Greater co-operation across several government departments, a review of funding and a high profile national campaign were among a host of measures put forward by MPs aiming to address poor literacy and numeracy in England.

Members of the House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) Select Committee also rejected GCSEs as the only qualification by which attainment in numeracy and literacy should be judged.

Committee chair Adrian Bailey (pictured) said: “By adopting the recommendations of our report, the government can make a real difference to people’s lives and our economy’s productivity.”

Skills Minister Nick Boles (pictured right) said the MPs’ inquiry was “timely and thorough” and that he would “carefully consider its conclusions”.

The inquiry, whose report came out today — UN International Literacy Day, followed a survey in October by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) — based on interviews with 166,000 people in 24 countries — that found that England and Northern Ireland was ranked 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy.

The inquiry opened in February and took evidence from a host of witnesses, including National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (Niace) chief executive David Hughes; Tom Wilson, director of Unionlearn, TUC; Karen Adriaanse, HMI specialist adviser, the national adviser for careers guidance and employability, Ofsted, and former Skills Minister Matthew Hancock (pictured left).

And MPs, who produced a video outlining their findings (see below), were complimentary of Mr Hancock’s efforts to address low levels of numeracy and literacy, but urged his successor, Mr Boles, to continue to focus on the issue and called for greater collaboration between departments for education, BIS, work and pensions, communities and local government, and the justice and defence ministries.

The committee report said: “We recommend that a civil servant in each of the relevant departments is chosen to act as a champion for adult literacy and numeracy. Should close collaboration between these departments not be delivered, we recommend that the Minister be given more formal powers to intervene in those departments on matters of adult literacy and numeracy.”

It added: “The government must make best use of limited funds, and so we urge them to undertake long-term, joined-up planning, concentrating resources on a core of effective, established, proven schemes, rather than being diverted by a proliferation of short-lived pilots across various departments.

“First and foremost, the government must get the message across to those adults with limited English and maths skills that help is available, with a national campaign that advertises the fact that there is free training and tuition for any adult who wants to study English and maths up to GCSE level.”

The committee also highlighted the importance of GCSE alternatives, such as functional skills.

The report said: “We reject the blanket acceptance that GCSEs in English and maths are the gold standard by which schemes and attainment are measured.”

It added: “The government has successfully recognised that a more flexible approach to learning reaps success, and therefore the accompanying government funding must move away from the traditional, linear approach to achieving qualifications.”

The bidding process for adult learning contracts should be reviewed, the committee said.

“The Skills Funding Agency’s bidding process means that demonstrably successful providers of courses have to go through the process of rebidding, which leads to insecurity of both the learners and staff providing those courses. BIS needs to re-examine this,” said the report.

“Schools do not have this insecurity, neither should providers of adult courses.”

Mr Bailey said: “There is no silver bullet to tackling the problem of low levels of adult literacy and numeracy but a national campaign will help to get the message out to those who are most in need of support.”

He added: “Adult learning can play a vital role in helping people escape the trap of low-skilled jobs or unemployment, yet the committee found there was little rigorous or uniform assessment in place for when adults claim unemployment benefit despite the fact that this is an ideal opportunity to help adults to gain essential skills needed to get a job.

“The committee calls on the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business, Innovation, and Skills, and Jobcentre Plus and skills providers to work closely to ensure there is consistent and thorough assessment of skills at the earliest possible stage of unemployment benefit claims.

“The committee urges the government to take a more flexible approach to adult learning, both in the types of programme on offer — by voluntary and paid organisations — and in the types of funding given by the government.

“The committee is concerned about reductions in funding to adult learning schemes and calls on the government to reverse its decision to cut funding to Unionlearn, a scheme which has achieved outstanding results at a fraction of the cost of full-time formal education.”

Mr Boles said: “Good English and maths skills are vital if people are to fulfil their potential and to find and sustain employment.

“The BIS Select Committee inquiry report is an important study into how the government and other organisations are helping adults improve their reading, writing and maths skills.

“The report rightly highlights the excellent work already underway, but we must not be complacent. We will continue our reforms to raise aspirations of learners and to improve the quality of English and maths teaching.

“I welcome this timely and thorough investigation into adult literacy and numeracy, and will carefully consider its conclusions.”

Click here to read responses to the report from Niace, the Association of Colleges, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers and the TUC.

See edition 110 of FE Week, dated Monday, September 15, for an expert piece on the findings by committee chair Mr Bailey.

Officials at the Department for Education (DfE) have told providers they can’t top up FE free meals allocations with Bursary Fund cash after it emerged a number of colleges were looking to boost the £2.41 hand-outs up to as much as £5.

General FE colleges and independent learning providers, from this month, are required by law to offer FE free meals to qualifying disadvantaged 16 to 18-year-olds.

And the government announced in April that providers would receive funding at a rate equivalent to £2.41 per student per meal taken — but FE Week understands a number of colleges wanted to give more with official guidance unclear on FE free meals top-up rules.

Providers were looking at topping up FE free meals allocations with funding from other sources, including the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund — usually dished out to help pay for education-related costs for disadvantaged learners including travel, clothing and books.

But the DfE “definitively” ruled out such practices issuing providers guidance on Thursday (September 4) after an enquiry from FE Week.

Kingston College was among those looking to boost learners’ money for food. A college spokesperson told FE Week: “We wanted to ensure that its most needy learners were ready and fit to learn across their timetable.

“In order to do this, we were exploring a £5 a-day allocation, which would entitle learners to a healthy breakfast, nominally £1.50 and lunch at £3.50.”

But, she added: “Like many other colleges in the country we were exploring the possibility of topping up the limited FE free meals allocation from bursary funds.

“However, the sector has now been given definitive guidance from the Education Funding Agency that this is not permissible. Kingston College will comply with the guidance.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “The situation is that institutions are not allowed to top up FE free meals funding from other support funding, including the 16 to 19 bursary fund.

“They can, however, use the 16 to 19 Bursary Fund to pay for FE free meals for people who would not otherwise be eligible, at the same rate of £2.41.

“We would like to stress this is not a change of rules. These are the same arrangements that were already in place.”

He added the 16 to 19 bursary could also be spent on schemes to encourage more learners who were entitled to FE free meals to claim the benefit.

A 157 Group spokesperson said: “It is early days for the new policy and we hope DfE will keep the rates under review to make sure colleges can offer nutritious meals. Colleges themselves will be best placed as time goes on to judge the amount they will need and we hope DfE will be receptive to their feedback.”

A spokesperson for the Association of Employment and Learning Providers (AELP) said: “The FE free meals allowance is a helpful element to the support provided for all learners. It would be better if the allowance was higher.”

The Association of Colleges declined to comment.

EDITORIAL

 

So how much is an Education Funding Agency (EFA) FE free meals voucher worth?

The obvious answer is £2.41 as the EFA has said this is the maximum eligible learners can be given.

And yet until FE Week made inquiries with the EFA some colleges thought there was no maximum and were considering as much as £5.
So why two different answers and who is right?

The higher figure comes from colleges planning to top up the £2.41 with bursary funding — a different EFA pot.

Bursary funding is discretionary, and some providers have in previous years been using it for free meals worth more than £2.41.

But the EFA has now explicitly ruled out topping up and its word is final.

The need for EFA clarification, late changes by providers and two pots for free meals (with different rules) creates the potential for confusion, all of which should be of concern.

Combining FE free meals and bursary allocation seems the sensible solution.

Otherwise continued micromanagement by the EFA will leave a bitter taste in the mouth for what should be a popular policy.

Chris Henwood, editor

The Department for Education (DfE) has “failed” to manage providers operating its traineeship programme, a senior MP has claimed.

Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chair Margaret Hodge (pictured) made the comments in response to a report from the National Audit Office (NAO), which showed that just 200 out of 459 eligible training providers who said they would deliver traineeships had recorded starts as of June this year.

The report also raised concerns that proposals to make employers pay for up to a third of the costs of training and assessment of apprentices aged 16 to 18 could lead to a further fall in the number of starts in that age group — already down from 129,900 in 2011/12 to 114,500 in 2012/13.

It comes as a government impact assessment, out on Thursday (September 4), conceded that the funding reforms could affect 16 to 18-year-old apprentice numbers differently to older learners, and said the situation would be “monitored”.
Mrs Hodge said the DfE needed to do more for young people considered to be not in education, employment or training (Neet).

She said: “These young people have not been helped by the Department’s failure to manage its providers — with only 200 out of 459 eligible training providers actually delivering the traineeships they promised.”

Association of Employment and Learning Providers chief executive Stewart Segal welcomed Ms Hodge’s comments, and the light shed on poor traineeship take-up by the NAO report.

He said: “The recognition by the NAO and Mrs Hodge for the need to grow the traineeships programme is welcome. We have consistently said that we should open up the programme to all providers that can evidence quality delivery.”
Association of Colleges chief executive Martin Doel said: “FE and sixth form colleges have worked hard to ensure young people stay in education or training.

“However, in the next few months, Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has some tough decisions to make about the funding her department provides to educate and train 16 to 18-year-olds.

“Further government reductions, exacerbating those already handed out, could result in less course choice for students and the achievements of the past few years being at risk.”

A DfE spokesperson said: “The report from the NAO recognises the success of the apprenticeships programme, and that it is value for money.

“As part of our reforms we also want to give employers control over the funding for apprenticeship training. This will help them choose the most effective work preparation for their employees, working directly with providers. We have published details of the funding model that we are trialling for starts based on new employer-designed standards in 2014/15.”

A PAC inquiry into 16 to 18 participation in education is due to begin on November 3, and the education select committee is due to look at apprenticeships and traineeships in the autumn.