Agenda item

FINAL version

1. Themes and questions had been forwarded in advance to Mr Allen in preparation for the meeting.
2. The Chairman and Select Committee welcomed Mr Allen to the meeting and explained the scope of the Select Committee.
3. The Chairman invited Mr Allen to give a brief introduction on his role and explain the services of the Skills Funding Agency (SFA).
4. Mr Allen explained the following:

• The SFA was co-terminus with LEP.
• SFA was borne out of the Learning and Skills Council.
• SFA’s role was to fund post 19 years Education (Except universities).
• SFA funded apprenticeships, Adult Education and Community Learning and supported people getting back into work.
• SFA sat within Department fro Business Innovation and Skills
• SFA operated on behalf of the DfE, funding for all apprenticeships for 16 – 18 year olds.
• SFA Budget was £3 billion nationally; Kent received between £90 – 100 million per annum, the majority of which was spent on apprenticeships, and the remainder on other work based learning, Adult Education, Community Learning and supporting people getting back into work. 
• The SFA delivered its budget through a network of FE Colleges and Private Training Providers.
• The FE Colleges - There were 6 FE Colleges in Kent and there were also a number of Private Providers delivering to learners in the county.
• In Kent, Mr Allen managed 35 training providers. He explained that there were 1000 directly contracted Providers nationally, and 2000 sub-contractors who delivered training. Many of these national training providers delivered in the county, with over 300 providers delivering in Kent. He gave an example of how this worked saying that Newcastle College had employers based in Kent.  This was a complex picture across Kent.   Graham Razey, Principal of East Kent College, would, as well as in East Kent, deliver training to apprentices in other parts of the country
• Mr Allen explained that under the last Government there were national targets not only for Apprenticeships, but also for Level 2 qualifications and Basic Skills etc. The Coalition Government had abolished most of these targets, (with the exception of Apprenticeships). The budgets for 16-18 learners and 19+ learners were not interchangeable, as they came from two different government departments.  

 

5. Q – Were there any payments made by results?

 

6. Mr Allen advised that and element of the rate paid to a provider was paid on results. This related to learners who were unemployed, and was earned by the provider if they were successful in assisting a learner in finding a job.  Mr Allen explained the system of providers being paid by a funding rate, dependent upon the type of qualification. He gave the example of IT at level 3 – SFA paid the Provider £14,000 to deliver the qualification.  The rate was paid on a monthly profile, dependent upon how long the provider estimated it would take the learner to complete the qualification. An element was based on the learner successfully completing the qualification.  A substantial part of the rate paid reflected the cost of delivering the qualification.  It did not reflect the demand for the qualification. At present the Providers received funding and it was up to them how they spent the money so they could spend all of this on whatever mix of qualifications were demanded by employers and learners.

 

7. Q - If KCC wanted to encourage growth in industry what should it do?

 

8. Mr Allen advised that Apprenticeship growth could be achieved in a number of ways. Employers need to be convinced of the benefits, and also we needed to do more to encourage providers to look to deliver Apprenticeships in new sectors...He gave the example of Mr Razey Principal of East Kent College providing training in wind farming technologies. What we he need to do in order to begin delivering? He would have to invest in new equipment and resources within the college, before he could begin delivering. In addition, there would need to be actual jobs available in order to recruit Apprentices.  He considered that it was the cart/horse analogy with the need to up skill to attract the employers to Kent but you can not get the skills until the jobs are here. This required close co-operation between employers and providers. The Government was keen to ensure that employers and providers worked closely together, and that providers worked with employers to develop new qualifications / Apprenticeship frameworks where they did not already exist.

 

9. Q – What would you do to be reactive?

 

10. Mr Allen explained that one way would be to incentivise the market. You could make it more financially advantageous for the Providers by increasing the rates paid for Apprenticeships in particular sectors. However, given the fixed budget available for Apprenticeships, an increase in the rates for one qualification, would mean a reduction in the rate for another.

 

11. Who would provide the direction?

 

12. Mr Allen considered that this was a role for KCC to set out clearly, through Economic Development, a clear direction on the economic direction it wanted to follow. That is to say, what exactly are the priority sectors that KCC is looking to build on.  Colleges and other providers would then respond.

 

13. Mr Allen considered that Mr Razey made an interesting point in his interview in terms of KCC’s role.  Mr Allen did not feel that it was KCC role to offer training.  It confused people outside.  He considered KCC was a strategic commissioner.  In terms of the directional travel, KCC needed to work with employers and be prepared to say to providers that “We need more of these and less of those”.

 

14. Mr Allen was critical of KCC own training provision.  He felt that it did not seek to deliver the skills priorities that the Council had set out. One solution was that KCC should consider no longer being both a provider and an organisation that set out strategic direction.  He felt that KCC acting as a provider did not send out the right message.

 

15. In reply to a comment, Mr Allen advised that he sat on a Board equivalent to KCC’s Skills Board, where employment in agriculture was often discussed.  He advised that agriculture provided 2.3% of Kent’s employers.  Job Centre Plus advised that they only received one or two job vacancies in this sector at a time.

 

16. Mr Allen considered that if KCC was looking to drive forward the economy of Kent it would not be through agriculture but through manufacturing, IT and digital technologies and it was about how this message was articulated.

 

17. Q – If two colleges were providing 100 apprenticeships each in the same courses would they both receive the same funding?

 

18. A – Mr Allen explained that they were allocated the same funding irrespective of where they were in the country. It was a national funding system and it was up to each provider as to how they spent their allocation. If college A delivered apprenticeships for administration and college B delivered apprenticeships for IT, then that was for them to decide and fund form out of their allocation.    He added that some sectors were more expensive to deliver, and so attracted a higher rate. E.g. engineering.

 

19. In response to a question, Mr Allen advised that if a college had 12 employers looking for engineers, then the college may say yes to running the apprenticeship course. They would need to get the right cohort to run the course. There was a point, in terms of numbers of learners, were running the course becomes viable.

 

20. In reply to a comment on ring fencing funds, Mr Allen advised that there was no ring fencing now but in the days of the LSC there was no distinction in Post 16-18 year olds and 19+.  The LSC money could be moved around which meant if the adult finding was under spent and the under 19 year olds needed that funding, it would be moved. That flexibility no longer existed.

 

21. In reply to a comment that the sectors were right for growth and whether it was possible to incentivise that, Mr Allen felt that this could happen if it was clearly articulated.  He would like to see greater incentivising.  There was a national funding system which he considered interesting in the context of localism.  He considered that you could not respond by tweaking allocations. Mr Allen said that he expected providers to deliver to priorities locally.

 

22. Q- Was the LEP too big?

 

23. Mr Allen explained that the message that he was hearing was that Government felt that LEP held the ring to say what the skills priorities were.  It was clear this was the responsibility of the LEP and not the Local Authority. The message from BIS supported that. It was about what KCC as the local Authority articulated within the LEP.

 

24. Q – There seemed to be a tension between employers and skills with the huge demand for employment.  The vast majority of apprentices were going on to get a job, should the FE colleges be more specialised eg chefs, car mechanics and would that be of benefit?

 

25. Mr Allen said that he felt they absolutely should specialise in sectors that were demanded locally.

 

26. Q- At all levels?

 

27. Mr Allen explained that Thanet College had for years, a good reputation in hospitality and catering which from an employer’s perspective was a good thing. Hadlow College was another example in the Landbased Sector. The problems came on a practical level in terms of students travelling to a college that just delivered Apprenticeships in one sector, especially for those students below level 3. Mr Allen advised that the further the person progressed the higher the level of skills required eg level 4, then he felt that they would be prepared to travel around the county to receive those courses.

 

28. Q – Are there people that have obtained level 2 at one college then moved to another college to do a more advanced level?

 

29. Mr Allen advised that there were.  He considered that KCC should promote this as it was not dependent on government legislation. 

 

30. The Chairman advised that he had spoken with KFEC asking them what they considered were the challenges and saying that now was the opportunity to reorganise and rethink and cut duplication in FE colleges.

 

31. Q- Was it not the employer’s role to drive the message?

 

32. Mr Allen considered that if you left it to the employers in Thanet, how would they identify the message?  KCC had this strategic role.

 

33. Q- Was there a good example of a local authority doing this?

 

34. Mr Allen said that he did know of any. He considered that some local authorities like to have their own training providers.  He suggested that local authorities were not always focussed enough to say it was not good at training.  If KCC wanted to keep a training role, then perhaps it should consider how it delivered. Shouldn’t it lead the way in delivering to the growth sectors? Alternatively, its role was as a strategic body, working with the LEP and setting out the priorities.

 

35. Mr Allen considered how else you might measure the success of money spent.  He said that by default qualifications was an outcome.  However, the coalition government recognised – “What does our £1 deliver in qualifications”? and “Does our £1 deliver VFM”?

 

36. Mr Allen read out a quotation “Young people are no longer dedicated to learning, they are too distracted by technology” which was written in 1870.

 

37. Mr Allen advised that KCC spent 90% of its allocated funding.

 

38. Q- Do Unitary Authorities provide training?

 

39. Mr Allen advised that some did.  He felt that it was time that the local authorities to think about how they could break new ground.

 

40. Mr Allen expressed his concerns that pupils were no longer told about apprenticeship in schools as the schools appeared to be holding onto the pupils.  It was also known that schools were position the Raising of the Participation Age, as the Raising of the School leaving Age – implying that pupils had to stay on at school until they were 18. There were two authorities in his area that held onto the Connexions service.  They had maintained pupils going into apprenticeships, those authorities that had not retained their Connexions services showed a decline in pupils going into apprenticeships.  He predicted that in a few years time the number of NEETs could increase as a result.  He considered that schools needed a mandate to use the National Careers Service and that IAG in schools should be monitored by OfSTED.

 

41. A Member commented that there seemed to be a large group of young people with low self esteem who were unable to express themselves but if nurtured in the right way would do well.

 

42. Mr Allen expressed his opinion that for some pupils, school was not the right way for them to proceed in education.

 

43. Q – How was East Kent College able to offer specialisation all over the country?

 

44. Mr Allen explained that with apprenticeships there needed to be assessors.  Apprenticeships in the main were based in the work place.  East Kent College had a pool of assessors all over the country.

 

45. Mr Allen agreed to consider and comment on the Select Committees recommendations when they were produced.

 

46.  The Chairman and Select Committee Members thanked Mr Allen for attending the meeting.