Draft legislation that brings the curtain down on IfATE is drawing closer with the draft bill emerging from the report stage in the House of Lords imminently.
I have yet to meet anyone who does not see benefit in creating an organisation that analyses and coalesces skills demand across the economy and aligns this with funding priorities.
IfATE was never designed to do this so Skills England could make a material difference if it gets the tools to do the job.
What IfATE does do, however, is generate and amend occupational standards, apprenticeships and end-point assessment plans, and approve technical qualifications and enact T Levels.
Moreover, these functions have an immediate impact on the fortunes of learners and apprentices – and therefore the skills agenda, the economy and the push for growth. It’s now that the nation needs the uplift.
The draft legislation returns the authority for the delivery, or delegation, of these operational functions to the education secretary, and creates latitude for them to determine what standards and assessment plans are prepared, and who prepares and reviews them.
Whilst we are yet to discover who will be the chair and chief executive of Skills England, there is little doubt it will be delivering IfATE’s current operational duties from April.
Other than this, however, we do not know much about what the future holds for IfATE’s critical operational delivery functions – the first Skills England report was silent on the subject.
A lot has been learnt during the last seven years of IfATE, including things to be improved upon. Skills England is the future and presents a rare opportunity for significant intervention at system-level.
It will be different from IfATE, so won’t run the same way in the longer term. Change is inevitable.
Seven opportunities that a system-level evolution might usefully deliver
- Priority alignment across the DfE, Ofqual, Skills England, local skills improvement plans and devolved administrations.
- Reduced time to generate an occupational standard, with improved collaborative working bringing together wider perspectives on what is needed.
- A more manageable apprenticeship portfolio – over half of the apprenticeship standards available today for starts are in construction and the built environment, engineering and manufacturing, and health and science.
- Accessing the professional knowledge of a broader range of stakeholders in apprenticeship and qualification design – including from the qualifications and assessment industry which has knowledge of best practice and value for money.
- Speedier revisions that require less capacity – both full reviews and more minor adjustments ‘in flight’.
- The accommodation of future skills in a meaningful and practical fashion, and the accommodation of localism.
- Ensuring we use the best learning option, which in some cases will be a qualification and/or upskilling accredited modules rather than an apprenticeship, and that we simplify the current mandatory qualification policy.
The proposed additions to the education secretary’s powers provide the means of bypassing shortcomings that underlie these recommendations, but they do not amount to an all-encompassing fix.
Lots was learnt during IfATE, including things to be improved
And rushing to enact these changes for April 1 brings risk. Rapid change would be extremely difficult, if not unreasonable, for a sector still recovering from Covid, high interest rates and facing a hike in National Insurance costs.
Delivering system-level change gets more difficult as time goes on – it is tough to make changes when things are up and running.
It seems reasonable that the programme should get going early in Skills England’s tenure, be appropriately paced, and access the experience that abounds in the sector. The programme also needs to be resourced, including with time and focus from the leadership of Skills England.
Let’s not lose sight of the critical operational functions that IfATE delivers in our enthusiasm for greater clarity on demand.
We must also see the migration as a systems-level improvement opportunity before new ways of working ossify, but not rush it.
If a sensibly paced and resourced programme is announced sooner rather than later, it would build confidence that change will be genuinely progressive and collaborative.
Your thoughts