With Skills England, we may have a great opportunity to finally make the skills system in England work. But even if we do, will that be enough?
The overarching, indispensable assumption present in every previous attempt at reform has been that we can and must simplify the skills system.
And sure, a single source of data and a clear definition of our skills needs is fundamental. But the skills system isn’t simple, and never will be. This fact has consistently undermined the successful implementation of a comprehensive skills strategy and its delivery.
For a start, skills are not some homogenous category: they range from entry to degree level and across industrial sectors and even sub-sectors. The skills landscape is necessarily complex.
Some industries are growing, some contracting. Some face the opportunities of technology, others face annihilation by it.
Then, what a job-seeking 16-year-old needs is very different to an unemployed adult or to someone in work who needs upskilling or reskilling. While the skills framework is applied to all, the nature of delivery, the skills taught and even the nature of the assessment will differ.
A coherent stable framework of skills when workforce skills needs can change (sometimes dramatically) every few months is a significant challenge.
Providing the certainty of a structured set of learning outcomes and qualifications which enables flexibility in delivery and assessment without the constraint of time-sapping regulation and control represents a mountain to climb.
What is the right balance of knowledge, skills and behaviours, the right balance between the practical and the theoretical? This question needs answering for every sector: critical ones like social care and early years that are experiencing workforce shortages, as well as the sexier technology and engineering sectors.
And are we happy to allow a range of teaching and assessment approaches, or do we continue to allow regulators to restrict innovation by constantly re-defining inputs rather than outcomes?
We all understand the benefits of units, and the benefits of focused skills development. Unitised delivery doesn’t need to mean losing the end goal of a full qualification that gives individuals mobility.
The skills landscape is necessarily complex
For others in work, a short, sharp programme focused on a particular skill or knowledge may be all that is needed.
And while qualifications are important, what about ‘soft’ skills like teamwork, leadership, resilience and communication? These are relevant for everyone on skills programmes and often determine success in work.
Next, how do we balance regional demands versus national priorities without Skills England feeling too remote and detached from reality on the ground?
Individuals are mobile. Are we saying we should only be training people in the skills for the region they live in? Qualifications generally give a wider set of skills and allow employee mobility.
On the flip side, larger employers will benefit from consistency across regions, but their needs are not necessarily aligned with regional agendas and priorities. Indeed, they are sometimes conflicting. How do we satisfy them all and avoid erosion of confidence in the system?
Given all of the above, perhaps the simplification the skills sector is crying out for is not, in fact, in skills provision itself. It seems to me the simplification we need is actually in the regulation, rules, data gathering, evidence requirements and the funding system.
If we weren’t looking at skills through the lens of government-funded programmes and processes, maybe we would be in a much better starting place.
So, is Skills England just for government-funded programmes or for all skills development in England? And what should employers be paying for themselves without subsidies or incentives?
Employers believe the apprenticeship levy is theirs to spend. But it never was. Only 2 per cent of them even pay it. Government should surely be correcting market failure and incentivising the market rather than funding everything.
What about those not working for a levied employer? What about a government’s future priorities where there are currently limited jobs? And is Skills England determining the cost of delivery or allowing someone else to do that?
Skills England faces an enormous challenge given its remit. And it might even meet that challenge, but if there is no clarity about who funds what along with effective regulation, processes and procurement, it’ll be irrelevant in the end.
Just like all previous attempts to simplify the skills sector.
Your thoughts