quite short, sometimes longer, locally driven, locally relevant skills provision. That's what I'd like to see. And if I were the next government, I would see that as the outcome and then go, okay, what are the multiple bits that I need to tweak or change to arrive there by five and ten years from now? 67 00:01:11,000 --> 00:01:12,000 Shane Chowen 29:54 68 00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:13,000 Thank you. Well, as they say, time flies when you're talking about skills. I'm afraid that's all we've got time. On this episode of Let’s Go Further, when I say a big thank you to my guests, Baroness Alison Wolf and to Michael Barber, and to you for listening, we hope you enjoyed the conversation and that it's got you thinking about what we need in the FE sector and what we should be asking for from the next government. And if you have a question for us or a comment on what you've heard, please join in the conversation on social media. And remember to subscribe wherever you receive your podcasts to access earlier and forthcoming episodes of Let’s Go Further.