The Problems with Leitch (Liberal Democrat Education Association)

Liberal Democrat Education Association <info@libdemeducationassociation.org.uk>

The Problems with Leitch

January 12, 2008 7:18 PM
By Baroness Margaret Sharp in MARGARET SHARP is a Liberal Demcorat spokesperson in the House of Lords on education, science and technology

The Leitch Report, Prosperity for all in the Global Economy: World Class Skills, published last December seems to have received general approval. The Government, CBI and the unions have all welcomed the proposals and agreed that training for those over 19 needs to be 'demand led', reflecting the needs of employers. Indeed, most money for adult training is in future to be channelled via employers through the 'Train to Gain' programme which will refund them for what they spend on basic (up to NVQ Level 2) training in the hope that they will in turn recognise the value of (and pay for) further, more advanced (Levels 3 and 4) training for their employees. In addition, the employer-led Sector Skills Councils (SSCs) are to have a dominant role in setting the curricula for all vocational NVQs.

And what, you may say, is wrong with this? A number of things. First and foremost, does demand only mean the demands of employers? What about the students? Can we as Liberal Democrats really accept that whereas an A level student of 19 can choose to study anything from ancient Greek to Forensic Science at university and be substantially subsidised by the state, those seeking their qualifications the tough way, through the workplace, should only able to choose qualifications which their employers and the SSCs deem appropriate? Or if they seek to pursue a qualification in their own time, get little help or encouragement from the state?

Secondly, can we really trust employers to deliver? Haven't we been down this road before (remember the MSC of the 1980s or the TECs of the 1990s?) and time and again, haven't the employers failed to deliver? This time round we have a set of ambitious targets, an Employers' Pledge and the threat, if they don't deliver, of a new levy system. Well we shall see. In the meantime the IFS evaluation of the Train to Gain pilots suggested that between 85 and 90% of expenditure was 'deadweight', that is paid for training that employers would have provided anyway.

Last but not least, are we not in danger of creating a system that ignores all the wider benefits of education - the creativity, tolerance, citizenship, health and happiness that has been shown, time and again, to stem from widening opportunities for the individual. Can the state really only see adult education in terms of training and competitiveness?