Category: Education

  • David Willetts – 2010 Speech at the HEFCE Annual Conference

    David Willetts – 2010 Speech at the HEFCE Annual Conference

    The speech made by David Willetts at the HEFCE Annual Conference at the Royal College of Physicians in London on 21 October 2010.

    Good afternoon.

    It has been a crucial ten days for the development of higher education in our country. I am very grateful to HEFCE for this opportunity to set out how the Coalition Government sees things now. But my debt – our debt – to HEFCE goes much further than that. Alan Langlands brings sagacity and stability – qualities we need in such a turbulent world. Tim Melville-Ross makes an excellent contribution as chairman and I am delighted to announce that Tim has agreed to serve as Chair of the Board of HEFCE for a further three years.

    The Browne Report is up there with Lionel Robbins’ report of 1963 and Ron Dearing’s report of 1997 as a serious, paradigm-shifting publication. We will not necessarily accept all of it, but many experts have already recognised its quality – with praise coming, among others, from the vice-chancellors of Leicester, Imperial and the Open University. It has also been praised by our leading papers. Perhaps I can quote their words as if on a billboard outside a West End theatre: “genuinely radical”, the Financial Times; “sophisticated” and “persuasive”, Daily Telegraph; “attempting to uphold a core set of policy principles that should be broadly supported”, the Guardian.

    There are lessons we can take from those two great reports which preceded Browne. Robbins has gone down in the history books as the report which drove university expansion. But the key driver of that expansion was decisions already taken on student finance following the Anderson Report of 1960. It is right that we should look at university reform and finance together, rather than separately – while of course recognising that finance is only one aspect of a university’s mission, and that the social and moral purposes of higher education are its bedrock.

    I was actually my Party’s higher education spokesman when Dearing came out. And I remember the shock we all felt when David Blunkett effectively tore up Ron’s report the day before it was released; instead of considering Ron’s proposals, he announced an alternative package. That crucial mistake is one reason for the turbulent and messy history of university policy ever since.

    We are not going to repeat that mistake. There will be a very careful process of deliberation in light of the Browne Report. So my reactions today on some of the broad outlines of John Browne’s report are necessarily provisional, as we consult in the weeks and months ahead.

    There are some decisions, however, that can’t wait. We do need to set out in the next few weeks the way forward for graduate contributions and student support if we are going to have any chance of implementing changes for the Autumn of 2012. Many prospective students will visit universities and decide on their applications in the Summer of 2011, and so they need to know the likely costs by then, and how the Government will help them to meet those costs. In turn, universities have explained to me that their prospectuses – with information on graduate contributions – will go to print in April 2011. It is rather like A. J. P. Taylor’s thesis that train timetables determined the outbreak of the First World War: once the presses begin rolling, everything is fixed.

    This means that amendments to regulations governing the current fees structure and student support need to happen sooner rather than later. Prompt decisions will mean we can then implement in regulations the commitments we make. We hope to bring proposals on regulation of graduate contribution levels to Parliament before Christmas. Following Lord Browne’s proposal to introduce a real rate of interest on contributions, we will also need to seek an early opportunity to make the limited changes to primary legislation on that specific issue, and also update repayment regulations to enable a more progressive system.

    We are keen to hear the views of the sector on the wider issues that Browne considered, such as governance and regulation, private providers, and student number controls. In fact, we are already listening, and more lengthy consultation here will tease out the ramifications. We aim to publish a White Paper in the Winter and then – Parliamentary time permitting – hope to introduce a broader higher education bill perhaps later on in this current, extended session.

    The central proposition in Browne is this – that the bulk of the teaching grant which is currently distributed to universities via HEFCE should be replaced by spending power placed directly in the hands of students, who will be lent money to pay for their university education. Students will not, of course, have to find any money of their own for tuition during their time at university, but they will make contributions subsequently as graduates. That is the big shift in the funding of higher education put forward by the Browne report and endorsed by the Coalition. Vince and I both believe it is the right way forward. It both delivers a big saving in public spending – reflected in yesterday’s spending review – and reforms the financing system so that it is shaped by the preferences of students. This new model is what lies behind the Chancellor’s statement yesterday.

    We have said in the spending review that the overall resource budget for HE, excluding research funding, will reduce from £7.1 billion to £4.2 billion – a 40 per cent, or £2.9 billion, reduction – by 2014-15. By far the greatest part of that reduction flows from our acceptance of the approach presented by Lord Browne – that, starting from the 2012/13 academic year, we will start to reduce HEFCE teaching funding, and institutions will be able to replace it, if they can attract students to their courses, with funding flowing via the graduate contribution scheme. Obviously, the details of this will vary between different institutions, and will be affected by the decisions we quickly need to make about the fee regime.

    The spending review also contained several assumptions about efficiency, both within the public sector, and for bodies to which the public sector contributes significant funding. My own department is facing a 40 per cent headline cut in its administration costs. It is not for us to say precisely what efficiency savings a university should make, but crucial areas to look at will be pay and pensions, procurement and shared services. I know most of you already have plans in train here.

    I know that you will have many detailed questions about higher education funding for 2011-12 and beyond, which, you will understand, we are not yet in a position to answer. As usual, we will send a grant letter to HEFCE, with more details, around the turn of the year.

    I know too that people in this room will have anxieties about the shift in spending, but I have to ask what the alternative is. Given the fiscal crisis and the pressure that we are under, there is no option of carrying on as we are. We would have had to do something – even the previous Labour Government had set out £600 million of cuts over a shorter time scale, albeit with no indication of how they were to be delivered. One possibility would have been a big reduction in the unit of resource per student, threatening the quality of the student experience. Alternatively there could have been a big reduction in student numbers, depriving thousands of young people of a crucial step on the ladder of opportunity. A third option was a pure graduate tax, which would risk a brain drain with its incentives for people to study or work abroad. The graduate tax also breaks the link between student and university. There is an excellent guide to these problems and more: a report from December 2003 called “Why not a pure graduate tax?”, published by the last Labour Government.

    These options, therefore, all have enormous disadvantages. Lord Browne’s considered approach, which we endorse, actually shows a pathway towards a positive and viable future for higher education – a way through the “valley of death” to which Steve Smith has often referred.

    The HE system that we develop between us must be as fair and as progressive as possible. In the current economic climate, therefore, we simply cannot afford a fiscal subsidy to the wealthiest families. Looking at the Browne proposals, the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the poorest 30 per cent of graduates would be better off than now, while only the richest 30 per cent of graduates would have to pay off their loans in full.

    The figures we end up with may not be quite those. But broadly, that is the right approach. In fact, we in the Coalition have set ourselves the task of improving on Browne and coming up with proposals that offer even more help for students from the poorest backgrounds but without unfair penalties on success. I have to say to the strongest universities that they have not been successful enough in improving access to young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

    Back in April, Sir Martin Harris duly noted that, collectively, universities have made clear progress on widening participation. But he concluded that the participation rate among the least advantaged 40 per cent of young people at the top third of most selective universities “has remained almost flat” since the mid-1990s. The Government is committed to good universities, but it is equally serious about social mobility. The two must go hand in hand. And I hope you will recognise the strength of feeling within the Coalition that one of the non-negotiables in all this is that universities must deliver on broadening access. The challenge is to achieve this with imaginative and equitable policy – not with clunky quotas or crude social engineering. I believe we can do it.

    We can do it by focussing on three key groups: young people at school and college, students with modest incomes at university, and graduates with low earnings. We will offer them a fairer deal which applies at all three stages: routes for people to get into university, from school, college and through other avenues; increased support for students from poorer backgrounds while they’re at university; and better support for people on low incomes once they have graduated.

    In his important speech last Friday, Nick Clegg pledged £150 million of government money for a national scholarship scheme to improve access for students from families of modest means. It will be fair, affordable, and make a real difference to some of the poorest students. At the same time, it will not add to the burden of regulation on institutions or duplicate arrangements under the more generous and coherent student support system that’s being developed as Browne recommended. I will be inviting the National Union of Students, Universities UK, the Office for Fair Access, the Sutton Trust and other interested parties to help us design a scheme for both young and mature students.

    The second stage involves a more generous maintenance package for students from poorer backgrounds, details of which we hope to announce shortly. We are looking closely at the Browne recommendations for a more generous maintenance grant, supplemented by a more generous loans package. It would be a great achievement to increase maintenance levels on a progressive basis, with more generous grant than now, even in these austere times. If the Coalition Government can deliver this as proposed by Browne, then the obligation on universities to deliver their side of the bargain on access will be even greater.

    Improving the deal for part-timers is a key part of broadening access. For the first time, part-time students will – as Browne proposes – be eligible for loans to cover the full cost of their tuition, on the same basis as full timers. I see this as a genuine milestone – something that neither Robbins nor Dearing tackled. It is a vital part of creating a more responsive and diverse HE sector.

    The third stage is fairness for graduates. We will reform graduate contributions, by increasing the threshold at which people begin to repay loans, and by introducing a positive interest rate. It is crucial for the Coalition that contributions should be related to ability to pay without making the mistake of the pure graduate tax and losing the link with the actual cost of a university education. We specifically asked Lord Browne to address the issue of progressivity and he has come up with ingenious and practical proposals which we intend to work with. We can see the case for setting the income threshold for repayments at £21,000, as Browne suggests – way above the present £15,000 – with nine per cent of salary payable above that threshold.

    As for terms on early repayment, the arguments have become rather muddled thanks to a misleading report in the Guardian and some rather sloppy work by the Social Market Foundation which does not appear to understand that money in the future is worth less than money now. We are examining this issue carefully. There is a feeling that it would be unfair if the better-off could reduce their payments by paying early. But for many people with modest earnings, the delay in repayments at a less than commercial interest rate is an advantage, not a disadvantage.

    This, then, is the direction in which the Coalition Government is heading. Even while public spending is being reduced, we are seeking more progressive outcomes than at present. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies commented, “The proposed reforms to student support and graduate repayments would be a welcome development if they were to be adopted. By continuing to provide up-front cash support for the full amount of fees and for living costs, the system should preserve access to higher education regardless of family background.”

    There are, of course, some very difficult issues around fee caps and the levy. For Lord Browne, there is – in theory – no upper limit to fees. He would argue that, provided admissions are needs blind and provided that the Exchequer doesn’t take on any of the risk of high loans, the problem is resolved. But we understand the very strong concern about the level of graduate contributions.

    Lord Browne’s proposed levy to avoid any Exchequer subsidy for loans has also aroused quite a lot of concern across the sector. It means that as soon as universities raise their fee above the threshold level, they face a rapidly rising levy which can drive their fees up even higher in order to reach a given level of income. Another objection, for example, is that a levy could become an obstacle to philanthropy if the upfront payment of fees via donors were to attract it. If you didn’t have a levy, however, there would be a need for some sort of upper cap. We recognise there are arguments for a lower rate for the levy, or for not having a levy at all and sticking with a fee cap instead.

    We have not reached a final decision on the levy and the fee cap, but there is an interesting feature within the current arrangements for higher education funding, which consist of a basic cap of £1,310 and a higher rate cap of £3,290. It would be possible to set new levels for each, with stringent conditions on access which any institution would have to meet before setting a graduate contribution at the higher rate.

    The key legal condition, of course, is access and progression – enforceable by OFFA. There is still a dangerous temptation for universities to blame failings in the widening participation and fair access agendas on schools – instead of dealing with the world as it is. We can’t just sit on our hands and wait for schools to be reformed – although that must happen. Universities must act now, and we would look carefully at the conditions that OFFA demands.

    There is also an important question around teaching quality. This is where I think the sector is most in danger of losing contact with its supporters. On the one hand, we should naturally expect high standards of teaching in all publicly-funded institutions. On the other, universities who wish to charge more for undergraduate courses need to produce compelling evidence as to what the extra money would buy in terms of better teaching, contact time and services for students. And it is legitimate for students to ask why the finance reforms introduced under the previous government failed – in some cases – to deliver improvements to their educational experience.

    In a reformed system, students will expect a better experience in return for higher contributions as graduates. If we are to win the argument for reform, universities must demonstrably respond to the perception that some students are being short-changed. We must do better and we will. This is one of the reasons why I attach so much importance to supply side reform. Competition is a great driver of improvement. We want to see innovation and a diverse range of choices for students – two-year courses, for instance, and more vocational degrees. In speeches we have made in recent months, both Vince Cable and I have challenged the traditional model of three-year degree courses for 18-year-olds away at college, and especially championed part-time learning. It is for you rather than us to carry through reform, but now is the time to identify anything in the arrangements for public financing or regulations which would stifle these options.

    I am also aware of substantial concerns within the sector about Lord Browne’s proposal on controlling student numbers via UCAS tariff points. This is an especially thorny problem: maintaining macro control over student numbers while leaving micro freedom to individual institutions. John Browne’s is an imaginative solution, but has raised questions about practicalities. And it is important that we do not deter mature students, for example, who may have not achieved academic success at school – which is why he suggests a second admissions route separate from UCAS points. But running two separate systems creates a new set of problems. Meanwhile UCAS is doing important work looking at how their points system could be reformed. There is a lot more work to do in this whole area before any changes are implemented.

    Some people have also raised doubts about the idea of a single council which incorporates HEFCE, OFFA, the QAA and the OIA. The Coalition is instinctively attracted to any proposals which reduce the number of such bodies, but we need to tread carefully. The OIA’s special role as an alternative way of resolving disputes without going through the courts does require independence. The QAA, of course, is not a Government quango – it is jointly owned and sponsored by the HE sector with HEFCE, and any changes need to be discussed with the sector. Clearly, we need to think through all this carefully. We won’t rush into any decisions. But Lord Browne, as so often, does have a powerful logic behind his central argument. HEFCE has, in effect, operated as the regulator of the sector through its power to make grants. As the relative size of these grants falls, so the regulatory role comes out into the open more. This must be must be used with care and discretion. But clearly, a key role is going to be in broadening access. What we’re also seeking to do, of course, is reduce regulation and external intrusion into higher education, in favour of greater freedom and autonomy.

    My own current thinking is that merging HEFCE and OFFA would be sensible once funding to universities is channelled through students rather than through HEFCE. I assure you, though, that the institutional landscape will not change before the academic year 2012/13; it would require legislation, and therefore Parliamentary approval. In the meantime, I can announce that I have reappointed Sir Martin Harris as Director of the Office for Fair Access for a further 12 months. His experience will be invaluable as we work more on improving access.

    I can also announce the appointment of Ed Smith – a HEFCE board member – as the new Chair of the Student Loans Company. The processing of student loan applications has gone well this year. Figures published today show that 94 per cent of approved applicants had their full entitlement available to them when they arrived on campus. We owe Deian Hopkin, Ed Lester and their team a substantial vote of thanks. This is a transformation, compared with last year’s appalling performance.

    I also want to take this opportunity to thank the National Student Forum – and its chair, Maeve Sherlock – for its contribution to improving the student experience over the past three years. The Forum has published its final report today, which again provides some excellent material for universities to consider together with their student bodies. It is this active partnership, often at a detailed course level, which can vastly improve the knowledge and skills of undergraduates, as well as helping institutions to fulfil their missions. We will continue to listen to students and make sure that we understand their varied concerns and priorities.

    The other main news from the Chancellor yesterday concerned funding for science and research. It is good news for HEFCE’s QR funding and Higher Education Innovation Fund, and good news for the Research Councils and National Academies.

    It is proof that this Government recognises the fundamental role of science and research in rebalancing the economy and restoring economic growth. Despite enormous pressure on public spending, the overall level of funding for science and research programmes has been protected in cash terms. And as we implement the efficiency savings identified by Bill Wakeham, we should be able to offset the effects of inflation – thus maintaining research funding in real terms.

    There has also been a great deal of pressure to maintain flexibility in government spending. A stable investment climate for science and research – as we all know – allows universities and research institutes to plan strategically, and gives businesses, public services and charities the confidence to invest in the research base. I am delighted to confirm, therefore, that the ring-fence for science and research programmes has therefore been maintained.

    Across the country, we have excellent departments with the critical mass to compete globally and the expertise to work closely with business, charities and public services. This £4.6 billion settlement for science and research should mean that we can continue to support them.

    We must, though, continue to develop an assessment framework that combines recognition of the highest levels of research excellence with reward for the impact it has on the economy and society. HEFCE is making good progress with the Research Excellence Framework, in partnership with many academics from across the spectrum of disciplines. I too have had lively discussions with academics on this, and look forward to seeing the results of the pilot exercise later this year.

    We are also continuing to support capital investment where it is a high priority. We have allocated £69 million over the spending review period, in partnership with the Wellcome Trust, to the next phase of the Diamond synchrotron in Oxfordshire to support ground-breaking research in the life, physical and environmental sciences. And the Department of Health is joining my department, University College London and medical charities to fund the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation. The Department of Health will put £220m into this important venture that will accelerate the translation of basic research into care for patients.

    The Government is committed to getting business and universities working more closely together. I am therefore working with HEFCE to reform Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) to increase the rewards for universities that are most effective in business engagement. Some exciting ideas have emerged from the community about how to improve the effectiveness of university IP management. We will explore with HEFCE the opportunities to release this potential.

    To conclude, let me make three final points.

    The first is to repeat that we are determined to manage the process of transition carefully – avoiding disruption unless it is a necessary aspect of reform. That is why the spending review savings will be focused towards the second half of the spending period. Indeed, I believe that higher education, as well as research, should be able to maintain overall levels of activity throughout this time of austerity.

    The more important point, though, is that, despite the risks associated with any change, the reforms we undertake will improve higher education in the long run. Those institutions which attract more students and pull in businesses seeking to boost the skills of their employees will be able to grow. They will reap the rewards of good teaching that students and employers recognise and value. They will be able to innovate, to make the most of greater autonomy, to pursue their institutional missions, including research.

    And thirdly, although this speech has inevitably had to focus on finance and organisation, Vince and I never lose sight of the sheer inherent value of the intellectual activity that happens within our universities. Any structure and any government department is just there to serve this greater good. Our changes have to fit with and reinforce the core values of higher education, that motivate those who devote their lives to it.

  • John Hayes – 2010 Speech to the Institute of Directors

    John Hayes – 2010 Speech to the Institute of Directors

    The speech made by John Hayes, the then Education Minister, to the Institute of Directors on 29 September 2010.

    Thank you David and good morning everyone.

    Group Training Associations England’s role in ensuring that GTA’s collective potential is harnessed right across the country is evident from the audience in front of me. That contribution is of enormous value in helping us to deliver the skills outcomes that will be so vital for the prospects of this country and its people.

    I know that the work of the GTAs has not been sufficiently recognised in recent years by the Government and its agencies. I know, too, that this neglect cannot be allowed to continue.

    Many GTAs have been established for half a century and they consistently deliver successful programmes of work based learning with above average completion rates. They offer, moreover a very special learning experience and have been developing and delivering outstanding training to industry for over forty years. The fact that GTAs are governed by and influenced by employers helps to ensure that you deliver meets real business needs.

    I’m particularly glad to see that some of your apprentices have been invited along this morning and are making their own contribution to your conference. Indeed, the truest measure of the success or failure of our work will be found in how well-equipped or otherwise today’s young people will be in future years to face the shifting challenges of life and work.

    To be successful in that, we must create a radically new model for workplace training with Apprenticeships at its heart and with partnership between Government, employers and individuals as its motive force.

    I’m sure that these young people are already well aware that, these days, none of us can afford to let our knowledge and understanding stand still because the world around us never stands still. They have grown up in an age that is driven by technology to an unprecedented degree. For them, it’s not just the ubiquity of mobile phones that appears normal, but also the fact that the latest model becomes obsolete almost as soon as they’re taken out of the box.

    But the need to come to terms with change doesn’t just apply to the young. As the years pass and we grow older, the world somehow seems to change more quickly than it used to. So we must carry on learning new things in order to adapt to it. That’s not always easy.

    For those of us who have reached, let us say, a very early middle age, the pace of change, like one of the new Boris bikes in London, can seem giddying, especially when we realise that it’s something we can’t stop or even slow down.

    For many it’s hard sometimes not to feel, like Dicken’s Mr Dombey, that “the world has gone”. Tradesmen are not the same as they used to be, apprentices are not the same, business is not the same, business commodities are not the same”.

    There are, however, compensations. If experience has perhaps taught many of us not only that change is not always for the better, then it has probably also shown, as Euripides wrote, that “there is in the worst of fortune the best of chances for a happy change”.

    That’s a thought to which anyone here who’s worried about the forthcoming Spending Review, about which I’ll have more to say later, might do especially well to hang on.

    But we can also take comfort from the fact that not all insights are modern, and that there remain truths which are immutable.

    Take, for example, the earliest and probably most-imitated of all great public speeches, the funeral oration, given by Euripides’ contemporary and countryman, Pericles. In it, he said that the best memorial is “graven not on stone but in the hearts of men”.

    If that remains as true today as it was two and a half thousand years ago, and I’ve no doubt it does, then young people like those here today and the changes that learning is making to them now, and will continue to make in the future, are the most important monument to the work that many of the rest of us here this morning do.

    Of course, I fully accept that it’s important to have figures in a ledger to show we spend the public’s money with which we are entrusted wisely and that we do good for the many and not just the few.

    Indeed, that’s something on which my friends at the Treasury tend to insist. And they have little alternative as they deal with the consequences of a decade in which the Government spent money it did not have with as much regard for financial prudence as a boatload of drunken sailors.

    The struggle to turn that situation around goes right across Government, and the contribution that the skills system must make its contribution. That is clear from my Department’s Strategy for Sustainable Growth, in which we have set out, among other things, the role that skills must play in creating the conditions needed to reduce the deficit and stimulate growth.

    And that’s one reason why we have promised to re-shape the Apprenticeships programme to ensure that it provides more high-quality training opportunities. We have already begun to deliver on that promise by redeploying £150 million to provide an extra 50,000 places.

    We are also taking an overdue look at how the costs of Apprenticeships and other forms of workplace learning are divided between Government, employers and individuals.

    Hard times always focus people’s attention on the balance-sheet. But at the same time, if numbers were the only reliable indicator of worth, John Nash, in whose astonishing building we find ourselves this morning, would be in the debit rather than the credit column. He would have gone down in history as an apprentice who failed to complete his training rather than as an architect who, by marrying opulence with good taste, changed the face of Britain.

    No. Real success for us must lie in the difference that the new knowledge and skills that learners acquire will make to their lives and to Britain as a whole. And not just at work but at home, too.

    It will lie in the contribution, both economic and social, that learning emboldens them to make in their local communities and in the part they play, individually and collectively, in creating a bigger, more open and more humane society.

    It will lie, perhaps most significantly of all, in the tradition of taking pride in knowledge and skills that they will in turn pass on to the next generation.

    And whatever the challenges we have to cope with, however different the skills landscape may look on the far side of the Spending Review, the objectives towards which we work and our determination to reach them must remain.

    The most important objective of all is to make Apprenticeships the primary, though I must stress not the only, means for people to gain skills in the workplace. GTAs have demonstrated over the decades their ability to work with employers to provide different forms of skills training as part of a wide programme of workforce development.

    But the primacy of Apprenticeships does not necessarily mean that they can be allowed just to continue as they are. They can, and should, be improved.

    Change is coming to how we educate adults, whether it’s in the classroom, in the community or at work. Some of that change we choose and it will be change for the better. Some is forced upon us by circumstances and we’ll have to make the best of it that we can.

    But this is an area that has never stood still.

    It’s certainly true that apprentices are not the same as they were even a few years ago, never mind in the Victorian era which many people still see as the golden age of apprenticeship.

    If memory serves me right, the conditions in which apprentices worked for much of the nineteenth century were determined by the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act of 1802. And the young learners who are with us this morning might like to reflect on some of the more humanitarian changes that this put in place.

    For example, it required apprentices to be given an hour’s religious instruction every Sunday and to attend church at least once a month. In my view, that’s a rule whose time might well come again. But that’s a fanciful thought, not a Government policy.

    So, too, could that of the even older, Elizabethan statute under which any apprentice guilty of “default” – which would be subject to whatever punishment the local mayor or justice of the peace thought appropriate.
    Apprenticeships have certainly changed over the many centuries during which this form of training has existed. And they will continue to adapt to the modern world’s changing training needs.

    Yet as with so much else, their essence has not changed. Above all, they remain perhaps the most effective way of passing on complex practical skills that has ever existed.

    And that’s why, even when money is short, the Government is committed to increasing the supply of Apprenticeships, and improving the quality of the training offered, to make them better suited to the needs of employers and learners alike.

    Indeed, we believe that the current Apprenticeships programme could be improved significantly in three main areas.

    First, many of you know from your own experience that British employers currently face a workforce with insufficient skills at intermediate technician and associate professional level, which are critical to many industries on which our future growth potential will depend and to our international competitiveness.
    I know that’s something on which you’re due to hear more from KPMG later on today.

    For the Government’s part, we want to create a clearer ladder of progression in the Apprenticeships Programme. There should be greater emphasis on progression to Level 3 and beyond.

    And this is why we are committed to expanding, in particular, the number of Apprenticeships available at more advanced skills levels. The Apprenticeship programme, newly refocused to prioritise progression to Level 3 and higher will help deliver the technician- level skills on which the jobs and industries of the coming decades will depend.

    Second, we wish to establish more firmly what the appropriate contribution for employers to make towards Apprenticeships should be. You can help in that because Group Training Associations are already a concrete example of how public -private learning partnerships can work successfully.

    The wealth of evidence on the return to both employers and individuals from investing in skills provides a compelling argument in this respect.

    Third, we want to make it easier for businesses of all sorts to take on apprentices and gain access to the benefits they bring. It is important that employers take up these opportunities and offer Apprenticeship places to secure a new generation of highly skilled employees and we will be encouraging them to do so. Group training models have an important role to play in this.

    For example, small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy and high quality training opportunities like Apprenticeships are key to supporting their growth and success. And group training models mean that we can reach more small and medium sized employers.

    In the past, many small businesses have been discouraged by the administration and the costs and risks of employing Apprentices. Group Training Associations help spread these costs and risks and create new jobs and training opportunities.

    This approach means smaller businesses, who may not have felt able to offer Apprenticeships before, can get on board. Group Training Associations help employers and apprentices alike, providing greater security for the Apprentice and flexibility for the employer.

    For further education, like everything else, the seasons are changing. But to make the most of, in Keats’ words, this time ‘of mists and mellow fruitfulness’ we must both reap the harvest provided by the hard working, dedicated staff within the sector, and prepare the ground for a new beginning.

    Securing a bountiful future will involve making difficult choices. I believe that we can deliver more and save money. But we will only achieve cost effectiveness by challenging the orthodox assumptions about what skills are for, how they are funded and what role Government should play.

    This is why I’m pleased to tell you that we’re bringing in-house the expertise of UKSkills, the charity responsible for championing skills and recognising home-grown talent through awards and competitions. UKSkills’ activities and staff will be transferred to the Skills Funding Agency who will lead a coherent annual programme of competitions and awards to promote skills and apprenticeships, in partnership with the devolved administrations. A highlight will be the WorldSkills 2011 international competition, which is being hosted by the UK in London in October 2011 and will see over 50 counties participate in over 30 skills competitions. My thanks go to UK Skills for their work to date.

    As for the future, I am determined to ensure our decisions are the result of proper consultation.

    That is why one of our first acts in Government was to publish two consultations on the future direction of skills policy and the simplification of skills funding. If you have not done so already, there is still time for you to contribute your views and your experiences.

    We will publish the results of this work after the Spending Review and set out at that stage the detail of how we intend to change and reorganise our learning and skills priorities.

    However, I want to go as far as I can – within these constraints – now, which is why I also want to announce that I am asking the SFA today to review urgently what additional financial support they can find to support the invaluable work of GTAs. I want them to find ways to help you reinvigorate your network. Furthermore, I have asked, when we met this morning, for GTA England to identify more ways in which Government can support further the work of GTAs. We will do all we can.

    Today, our country needs change and progress in equal measure. I know that you will support me in my mission to ensure that it gets both.

    Thank you.

  • National Audit Office – 2010 Report into Academies

    National Audit Office – 2010 Report into Academies

    The report issued by the National Audit Office on 10 September 2010.

    (in .pdf format)

  • John Hayes – 2010 Transforming Lives Speech

    John Hayes – 2010 Transforming Lives Speech

    The speech made by John Hayes, the then Education Minister, at the British Library in London on 7 September 2010.

    Good afternoon everyone. It’s a great pleasure for me to join you all today in welcoming the launch of Transforming Lives. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate NIACE and indeed everyone involved in the Transformation Fund projects from which the report has sprung.

    Of course, this project began last year under the previous government. But as many of you can confirm, I’ve been an advocate of informal adult and community learning for long enough to know that any initiative that improves our understanding of adult learners and their needs must be welcomed, irrespective of whose idea it was.

    What matters most is what the project has achieved and what lessons we can learn from it as we look towards the future.

    For me, you don’t need to look further than the front cover of the report to find the key to what follows.

    That’s because, as I hope all of us here today know, learning is capable not just of changing lives, but of completely transforming them.

    I’m not just talking about the fact that learning brings the qualifications needed to get a higher- rather than lower-paid job. It seems to me horribly reductive to express, as I know some do, the benefits of learning only in terms of lifetime earnings differentials. And it seems to me just plain wrong to measure everything that a person acquires during the learning journey only by its effect on the thickness of their pay-packet.

    It makes me sad when, for example, I read about the new graduates who’ve been unable to find the sorts of jobs they’d hoped for this summer and last. And I can assure them that my colleagues and I are working hard to ensure that they can get a foot on their chosen career-ladder sooner rather than later. But at the same time I hope that those young people also recognise how their years of study and the experiences these have brought have transformed them as individuals.

    Since John Henry Newman at least, I think there has been general recognition that a real university education must be about far more than just acquiring a passport to a white collar and a tie, that its value lies also in how much it does to enrich the content of students’ characters.

    That same effect ought also to be evident in patently vocational forms of training. Now some people refuse to recognise that vocational training can have anything other than employment-related benefits. But I’ve certainly seen for myself as I’ve gone round the country over the summer how, for example, apprentices develop not only practical skills, but also a sense of their own achievement, of pride in what they have accomplished, and of self-worth.

    That’s not just good for themselves and their employers. In the long run, it benefits all of us and the society in which we live.

    So the transformational power of learning is shown both in how learning spreads opportunity and in how it spreads civilisation. But it’s also shown in the element of personal choice, personal responsibility and personal empowerment that learning entails. And that’s especially true of the less formal types of learning.

    That is something of which the Transforming Lives report reminds us very forcefully.

    There are three other important messages that I’d like to draw out from it.

    The first is that in this area, a little money can achieve a lot, particularly if we are prepared to innovate and to trust people at the front line to organise learning in ways that suit their needs rather than conforming to some centralised model.

    It’s hardly a secret that money is going to be in short supply, even in priority areas like education as the Government works to bring the public spending deficit under control. And we all know that cuts will have to be made, although details of where they will fall won’t be finalised until George Osborne and Danny Alexander publish the outcome of the Spending Review next month.

    This isn’t a government that believes, like Aeschylus, that “he who learns must suffer”. But it would be idle to assume that some spending decisions won’t have an impact on education, including on informal learning.

    And it follows that, unless we are prepared in future to contemplate a choice between the Scylla of learning for the few and the Charybdis of learning on the cheap – which I for one am not – we should look urgently for more creative ways to engage both learners and providers.

    That implies, for one thing, making much better use of the local resources we have, engaging a wider range of partners in facilitating learning at community level, and making it easier for grass-roots initiatives to flourish. A good example of the sort of initiative I’m talking about was launched only a couple of weeks ago. The Cafe Culture campaign aims to encourage employers to offer informal learning opportunities at work to their staff. So far, it has involved some 64 companies covering almost two million workers.

    The second important message from Transforming Lives that I want to highlight is that there remains enormous demand for informal learning. And I take comfort from that, because a nation that wants to learn is a nation that is going forward rather than backwards.

    It’s a nation that’s already, by virtue of its people own free will, taking its future into its own hands. Sometimes the State can play a useful role in that, but most often the impetus comes from individuals.

    There’s literally no limit to the range of forms this can take. From the pub landlord who provides space for the local book club to the employer who makes a room available for the lunchtime learning circle. From the housebound person whose isolation is reduced when they discover email or Facebook to the person with depression who finds relief through art or photography.

    These sorts of activities and many others like them make our society a happier and healthier place, and this country a better one in which to live.

    The third and final point from the report that I want to highlight follows from the first two. And it’s that the strength of informal adult and community learning stems precisely from its diversity.

    Like nature itself, in Pascal’s definition, informal learning is “an infinite sphere, the centre of which is everywhere and the circumference nowhere”. Like the internet, with its profusion of interconnected yet free-standing networks, informal learning might have been designed to survive even the biggest catastrophe.

    And that’s perhaps a good point on which to close, because my own long experience of informal adult and community learning has taught me above all else that it has an enviable ability not just to survive, but to adapt and grow. As if to spite those governments that have tried to kill it with neglect as well as those that have tried to kill it with regulation, it not only lives on, but thrives.

    Transforming Lives reminds us of all this and of the essential role that adult and community learning must play in creating a better, more inclusive, more content, more confident and, indeed, bigger society.

    Thank you.

     

  • John Hayes – 2010 Speech to the Association of Learning Providers Summer Conference

    John Hayes – 2010 Speech to the Association of Learning Providers Summer Conference

    The speech made by John Hayes, the then Education Minister, on 14 July 2010.

    Good morning everyone.

    It often strikes me how well the people who work in all parts of adult education satisfy Aristotle’s criteria for true friends – “The young they keep out of mischief; to the old they are a comfort and aid in their weakness, and those in the prime of life they incite to noble deeds”.

    That’s true of private as well as public providers, and true of all those who offer training in the workplace as well as in the classroom. It’s certainly true of ALP’s membership.

    I know that your members also include some further education colleges and voluntary organisations, but I think of ALP as the voice of learning in the workplace.

    I’ve enjoyed a very positive relationship with you in Opposition, and you serve as a constant reminder to us all that a person’s learning should not – and in fact, must not – stop with their first paypacket.

    Indeed, a commitment to the principle of lifelong learning is the natural consequence if you believe, as I do, that everyone deserves a fair chance to get on in life and that learning can help give it to them.

    It’s hard to ignore if you hear, as I have heard since long before I became a Minister, learners and trainers, employers and trade unionists alike, all telling you that skills delivered in the workplace are essential for economic growth and personal progression.

    And it’s inescapable if you see, as this Government saw on the day it came to office, people out of work and increasingly out of hope because they had low skills or just the wrong skills, businesses struggling because of an inadequate supply of skilled labour, and jobs going abroad as a result.

    We need to enliven the British people to get on and progress in their jobs. I see the business of Government very much as a consultative process, and you are our eyes and ears out in the workplace. You are the experts who know how it should be done and how it can be done.

    A lifelong learning system

    Today, I want to talk to you about some of the ways in which the coalition government will try to build a truly lifelong learning system which may be of particular interest to ALP and its members. And I want to set these in the context of the financial challenges that we currently face.

    The easiest way for politicians to show that they care about a particular area of policy is to throw money at it – some think the larger the payout, the deeper the commitment. And, in recent years, some aspects of publicly-funded adult learning have certainly seen their coffers swell as a result of that approach.

    If this Government means to show, as we do, that we in our turn have a genuine commitment to further education, then just splashing out is no longer an option. Like the Archbishop of Canterbury in Henry V, we have to realise that “miracles are ceased/ And therefore we must needs admit the means/ How things are perfected”.

    To judge by the number of invitations I receive, there is a fashion at the moment for conferences and seminars with titles like “How to do more with less” in the context of ensuring cost-effectiveness. And we all know it’s true that, while public spending is under pressure more severe than it has known for a generation, the demands on public services continue to grow rather than shrink.

    I can’t pretend that we are not going to have to take some hard decisions about where our priorities lie, stopping some activities so that others may not just continue, but grow, and may indeed carry on growing.

    As we seek to develop a new strategy for skills, as we will be doing over the next few months, we’ll be trying to do something similar, sorting the show from the substance and seeking to distinguish activities that look good but achieve little from those that have real impact on the lives of real people.

    Over a period of years in Opposition and in government, I’ve stressed the importance of the social and cultural, as well as economic impact that continuing to educate adults brings to individuals and whole communities. And my determination to see learning for its own sake flourish as never before in this country remains undiminished.

    But especially when we speak of training in the workplace, economic considerations are clearly hard to ignore.

    For example, as the Government works to promote renewed growth, it’s obviously more important than ever that the full influence of further education is felt on the transformation of local economies. You must all know from your own experiences that this influence is potentially incredibly great.

    That is why the Government recently invited proposals for local enterprise partnerships that will work in close cooperation with colleges and training organisations.

    You have extensive knowledge of employer skills demand, and are therefore well placed to help the partnerships to develop their economic priorities. The measures that my colleagues and I are already putting in place to cut the bureaucratic burdens on training providers and free them to use their own initiative will help in that, and we will add to those measures freedom to innovate by cutting bureaucratic burdens on training providers.

    And since, as Macaulay said, “the object of oratory alone is not truth, but persuasion”, there are a number of things that I would like to try to persuade you to do in that context.

    For example, I would like you to develop effective networks that will enable you to offer your local enterprise partnership a coordinated view of the economic priorities for the area, and to agree how you can help them to respond to those priorities.

    The foundation-stone of your economic contribution is the teaching of practical skills. Not just random skills, but the skills needed to get local jobs with good prospects. And not just teaching skills, but teaching them well, so that every working day gives people the right to take pride in their own achievements.

    Apprenticeships

    And this Government believes that the best way to teach the practical skills that employers need to the required quality is through Apprenticeships. We need to look at the length, content and quality of Apprenticeships as we seek to inspire learners.

    ALP members provide more Apprenticeship training than anyone else and it follows that you are central to the success or failure of our efforts.

    Of course, it’s easy for those of us with a more sentimental cast of mind to be seduced by, as it were, the imprint of the potter’s thumb. We forget at our peril that while, at least at some level, all art is craft, not all craft is art. Indeed, what right have they who spend their lives sitting in offices to idealise physical labour and manual dexterity.

    Apprenticeships are often thought of as old, but they are also about new and future ideas. And I still firmly believe that there is no less nobility in mastering a skill than there is, say, in learning to understand why space is curved.

    Skills and those who master them deserve to be celebrated no less than the French subjunctive and those who learn to use it properly.

    The coalition Government has already shown in its actions that it views Apprenticeships as the central pillar of its approach to vocational skills. You’ll know that we are redirecting £150 million of funding this year to create 50,000 new high-quality Apprenticeship places. And we see ALP members as vital to the delivery of these extra places.

    In particular, we want to expand Apprenticeships at Level 3 and there are good reasons to do so. Evidence shows that people who gain an Apprenticeship at Level 3 are likely to receive, on average, nearly a fifth higher again than those qualified up to Level 2.

    The key challenge continues to be to get employers on board in offering Apprenticeship places.

    I know that you see some obstacles in the way of that, and that one of the most important is the impending removal of Key Skills from Apprenticeships and their replacement with Functional Skills. I have always been clear that this is a consultative process and we must take your views seriously.

    I have listened to your views on this and I find some of them very persuasive. It is important that we get this right, and I want to take the time over the summer to consider the issues you’ve raised. So I am pleased to be able to announce this morning that, as a result, the use of Key Skills in Apprenticeship Frameworks will be extended until March next year. This will allow providers the choice of offering either Functional Skills or Key Skills in the interim.

    I should stress that this is a temporary measure to allow more flexibility for providers and more time for us to work together to get the implementation right. I know that many providers will be finalising their preparations for delivery of Functional Skills from April 2011. They should still identify and access the support they need to develop their capacity to deliver Functional Skills, with which the Learning and Skills Improvement Service can help.

    The message is clear: it must be a priority for us to work together to build capacity and to decide what is best for the future.

    I would also strongly encourage those of you who are ready to deliver Functional Skills from September 2010 to go ahead and do so, as this will give apprentices the opportunity to develop these highly-valued skills.

    Of course, the need for reform goes much wider than Apprenticeships. There is much important work to do on other types of workplace training. For example, while Train to Gain needs to be dismantled, workplace learning must continue to be nurtured – for example, to ensure that businesses have the skilled workforces they need to grow and employees have the opportunity to progress.

    We must also help to integrate further education more closely into its local environment – social as well as economic. We can make it more efficient and less bureaucratic. We can offer adults more, better and more relevant learning opportunities.

    We can do much more. And we will.

    Empowering people

    Skills are a priority for my department and for my Government. But ultimately whether to learn and what learning to choose will remain a matter of individual choice. And all of these things I’ve been talking about this morning will fail to deliver fully on their promise unless we make sure people have the information they need to make the right choices for them.

    Because by informing people, we simultaneously empower them. And that’s something from which everyone – providers and employers as well as learners – benefits.

    That’s the thinking behind the Next Step service, which will be launched in August. It will aim to give everyone access to the best information, advice and resources to make more effective choices about skills, careers, work and life.

    Individual providers also have an important role to play in empowering learners. They can do their bit as well to ensure that learners and employers to still get good quality, comparable information about exactly what’s on offer.

    We don’t need huge bureaucracies to make this happen. Indeed, most providers already gather this type of information for their own purposes, and many publish it already. We must build on that.

    I’m particularly happy that Graham Hoyle, through his position as Chair of the National Improvement Partnership Board, is taking forward the UKCES proposal to introduce a course and provider labelling system.

    Having a labelling system will ensure that every provider publishes reliable information about their institution and the opportunities they provide.

    Comparatively few providers have anything to fear from this approach, since more than four out of five already deliver satisfactory or better results.

    For the Government’s part, we will maintain and continue to build a light-touch approach. But I have asked the Skills Funding Agency to ensure they take swift action where they identify any unsatisfactory provision.

    Either prompt improvement will follow, or public funding will be removed and reinvested in providers who can deliver to the standards learners and employers expect and deserve.

    Nevertheless, and even though today is Bastille Day, I don’t want to end my remarks, as it were, in the shadow of the guillotine.

    So instead, as we mark the anniversary of one revolution, I’ll end by reminding you all that we stand on the threshold of another.

    The areas on which I’ve concentrated this morning will clearly figure prominently in the new skills strategy to which I’ve already referred, but so will others that will be of particular interest to ALP members.

    For example, we need to think about the right form of public support for non-Apprenticeship workplace training after Train to Gain. I would welcome more thoughts on this subject, and on how to encourage progression and interchange between the different styles of formal and informal learning.

    It will make it much easier to get the right answers to some difficult questions if bodies like ALP are prepared to share their opinions, experience and expertise. And that is something for which I’ll be asking sooner rather than later.

    And now if you have any questions I’ll do my best to answer them.

    Thank you.

  • John Hayes – 2010 Speech to City and Islington College

    John Hayes – 2010 Speech to City and Islington College

    The speech made by John Hayes, the then Education Minister, at City and Islington College on 17 June 2010.

    Thank you and good morning everyone.

    Arthur Hugh Clough wrote that: “if hopes were dupes, fears may be liars”. And it seems to me that the words of this unjustly neglected poet are a particularly apt place to begin my remarks on what has been an unjustly neglected sector.

    I know that many of the hopes that the last government raised for further education ultimately proved illusory.

    And perhaps the most important thing I want to say today is that the fears which you may have for the future will prove equally misplaced.

    But before I try to justify that bold statement, I must first thank you all, and especially Frank and his staff, for accommodating my request for an early start this morning.

    For being here for me.

    I have to go to Parliament shortly for a debate on the importance of skills in building and maintaining a strong economy and, of course, that’s closely linked to what I have to say now…

    Even before Lord Leitch published his compelling analysis of the problem, it’s been no secret to most of us that skills are economically vital. And that doesn’t apply just to the manufacturing and industrial sectors, but right across our economy, to the service and retail sectors, and the public sector too.

    Employers can’t stay in business without people with the right skills for the job. While people can’t hope for a good job without the skills employers are looking for. Without the right skills, inward investment will dwindle because we can’t compete for jobs on the grounds of cost with countries where low wages are the rule. And of course we wouldn’t want to. We are thankfully beyond dark, satanic mills.

    But we can still compete effectively in ways which would have been unfamiliar to Mr Gradgrind. Through the business environment that the government creates. And, crucially, through the skills of our workers; skills which are still vital in the high-tech world in which we live than when William Morris majestically celebrated the joy of craft.

    Few people, and very few politicians, would disagree with any of that. Indeed, I know that you’ve heard members of the previous government say similar things, albeit with less style.

    But the similarity of aims should not obscure absolute difference of view about mean. You see my own analysis differs fundamentally from theirs, and the good news for you and particularly for me it that both the Prime Minister and Vince Cable agree with me, not my predecessors.

    I believe, like Ruskin, that “industry without art is brutality”.

    Too often in the recent past, the strength of the economic case for skills has been portrayed as the only case for skills, creating an implicit and in my opinion wrongheaded divide between learning that is useful and learning that is useless. We emphasise the economic and overlook the social and cultural benefits of learning at our peril.

    The previous government’s concentration on the utilitarian aspects of learning excluded too much valuable activity and too many people. I see learning as a single whole, not a series of separate silos. Learning a skill to do a job should lead into learning for pleasure or self-fulfilment, and vice versa. But more the acquisition of practical skills is virtuous for its own sake as it instils purposeful pride. We enjoy what we learn to do well.

    Likewise, the line between further and higher education should be a permeable membrane, not an iron curtain.

    As soon as people start to treat the various styles and levels of learning as discrete entities, they also begin to erect the sorts of arbitrary barriers that stop learners moving from one to another, barriers that are the antithesis of the ideal of lifelong learning. And, of course, the people worst affected by these barriers are the most disadvantaged in our society, those furthest from learning and with fewest chances for progression.

    These are all reasons why, in my view, no learning should be treated as if it were without point and every new element added to our collective stock of knowledge and skill should be applauded. Everything any of us learns adds a new brick to the edifice of civilised life. Those with the will and commitment to learn, however they do it and whatever they choose to study, should be admired and encouraged. None should be disparaged as one of Browning’s “picker-up of learning’s crumbs”.

    The services this college offers to its community – services the excellence of which has repeatedly been recognised – are a case in point.

    I recently took a look at your summer courses and was pleased to see intensive ceramic-throwing in there alongside more obviously vocational options like beginners’ computing and level 3 perming effects.

    I think the author of The Stones of Venice would have approved.

    But it’s the economic rather than the social or cultural case for skills that has been used by some not just to downgrade learning for its own sake, but as an excuse for the centralised command and control arrangements that have been foisted on adult educators over the past decade and more.

    Now we must finally acknowledge that this approach, even in the terms of its own narrow criteria, has failed.

    As the UK Commission of Employment and Skills reported in the Ambition 2020 report published last year, on recent trends, we are likely to slip from 18th to 21st in OECD rankings for intermediate level skills by 2020.

    On recent performance ‘we will not be in the top eight countries of the world at any skill level’ in ten years time.

    The highly centralised and bureaucratic system that developed over the course of the last Government meant that funds that could have been used on teaching and training, to dirve up skill levels, have, instead been devoted to formulating detailed plans and complying with targets.

    Bean counting, hoop jumping, form filling – these were the skills my predecessors most admired.

    Instead of enabling colleges and other providers to respond to needs of businesses and learners in their areas, Ministers, isolated in their Whitehall Offices, thought that they had a better idea of what these needs were.

    Excessive bureaucracy sapped precious energy from our education system.

    And, even worse, it led to systemic failure in the form of a F.E. capital crisis from which the sector is still reeling.

    The LSC encouraged bids that would have cost 10 times more than the available funds.

    144 capital projects were frozen.

    79 of these projects had already received agreement in principle, and many colleges incurred considerable costs .as the result of what the Foster Review into the crisis described as ‘mismanagement’.

    The top-heavy target driven bureaucratic system failed, as it was bound to. As Andrew Foster concluded, the LSC was too slow to respond: ‘there were straws in the wind, early storm warnings, but the problem was not crystallised fast enough.

    There has to be a better way. An increasingly dynamic economy necessitates a dynamic skills system. If we are to build a highly skilled, high tech economy Colleges and independent providers need to be able to respond quickly to the needs of learners and employers.

    That is why this government must and will offer further education a new beginning. – From satanic mills to bows of burning gold in one speech.

    Before being appointed as Minister I was fortunate enough to have enjoyed a long Apprenticeship as Shadow Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further Education and Skills. Over the past five years I have held countless meetings with College Principles, their representative bodies and others from the sector.

    I visited innumerable colleges across the country.

    Everything I said in Opposition, and everything I say now in Government has been informed by the relationship I have built with FE.

    I’ve listened to what you have had to say.

    Which is why we came into government with the promise to set colleges free.

    Now is the time to start delivering on this promise.

    That’s why I’ve to come here, to a college, to announce publicly that we’re starting today. This is not the end of a process, but only the beginning.

    Vince Cable has written this morning to the Chief Executive of the Skills Funding Agency setting out our ambitions for the Agency’s in 2010-11.

    In parallel, I have also written today to colleges and other training organisations. My letter announces a number of ways in which the burdens on them will be lightened:

    First, I am removing the requirement to complete Summary Statements of Activity, with a resulting reduction in performance monitoring of employer responsiveness.

    Second, the Government has already announced the removal of Ofsted inspections for schools with outstanding performance – I will work with Ministerial Colleagues to introduce the same way approach to the FE sector removing inspections for Colleges with outstanding performance’.

    Third, I will also remove the regulatory requirement for college Principals to undertake the Principals’ Qualifying Programme. That is not because I do not want appropriately qualified principals, but because I know that there are a range of development opportunities and qualifications which can enhance principals’ capabilities to run colleges.

    Individuals and their institutions should be free to decide what package of development is appropriate to suit individual circumstances.

    We will, of course, work with the Learning and Skills Improvement Service to ensure that there are high quality development opportunities available to prepare for and carry out leadership roles in the sector. This will allow governors to reassure themselves about the skills and capabilities of those seeking to take up leadership positions or to develop further in those roles.

    And fourthly and most importantly, I will enable all colleges except those which are performing poorly to move money between adult learner and employer budgets, because you know best how to help you learners’ fulfil their potential and meet employer needs.

    I hope that these are all changes which you welcome. But they are not an end in themselves. They are only a beginning, a first indication of this government’s determination to deliver on the promises it has made to providers and learners alike. To draw a line under the mistakes of the past and deliver a better future.

    With this Government FE is no longer the poor relation. Cinderella is going to the ball.

    With freedom comes a fresh challenge, as the costs of compliance is reduced I will be looking for colleges to find efficiencies. This may be, for example though the use of shared services and new approach to procurement. And colleges freed from constraints will also find new, better and more efficient ways of responding to local needs.

    It won’t have escaped you that there are other things that the government has promised, too. And that chief among them is to tackle the public sector deficit and secure our economic recovery. You may therefore suspect that, as I have come here today with some goodies for colleges in one hand, I’ve probably got a big stick in the other.

    So now you’ve at last got a Minister who is going to treat the FE sector as grown ups lets talk frankly. Members of the government from the Prime Minister down have striven to be completely frank with people about the scale of the savings that will need to be made to bring the public finances back under control and the pain that will inevitably result.

    I certainly can’t pretend that further education will be excluded from those challenges. But I can give you some indications about how it will be managed.

    So for the rest of my time this morning, I want to turn my attention to an area where we announced that there would be changes: the £1 billion Train to Gain programme. I know that there has been a lot of comments about this in the sector and among employers and it’s important that I should make our intentions clear.

    George Osborne’s budget announcement a couple of weeks ago saw £200 million from the Train to Gain budget, refocused where we know it is needed most . £50 million of that money is being recycled into new capital grants for colleges, while the remaining £150 million will pay for 50,000 extra apprenticeship places this year.

    The main point I want to make is that the money saved was not taken from further education and skills. A quarter of it is going to help alleviate a serious problem for many colleges; a left over from the capital crisis I spoke of earlier, while the rest will continue to support training in the workplace.

    In that context, those of you who have followed the debate around further education policy over the last few years will know how much store this government sets on apprenticeships. There are many good reasons for that. First and foremost, the apprenticeships model is not only work-based, but work-focused. It passes on the practical skills needed to do a particular job in a way that is widely appreciated and understood.

    The evidence also shows that apprenticeships add more to a person’s earning-power than any other form of practical training. Someone may begin an apprenticeship unable to do anything that might fit them for a skilled job. But they emerge as – and I’m not afraid of the word – a craftsman. I am as proud of medieval stonemasons, who build so many of our cathedrals – and an apprenticeship can still rightly involve learning how to use a mallet and chisel – as I am of the software designers, film technicians, aeronautical engineers that emerge from today’s apprenticeships.

    Demand for apprenticeship places is growing and one of our priorities is to encourage more employers to participate. Apprenticeships are both a route to key competences for employees and a vital way to help employers build highly skilled, efficient businesses.

    We must also seek new ways of guiding people from lower-level engagement into apprenticeships, and from apprenticeships into higher education or other forms of further study.

    Academic study should not, and both David Willetts and I are determined it won’t be, seen as the only thing that carries value. Practical skills are often undervalued, but that’s usually by people who don’t and couldn’t ever have them.

    As a youngster growing up in south east London, I realised that I was only clever enough to be an academic. I was not clever enough to use my hands to make and do things. And the older I get, the more I revere the practical skills of my forbears, their craftsmanship and the pride they were able to take in it.

    But as effective as apprenticeships are, they are not the be-all and end-all of workplace training. That is why we have never proposed, as some people mischievously claim, simply to end funding for other work based training and put all of the money saved into apprenticeships instead. And let me say once and for all that there’s nothing whatsoever wrong with helping people to train whilst in work.

    But there’s everything wrong with waste at any time and above all at times like these. Train to Gain was always too blunt an instrument to be efficient, craft the skills we need and its impact was never proportionate to the enormous amounts of money it cost.

    Indeed, the National Audit Office found that that the scheme did not provide good value for money.

    Apprenticeships have value, for people and for employers. People understand what they are and the benefits they bring. But for some, that won’t always be right. And we’re determined that we won’t repeat the mistakes of the last government by driving towards one arbitrary goal without actually considering what else employees and employers need.

    So one of the big questions I’m going to be seeking to answer over the next few months is what are the right things for the government to do to support employers and people for whom apprenticeships aren’t the right answer, as we create a comprehensive, efficient and effective workplace training offer.

    One of the key issues is eliminating deadweight – where taxpayers’ money is simply substituted for money that employers would spend regardless. Because every pound that my Department spends to zero effect is a pound that won’t be spent on other public services or in helping to bring down the deficit, or simply left in the pockets of the people who worked hard to earn.

    There are clearly also questions around the specific needs of particular economic sectors, and also whether special provision should be made for small and medium-sized enterprises who often find it more difficult than larger organisations to absorb the time and cost pressures that staff training can involve.

    Finally, there is the problem of bureaucracy on which I have already touched. Whatever new arrangements to support workplace training are established – including the provisions of information, advice and guidance to employers and learners – must avoid the pitfalls of excessive paperwork that have put so many people off training and frustrated employers.

    Those are some of the key issues that we will need to address soon. Others will occur to those of you with direct experience of training in the workplace. And that’s another important point.

    I am determined not to sit in Whitehall and remotely form a picture of how things are in colleges or workplaces. As I have done during our time in opposition I will consult, listen, learn and act.

    I want to take time to talk to people like you about how things are, and what we should do to make them better.

    Lets agree on the clear that action is needed, to build on what is working in the further education and skills sector and set right what is not.

    Change is coming and, as Dr Johnson so rightly said in the preface to his dictionary, “change is not made without inconvenience, even from worse to better”.

    It behoves all of us here, whatever the inconvenience and however difficult the transition, that the changes that are coming lead to a better deal for the learners whose hopes, in our various ways, we hold in our hands.

    I began my speech by quoting a poem by Arthur Hugh Clough. The last line of that poem is quite well known – “But westward, look, the land is bright”. This was once famously quoted by the last leader of a British coalition government before David Cameron. Even at one of the darkest moments of the war, Churchill was inviting Britain to look to the future with confidence. And even amid our current troubles, I invite you to do the same today. Because I firmly believe that the future for colleges is bright. I am determined to work unceasingly to make it so.

    Today, we take the first step towards a better, freer, more empowered further education system.

    Today we start to unchain the immense human capital in FE.

    Today, with the changes I have announced, we have made a new beginning. But tomorrow we must strive together to bring the process of rebuilding to fruition. Let us make sure that looking back we will be able to say that rebuilding started here, today, with us.

    And I hope that we will feel able to say, that Cinderella lived happily ever after.

    Thank you.

     

  • John Hayes – 2010 Speech on the Government’s Skills Strategy

    John Hayes – 2010 Speech on the Government’s Skills Strategy

    The speech made by John Hayes, the then Minister of State for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, at the QEII Conference Centre in London on 10 June 2010.

    Thank you Elinor and good afternoon everyone.

    What I have to say this morning sits comfortably between the points that Francis Maude has already made on public service reform and what David Freud will say later about welfare.

    Further and higher education are public services, quite as essential in their own way to maintaining our way of life as the NHS or the police force.

    Like other parts of the public sector, the previous government borrowed and spent billions on post-compulsory education. But much of this was wasted. Spending has risen far quicker than performance. And all too often, extra money has been spent not on improving the quality of teaching and learning, but on driving the system from the centre.

    This is not the fault of the sector or those who implemented public policy, it’s the fault of the politicians who pushed these policies through parliament.

    That goes not only for universities and colleges, but also for the education quangos that sprouted like mushrooms over the last decade.

    On Monday, the Prime Minister said that the consequences for the public sector of the financial crisis that this government inherited will be “painful”. I don’t want to make light of the fact that further and higher will inevitably bear their share of that pain. But even if the credit crunch had not happened and our economy today was booming, there would still be compelling reasons for this government to seek greater efficiency in further and higher education, informed by a sober analysis of what has worked and of what hasn’t.

    As I’ve no doubt David Freud will tell you shortly, welfare, too, is in urgent need of reform. And there are parallels between the difficulties that beset the benefits system and those we are striving to address in further and higher education.

    Some people call the benefits system a safety-net. And that’s also how post-compulsory education has often been treated in recent years.

    Now, safety-nets have their place in extremis. But, personally, I think that most people would find a springboard far more useful.

    [As Winston Churchill remarked] “We are for the ladder, let all try their best to climb” and a net, “below which none shall fall”.

    The last government made much of more people going into our universities rather than straight into a job or vocational training. But what about all those who were encouraged to aspire to the benefits that higher education brings, only to have their hopes dashed because there was no university place available for them?

    We’ve also heard plenty in recent years about the numbers of adults whose training in the workplace was funded by the government. But we heard rather less about the fact that two-thirds of them got absolutely no benefit in terms of higher pay or career progression as a result.

    What price lifelong learning for people who’ve been let down like that, especially those whose previous experiences of learning had been far from positive?

    Educating adults – educating anyone – therefore has to be about giving the reality of opportunity, not just the illusion. Educating adults has to be a driver of social, economic and personal improvement, not a means of keeping the unemployment statistics artificially low.

    All that implies that, notwithstanding the current state of the public finances, the government has a large agenda for change to deliver in further and higher education.

    I hope that you’ll forgive me if I spend the rest of my time this afternoon talking mainly about the way our plans to reform further education and skills are developing. That’s not just because further education and skills are my area of Ministerial responsibility, but also because I’m reluctant to repeat so soon after the event the points that my colleague David Willetts made in Oxford only this morning about our plans for higher education. His speech is already on our department’s website if you’d like to read it.

    So far as further education and skills are concerned, our plans are built around three basic principles.

    First, we must replace the bureaucratic, target-driven, top-down regime to which colleges, employers and learners alike have become used with a genuine devolution of power within the system. I see the Government’s primary role as being to create a framework which helps individual people and their employers to get at the learning they want or need. An indispensable part of achieving that goal is removing the barriers that get in the way of learning providers’ efforts to respond to what their customers are asking for.

    For example, there are better ways of measuring the outcomes that trainers achieve than simply counting the number of qualifications gained. The emphasis must be put on progression, whether that’s to higher skills or to other forms of lifelong learning, including informal learning. Bureaucracy which creates artificial distinctions between further and higher education, between different types of institutions or programmes, or between formal and informal learning stifles the creativity that is the essence of a responsive skills system.

    Second, we must eliminate waste and inefficiency wherever they are found by taking a robust attitude to value for money. That means, for example, refocusing the Train to Gain programme. The National Audit Office found that about £250 million a year from this programme was being spent on things that employers would otherwise have funded themselves. That can’t be allowed to continue.

    But I want to make clear that what must continue is training in the workplace and public support for employers who want to offer it. That, too, is an assessment based on value for money. Vocational qualifications delivered in the workplace provide better wage returns on average than qualifications delivered in colleges, while apprenticeships offer the highest returns of all.

    That’s a subject on which I’ll be saying much more when I speak at City and Islington College next week.

    For the moment, I’d just like to remind you that the £200 million cut in the Train to Gain budget that George Osborne announced on 24 May was not money lost to further education. Neither was it a vote of no-confidence in workplace training. Quite the opposite, in fact, because the money deducted from Train to Gain is being reinvested to create 50,000 new apprenticeship places and to offer £50 million in new capital grants to colleges left in the lurch by last year’s funding fiasco.

    Third, I believe that education should be about people, not just numbers. It must hold out the promise of good things for those who seek “to know wisdom and instruction; to perceive the words of understanding; To receive the instruction of wisdom, justice, and judgment, and equity”. Not my words, of course, but Solomon’s, from the Book of Proverbs.

    And indeed, we must never forget that the individual learner must be placed at the heart of the whole learning process.

    People should be helped to identify learning opportunities, whether at work or in college, that will lead them towards a better job or a more fulfilling life.

    People should not just be left floundering without education, employment or training. No one deserves to be broken on the wheel that revolves from a dead-end job to unemployment and back again.

    Some of you will have read the speech that Vince Cable gave at the Cass Business School last week. In it, he described the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills as a “department for growth”. The contribution of post-compulsory education to that mission is essential. I don’t just mean its contribution to economic growth, driven by the higher productivity that better work-related skills bring. I also mean its capacity to spark the personal growth and the growth of a more developed sense of community that all learning brings.

    The need to find efficiencies is no reason to counsel despair in further education or elsewhere. As Cardinal Newman put it, “Let us act on what we have, since we have not what we wish.”

    And as I hope I’ve shown in the last few minutes, the government’s plans for further education and skills are far more ambitious and progressive than a diet of cuts and more cuts. Our proposals are not just to inform learners, engage employers and get off the backs of providers, but to give them the power to ensure that the system works in their best interests will be the most radical reform that skills has seen in at least a generation.

    Whatever the economic weather, adult learning matters. There is much we can do, much we must do, to ensure that the beneficial power of adult learning reaches everyone, building stronger communities, stronger business and a bigger society.

    Thank you.

  • Damian Green – 2002 Speech on Labour Party and Education

    Damian Green – 2002 Speech on Labour Party and Education

    The speech made by Damian Green, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Education, in the House of Commons on 21 May 2002.

    As we pass the fifth anniversary of this Government’s arrival in power, the threadbare nature of their claim to have made improvements in education is increasingly apparent. Today, the Opposition will pay particular attention to their failures on truancy and discipline because they lie at the heart of so many other failures.

    Without effective discipline, there can be no effective teaching. Without regular and willing attendance, there can be no effective learning. If the Government cannot solve this crisis, they will be doomed to fail to solve the other crises in our school system, such as demoralised teachers, the widening gap in standards between the best and worst schools and, in particular, the Government’s complete failure to give effective support to schools in our inner cities.

    It is clear that the Liberal Democrats are not in a position to take anything away from today’s debate, but I hope that the Government will take away one message: the underlying, basic problems of truancy and discipline will not be solved by the usual gimmicks that the Department for Education and Skills loves so much. Grabbing the headlines for a morning may delude Ministers into thinking that they have done something effective, but it does not delude teachers, parents and pupils.

    Let us take this morning’s headline-grabber by the Government, which is on drugs in schools. I do not suppose that there is anyone in the House who does not want tough measures to eliminate drugs from schools and to warn children about the dangers of drugs, but the Government are sending very mixed messages about their attitude to drugs in our society.

    This morning, the Department for Education and Skills announced a crackdown and that it would be tougher on drugs, yet for months the Home Office has been espousing a softer line on drugs. That is a mixed message; nobody can know what the Government really want.

    Quite apart from the mixed message on drugs, the Government are sending a mixed message about exclusions. Today, the Secretary of State and her colleagues have been talking tough. They are to insist that head teachers exclude pupils who are caught drug dealing. There will be no appeal; such pupils will be straight out on their first offence.

    That is a very tough message, but I seem to remember that four years ago the Government sent out exactly the opposite message. They were instructing head teachers to exclude fewer pupils.

    The confusion does not only date back four years. If the Secretary of State had made an honest U-turn, we would have applauded it, because today’s policy is better than yesterday’s policy. Unfortunately for the Government, I have taken the trouble to read the amendment that they have tabled to our motion.

    Before the Minister for Lifelong Learning becomes too excited, I shall quote it. It is fascinating. I assume that it was written yesterday, presumably at the same time as the Department was writing its press releases on how exclusions need to be increased.

    The amendment boasts: “exclusions have fallen by approximately 28 per cent.” since 1996-97. At the press conference this morning, the Government said that a rise in exclusions is a good thing; yesterday, as their amendment shows, they said that a fall in exclusions is a good thing. There is a central confusion. The Government cannot know what they are talking about. It is clear that head teachers across Britain do not know which message the Government are trying to send. The reason is that the Government do not know. All they know is that they must say something tough about drugs.

    The Department for Education and Skills is always one of the most willing Departments to say, “You want an announcement, we’ll make it. Never mind the policy, coherence or implementation, we’ll write the press release for you.”

    Not even the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions would have the gall to say that that central confusion over the attitude to exclusion shows consistency of purpose. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills by saying that she is a considerably more honest and straightforward politician than her right hon. Friend.

    Everyone in the House and outside it and everyone connected with education hopes that the Government’s new policy on drugs in schools will work, but we are right to be suspicious and sceptical that a Government who rely on spin and announcements rather than substance will not drive through an effective anti-drugs policy.

    Let me turn to truancy. Again, there is no difference between the two sides of the House. We all agree that truancy deprives children of their best chance in life and that the Government have a duty—which they share, most notably with parents but also with schools—to ensure that children attend school. Let us look at the facts of what has happened since the Government came to power.

    In the 1998 comprehensive spending review, the Government promised to cut school truancy drastically. They said that they would reduce the percentage of half-days missed a year through unauthorised absence from 0.7 per cent. to 0.5 per cent. That was a clear and unambiguous promise, but the result is complete failure. There has been no reduction in the percentage of half-days missed through unauthorised absence, which remains 0.7 per cent. In secondary schools, where the problem is most serious, it has risen since 1997 from 1 per cent. to 1.1 per cent.

    I have taken those figures from the Department’s own survey of pupil absence and truancy, but Ofsted too revealed growing problems.

    Unsatisfactory attendance is up from 22 to 30 per cent. in primary schools, and from 29 to 37 per cent. in inspected secondary schools. Those are not abstract figures on the number of children missing school. Truancy Call, a charity that tries to deal with the problem of truancy, estimates that, on a typical school day, 50,000 children are truanting, their life chances disappearing. Most schools, it says, do not have the time or resources to undertake first-day contact with those children. [Interruption.] The Minister for Lifelong Learning says that she does not believe it. I do not know who else she is going to try to call a liar. Stephen Clarke, the director of Truancy Call, is extremely respected in the field.

    Perhaps the hon. Lady will believe the previous head of Ofsted, who was appointed by the Government. Mike Tomlinson said:

    “Statistics suggest that there are 10,000 children who should be in school but are not.”

    Does the hon. Lady want to disagree with Mike Tomlinson as well? He found that statistic worrying and continued:

    “I wonder about what they are up to when they are not in school.”

    He is right to worry, as we know what too many of those children are doing when they are not in school; they are climbing on the conveyor belt of crime, which will damage their lives and communities, particularly in the inner cities.

    I shall cite someone whom even the hon. Lady will believe—the Secretary of State, who said that official figures showed that 40 per cent. of street crime, 25 per cent. of burglaries, 20 per cent. of criminal damage and a third of car thefts are carried out by 10 to 16-year-olds at times when they should be in school. By any standard, that is a catalogue of failure by the Government, who have not met promises that they made in their early, happier days in office.

    The Government have noticed that they have got a problem and have recently introduced a series of measures to reduce truancy. They announced that they want to put policemen in schools; they have half-announced that they are thinking of taking away child benefit from parents of persistent truants; and they announced £66 million to tackle truancy in the recent Budget.

    Having policemen in schools is a sensible idea, and I welcome the Government’s initiative. If head teachers want that, it is perfectly reasonable. I would be fascinated to know what the Secretary of State has to say about taking child benefit away from the parents of persistent truants, as the initiative appeared to emanate from the Prime Minister and No. 10, and volunteers in the Cabinet were called on to support it.

    It was notable that every other Cabinet Minister took a smart step backwards, leaving the right hon. Lady out at the front to defend the policy. I therefore hope that she will tell us later whether she still thinks that it is a good idea and, if so, when the Government propose to introduce it. I am afraid that if she cannot give us a date by which the Government are willing to do so, we will conclude once again that the announcement was made just to grab the headlines.

    The third issue is the £66 million to tackle truancy in schools across Britain. What the Government have not told us is that the means by which they are funding that—the increase in national insurance contributions—will take £150 million out of school budgets, year after year. The Budget therefore did not put money into schools but took it away.

    The Government are coming up with tough-sounding gimmicks. They know as well as everyone now—notably Mrs. Patricia Amos, who has been sent to jail—that an extremely tough range of measures is already available in the criminal law to stop truanting. It is clear that when Governments and courts have powers that can end up with a parent being jailed for allowing children to truant persistently, even tougher new measures are not necessarily needed. The Government already have all the tough measures that they could want to deter parents from allowing their children to truant.

    The Government are trying to pretend that those tough measures are not available, but their cover has been blown by the jailing of Mrs. Amos. That shows how tough the measures already on the statute book are. I hope that they work, and that every parent with a child who persistently truants looks at Mrs. Amos being sent to jail and thinks, “I don’t want to go that way. I’m going to do something about my child now.”

    The underlying problem is that the children who are let down most badly by the Government’s failure on truancy are those who are most vulnerable and least able to defend themselves. Many of those children, as we know, live in our inner cities and therefore attend inner-city schools. The figures are terrifying. Between 2000 and 2001, in several inner-city areas, truancy rose by as much as 16 times the national average.

    At the same time, GCSE standards—a strongly related issue—are far below the national average in such areas. Growth in truancy has persisted throughout England, where it has increased by an average of 1.7 per cent. in recent times, and the average proportion of pupils achieving the good GCSE score of five grades of A* to C is 50 per cent.

    It is terrifying to compare with those averages the figures for some of our inner-city areas. In Hackney, truancy is up 27 per cent. and the average GCSE score—the proportion achieving five or more A* to C grades—is 33.5 per cent. In Liverpool, truancy is up 26.2 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 35.1 per cent. In Sheffield, which was run until so recently by the Liberal Democrats, truancy is up 24 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 41.9 per cent. In Leicester, truancy is up 21.7 per cent. and the average GCSE score is 36.9 per cent.

    Those figures tell a stark story. The Government are failing our inner-city children; their rhetoric is not matched by action. They are tough on truants and on the parents of truants, but they are soft on the causes of truancy. Let us consider what they could be doing. The basic challenge on which they have failed is that of making every day at school relevant to every pupil.

    If pupils think that nothing that they do at school will be relevant, useful or interesting, they will start bunking off. Clearly, the long-term policy must be to reduce the number of regular truants to the hard core. There will always be a hard core, but we need to reduce truancy so that only that hard core remains. I am glad that Government Front Benchers agree; perhaps they will adopt the policy that I am about to put to them.

    The first and most widespread thing that the Government should do is make a radical improvement in the provision of vocational education in our education system. The first and most important radical change that should be made is that of rewriting the Green Paper in English, instead of the current jargon. The Green Paper is not remotely adequate to cope with the crisis in vocational education.

    The Government do not need Green Papers; they need to do what we do and learn from some other countries. Let me tell them about the experience in Holland and Germany. In Holland, for example, I visited classes in which 13-year-olds were rewiring rooms and plastering real brick walls.

    They were non-academic children in a non-academic stream—the sort of children who are failed by the school system far too often in this country and go out truanting. They were doing something at school that they could see was relevant, which they enjoyed and which they were good at. That was what got them into school, made them do the other lessons and allowed them to leave school having worked on a balanced curriculum and learned something useful, instead of taking the path of truancy and then crime to which far too many of our young people are condemned by the inaction and complacency of the Government.

    The problem is not new and is not even one of the past 20 years; it a problem of the past 140 years. Let me break the habit of a lifetime and quote Lord Callaghan, who rejected 25 years ago the idea that we should fit “a so-called inferior group of children with just enough learning to earn their living in the factory”. He was right that children who need a vocational education need more than that. That is pure common sense, and I am surprised that Government Front Benchers are so exercised by it.

    If those children are looking to the world of work, that is what we should prepare them for, by providing both the basic academic tools and proper vocational training when they are still willing to learn. Too often, the tragedy is that we wait too long, and by the time we seek to engage children who would benefit from a vocational education in proper vocational training, it is too late—they have got out of the habit of learning and into the habit of truanting. In five years, the Government have done nothing to help that dangerous lost generation.

    Whatever the situation that they inherited, what they have done has been relatively worst in its effects on inner cities. They have let down all children, but they have particularly let down those in the inner cities. I hope that she will reflect on that in her calmer moments. If she wants to talk about initiatives, I remember that education action zones were one of the great initiatives launched by the Secretary of State’s predecessor and junked by the right hon. Lady as soon as she had the chance.

    Let me move on to the wider problem of discipline.

    One reason why disciplinary problems in schools have increased under this Government is precisely that the authority has been taken away from head teachers to exclude those whom they want to exclude. Teachers, not only heads, are unhappy with the situation. The Government always get cross when I quote the National Union of Teachers at them, so let me quote the Association of Teachers and Lecturers instead. It says that in the past year it received 120 complaints from teachers about physical abuse at school and that assaults on teachers rose fivefold between 1998 and 2001. That is terrible.

    If the ATL is another trade union to which the Government do not want to listen, perhaps they will listen to Ofsted. It points out that the poor behaviour of a minority of pupils is cited as the major reason for teachers leaving the profession. If that is true, it is a great shame that the Government have spent much of their first five years in office encouraging the undermining of head teachers’ authority and therefore encouraging the increase in violence in schools.

    It is extraordinary that, although the Government have so much information at their disposal, they do not bother to collect facts about the scale of violence in schools.

    My colleagues and I have asked the Government for some weeks for the number of teachers who are assaulted each year, the number who are assaulted by pupils and the number of assaults on pupils by pupils. The Government do not know the answer.

    The Secretary of State says, “Oh no”. I refer her to written answers from her colleagues that state that they do not collect that information. Why do not the Government collect it? They know that matters are getting worse and are trying to disguise the fact rather than dealing with it.
    We propose giving power over exclusions back where it belongs — with heads and governors. If they have the power to discipline children, discipline in schools will improve. That would send clear signals to unruly pupils and irresponsible and potentially violent parents that they cannot get away with their behaviour any longer. The Government have spent too long undermining heads and teachers; it is about time that they got behind them.

    The Government’s never-ending stream of initiatives has failed to tackle the two fundamental crises in our schools. Until they use something more substantial than summits, press conferences and initiatives, our most vulnerable children will never receive the education that they deserve. That stands as an indictment against the Government for five wasted years. They are betraying the hopes of a generation of children. They will not be forgiven and they do not deserve to be forgiven.

  • Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech at Hackney Community College

    Iain Duncan Smith – 2002 Speech at Hackney Community College

    The speech made by Iain Duncan Smith, the then Leader of the Opposition, on 21 May 2002.

    I am delighted to be here at the Hackney Community College. Your mission statement talks of ‘working in partnership, widening participation, raising standards and achievement, to meet the needs of the communities we serve’. The hard work of students and staff here have made that statement a reality. Today I want to talk about how that reality can be spread to other inner city areas up and down the country.

    Three months ago I visited Glasgow’s Easterhouse estate.

    This weekend I went back and spent some more time with the residents there who help their own neighbours.

    A breakfast club run by church volunteers provides more than nourishment before school. One of the children who uses the club never knows if his mum or dad are even going to be at home.

    But in a life where nothing else is reliable he does know that every morning the same person who provides him with breakfast will also listen to his worries and encourage him.

    A positive role model has entered his life for the first time and has offered him the hope of escape from a life of deprivation.

    Yet he is not a target that someone was asked to hit nor is he a statistic that will show up in an Annual Report.

    He is just one child among many who someone took responsibility for and made a difference.

    That is why at Harrogate I rededicated my party to look more deeply into the social challenges facing our country’s most vulnerable communities and particularly the young in those communities.

    How can we involve more fathers in the lives of their children?

    How can we crack down on youth crime and the problems of drugs, to salvage young lives and to improve the communities they live in?

    And most of all, how can we create schools that teach basic standards, and respect for themselves and for other people?

    I remember when I finally decided I wanted to enter politics. I was on active service overseeing Rhodesia’s transition to a democracy.

    We visited a village after the guerrilla fighters had been brought in from the bush.

    A little boy was digging a hole in the riverbed looking for water to wash in. His friends were laughing and playing nearby.

    Their future was about to change for the better.

    It struck me that these simple things that gave those children such pleasure had been impossible during the war.

    Politicians gave them new opportunities, but twenty years later under a corrupt political process their country had slipped back into chaos.

    To understand the power of politics, you also have to understand its limitations.

    I entered politics to help make a difference, but that difference cannot be left in the hands of politicians alone.

    I joined the Conservative Party precisely because it understands these things.

    We have always worked to help people take back control of their own lives, we don’t try and live their lives for them.

    Because of that people too often think the Conservative Party only believes in money; that we are content for the most vulnerable in our society to sink or swim.

    That must change. And under my leadership the Conservative Party is changing.

    Learning from the voluntary sector

    To truly help the vulnerable, we must learn the lessons from those who are already doing the most to help them.

    They work in areas and with people who have been forgotten. Their local roots and independence allow them to get results that governments cannot even imagine.

    Because of the depth of their personal commitment they have the authority to help people who want to change, they don’t simply help people and hope they’ll change.

    You can call it ‘tough love’, but these groups are agents of change, not just another agency of the state.

    And often as not they are provoked into action by the failure of the state.

    I visited Faversham a couple of months ago and met two mothers who had set up a drug rehabilitation centre. One of them had turned her own son into the Police.

    He had become a one-man crime wave, stealing from her and her neighbours and dealing to other children to feed his own addiction.

    These two women had overcome the indifference of the police and the hostility of local officials to take control of their own situation.

    How can politics help people like this without undermining what they do?

    Voluntary groups want to be free to respond to the personal needs of local people rather than become enslaved by the artificial requirements of politicians.

    This Government offered the voluntary sector a partnership, but that partnership has turned into a takeover.

    Instead of forcing the voluntary sector to think and act like the state, politicians should have the humility to learn from what these groups do best.

    They help the vulnerable with care, commitment and innovation, virtues which we must allow to flourish in our public services too.

    The status quo

    The way we organise our public services belongs to a bygone era.

    In the 21st Century we are still running our public services and trying to make them accountable in the same ways we did after the Second World War.

    But since then we have lived through the Cold War, the development of nuclear weapons and the information revolution, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of the internet.

    Imagine what our living standards would be like today if we still ran our economy the way Clement Attlee did?

    Now imagine how much better our quality of life could be if we no longer ran our public services the way Clement Attlee did.

    At the beginning of a new century, no other major country runs their schools or their hospitals the way we do. That is why the quality of our public services is failing to keep pace with rising expectations and living standards.

    For the past five years Labour has spent its time centralising our public services with targets and ten-year plans. It has drowned individual initiative in directives and dogma.

    But central control is delivering neither fairness nor efficiency.

    It is going to fall to the Conservatives to address these issues. We will have to re-examine the entire relationship between central government and the people it is supposed to represent.

    We will have to challenge every principle except one: that people should be helped according to their needs.

    We should challenge the idea that uniformity is more important than quality. That nobody minds receiving a poor service as long as nobody else is getting a better one.

    But poor public services are not fair. They hit the vulnerable the hardest.

    A Health Service in crisis affects the elderly disproportionately.

    A society that turns a blind eye to violent crime and the drug culture condemns many council estates to fear and despair.

    Bad schools keep poor families poor.

    In some of our inner cities, as many as one in ten pupils leave schools without a single GCSE and truancy is rocketing. Compare this with places like Redbridge or Buckinghamshire where more than 90% of children gain five or more GCSEs.

    As our country grows richer those who can, seek to buy their way out of failure, but they cannot avoid the consequences of failure for those who are left behind.

    For generations too many experts have told us all it is unfair to expect children from inner cities to strive for the same standards as everybody else. I say it is unfair to expect anything less.

    The most important thing to me personally, my mission for the Conservative Party, is to provide equal opportunity in our schools for all children – particularly the most vulnerable – wherever they live, however much their parents earn.

    There is nothing compassionate about leaving the most vulnerable in our society to suffer simply because we decree that everybody should be treated the same regardless of their needs.

    Uniformity doesn’t lead to social cohesion it only breeds social division.

    When systems become more important than people and theory matters more than results, this country has lost its way.

    Everywhere else around us services are tailored to our individual needs. We have more choice and more access to information, we are used to our views being taken seriously.

    This is almost impossible in today’s public services.

    The second thing we need to challenge is the idea that centralised politics and centralised public services are what hold our nation together.

    In fact they are in danger of tearing it apart.

    Take the case of Rose Addis, the 94 year old mother of my constituent, who was left unattended in her local Accident and Emergency ward.

    All the family wanted was an apology. The hospital authorities dismissed their concerns. The family went to the press. The Health Secretary rubbished their story on national radio. The family came to me in despair and I raised the case in Prime Minister’s Questions.

    What followed was a 72-hour political row that dominated the national news. The entire political and NHS establishment came crashing down on Mrs Addis. She was even accused of being a racist all because she wanted a simple apology.

    This one case encapsulates most of what is wrong with the post-War welfare state.

    A vulnerable lady did not get the quality of care she deserved. The hospital was too rigid even to offer an apology.

    The lines of political accountability were so centralised that the Health Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister became involved to try and resolve a single case.

    Ultimately this degree of centralisation diminishes our democracy.

    Because Central Government is responsible for everything, it tries to run everything, and because it tries to run everything it ends up running most things badly.

    So it relies on spin to pretend that things are better than they are.

    Detailed target setting, leads to failure, this leads to lies and the setting of new detailed targets. The vicious circle is complete.

    As a result our political culture becomes debased and our public services become demoralised.

    People are crying out to be heard. They want to have a say in the direction their communities take, they want more control over their own lives.

    We must listen to them and we must learn to trust them by placing responsibility for results back where it belongs.

    Better schools and hospitals, more responsive local government, means giving teachers, doctors, nurses and councillors the power to do their jobs and making them accountable for what they do.

    That is what happens in every other walk of life, it is also what happens in every other country whose standards of public services exceed our own.

    Rudolph Giuliani turned crime around in New York because he had the authority to do so, because that is what the voters elected him as Mayor to do, and because he knew that that was how he would ultimately be judged.

    In Stockholm, the county government introduced a choice of family doctor and a choice of hospital for its citizens because Sweden gives different parts of the country the right to run healthcare differently.

    In Holland it takes as few as 50 parents to set up a new independent school, where the Government pays for children to be taught within a slimmed down national curriculum.

    Trusting people is the modern way, followed by countries across the world including those who are considered more egalitarian than Britain.

    What all these nations have in common is that they have put quality before uniformity, people before ideology. It is time for us to do the same.

    Conservatives are rightly suspicious of blueprints. It is that kind of approach that has taken so much power away from people in the past.

    The Government’s plans for regional assemblies will not drive power down from Whitehall they will strip power from local communities. They mean more centralisation, not less.

    And yet I have been struck by the diversity of solutions on offer as I and my Shadow Cabinet colleagues have travelled around Britain and Europe.

    Kent County Council is running a scheme it has initiated with the Treasury, where it is taking responsibility for getting people off welfare and back into work in return for a share of the benefit savings.

    We need to look at our benefit system as a whole. The entire impetus for welfare reform in the United States came from individual states and cities taking charge of welfare programmes from the Federal Government.

    People say that Britain is too small to have the laboratories of democracy that the United States has. But it isn’t a question of size, it is a matter of identity. Switzerland is a very small country. Yet it retains a vibrant and vital local tradition through its cantons.

    People who want a European superstate say that Britain is too small to be a country. With the fourth largest economy in the world, British people are entitled to treat this with derision.

    There will be areas where we want to decentralise directly to people who receive services and other areas where we want to make services more locally accountable. The two need not be incompatible.

    In the end if you want to spread best practice, you have to be prepared to allow best practice by encouraging people to do different things in different places in order to learn what works.

    Parties say they want to decentralise in Opposition, but too often they change their tune in Government. The present administration is more guilty of this than nearly all of its predecessors.

    That is because the way we conduct politics in this country has remained unchanged for more than fifty years. The buck always stops with central government.

    But central government is not delivering the goods any more, nor are nationalised, uniform public services. People in this country know that and we have to be honest enough to say it.

    Our nation is the natural level of allegiance, that is why we believe that control over our armed forces and the power to control our economy.

    But that does not mean the most appropriate level for organising and holding to account every last public service is national.

    If we are to strengthen our nation and our society we have to learn from the modern world and recognise that it is organisations operating on a human scale that succeed.

    The way to revive our politics, the way to improve our schools and hospitals, the way to make our streets safer is to trust the people who can really make a difference.

    It is not just about helping people and hoping they will change; it is about helping people who want to change.

    It is about supporting people who are trying to assert some control over their own lives, seeking help because they want a better life for themselves and their families.

    Education is the key to that opportunity.

    We want future generations to believe in our laws, we want them to contribute to our prosperity and to play their full part in our country’s future.

    But they need something from us: a passion and a commitment to equal opportunity in our schools for all our children.

    The path back to a stronger, more decent society begins in the classroom. It begins in places like this.

    In your example lies our nation’s future.

  • Damian Green – 2002 Speech to the Connect Think Tank

    Damian Green – 2002 Speech to the Connect Think Tank

    The speech made by Damian Green, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Education, to the Connect Think Tank on 1 June 2002.

    One of the symptoms of over-centralisation is the over-increasing complication and sheer number of tests that schoolchildren now go through. Let me make my attitude to this clear. Regular testing, in a simple and clear way, is essential.

    Publishing the results of the main national tests is also essential, to allow parents and others to know how schools are performing.

    But what is not essential, indeed what is actively harmful, is turning school years into a never-ending grind of exams. This is where we have now ended up, especially for 16-18 year-olds. The system after GCSEs has now reached saturation point.

    AS levels are one of those reforms that seemed like a good idea at the time. They have proved to be a failing attempt to widen the curriculum which has done more harm than good. They were meant to widen the experience of young people, but instead they have encouraged them to give up sport, music, drama, and other useful and enjoyable activities to make sure they succeed on the exam treadmill.

    Look at the figures. In 2000, 1,149 candidates complained about AS levels out of a total of 76, 427—a rate of 1.5%. In 2002 19,496 students complained out of 771, 893—a rate of 2.5%. One teacher from Suffolk who wrote to the Conservative Party Education Website summed it up perfectly: “The new AS exams are one set of exams too many.”

    Other correspondents to our website include two students: one, from Surrey, wrote

    ‘I have found that AS levels promote only anxiety concerning the burden of work and the inevitable exclusion of activities such as culture and sport. The system punishes the student who engages in either.’

    Another, from London, said: ‘I believe that pupils do sit too many exams which us preventing schools from giving children the rounded education they deserve. Summer sports such as cricket have virtually disappeared for the 15-18 year group in both state and independent schools due to the constant demands of the modular examination system.”

    There have been reports of individuals buckling under the stress. One girl fled from the exam hall in tears as she sat her fifth paper of the day. She had already faced her first four papers with only a ten-minute gap in between each. Another correspondent to our website said that at her college, in the first year of the introduction of AS levels, there were more cases of stress reported than ever before.

    In response to Parliamentary Questions from me Ministers have said that the number of external tests an average pupil will now take in a school career is over 45. Research by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has shown that a typical student of higher ability could face 95 exams through a school career.

    On the issue of AS levels I rather agree with John Dunford of the Secondary Heads Association, who said earlier this year: “If the Government is to introduce new reforms in secondary school qualifications it must address the problem of over-assessment and reduce the number of external exams.” My solution to this is to recognise that AS levels in their current form are the fifth wheel on the coach, and to get rid of them.

    After last year’s fiasco with exams, the Government promised a review. This year, they have promised another review. This is wholly inadequate. Our teenagers are being asked to do too many exams too often. Let’s act now to relieve the burden.

    There are a number of alternatives to the AS level system. We should be looking at the baccalaureate system as one option. Another is a General Studies Paper, which could encompass subjects not covered by the student’s main ‘A’ level subjects. A third is simply to encourage schools to teach non-examined subjects—exams are a measuring rod, not the purpose of education.’