An awarding giant has called for the revival of skills councils for specific sectors in a new report that outlines a “once in a generation opportunity” to reform training through Skills England.
The report, Making Skills Work: The Path to Solving the Productivity Crisis, by City and Guilds and the Lifelong Education Institute, calls for an end to the “wasteful cycle of policy churn, duplication, and reinvention” in the UK’s skills policy.
It charts a history of “consistent revision” in the various national and sector-centric predecessors to Skills England, set up by the government to guide workforce training since the 1960s.
The report is published on the second day of the Labour Party conference, amid questions about the exact shape of the new quango, which is awaiting draft legislation.
It calls for Skills England to exist alongside revived Sector Skills Councils that oversaw training development in specific industries in the 2010s and for it to be “empowered” to redirect resources across the country when needed.
City and Guilds chief executive Kirstie Donnelly said: “We have a once in a generation opportunity to clean the slate of skills policy for good and create a holistic, long-term strategy for uplifting our economy through skills provision that works.
“It’s crucial now that we learn from mistakes of the past; Skills England must not be yet another reinvention of the wheel.”
The report charts the history of centralised state planning bodies up to the 1980s, followed by market-led quangos and the Learning and Skills Council, Sector Skills Councils, and Regional Development Authorities, established in 2001-2.
More recently, it points out that the UK Commission for Employment & Skills (UKCES) was established in 2008 to coordinate skills and employment issues before its closure in 2017.
The report says: “The government has presented the creation of Skills England as a historic opportunity to implement a wholesale step-change in the formulation of UK skills policy.
“Yet despite its ambition, Skills England is quite simply not a new idea.
“It follows in a long tradition of Westminster and Whitehall exercising some degree of directive input into skills development across the UK.”
The report’s recommendations include:
A diverse board
Ensuring Skills England’s board represents government, business, education providers, learners and workers.
This is in line with suggestions from bodies such as the Association of Colleges, which called for a new “social partnership body” to deliver a coherent post-16 education system.
As reported by FE Week, the quango’s board membership is still at the recruitment stage.
Sector Skills Councils (SSCs)
Revive business-led councils, established in 2001 and later designed to give employers a platform to voice their skills needs, should be revived.
The councils were sidelined in 2008 but remain in “semi-moribund abeyance”, the report notes.
SSCs were similar to industrial training boards (ITBs) that existed in the 1960s, and still exist for some industries to this day, such as the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board.
Funding powers
Skills England should be given powers to “redirect resources to address needs” in specific areas, which it should justify through an annual report.
Clearly defined roles
Overlaps and coordination with regulatory bodies need “clear definition” to avoid unnecessary duplication, the report recommends.
Skills England should agree with the Office for Students (OfS) on its role in higher-level and vocational education.
It should also have a “convening role” with the growing number of authorities that have devolved control over their adult skills budgets.
It should also “co-advise” with the Office for Budget Responsibility all skills-related budget measures, as well as working with Ofqual, Ofsted, and both the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and the Independent Schools Council.
Focus qualifications on productivity
One way to ensure growth should be qualification reform that would “rebalance” the supply and demand for skills to “directly influence” productivity growth.
This could include scope for a “sustainable, scalable model” for T Levels and more “suitable availability” for some degrees.
Read the full report here.
Your thoughts