The call for evidence questions are focused on young people’s choices at 18/end of tertiary education. This is blinkered thinking in my view as the skills the economy needs cannot be met by this group alone.
The workforce is aging and raising the pension age is not going to meet the demand for labour. The second unknown factor which is beginning to emerge is the return migration and reduced influx of EU nationals given the uncertain future of their status in the UK. A third and less discussed but more important factor is productivity. Low skilled labour intensive work is of low value to employers and employees and has encouraged the ‘gig-economy’, agency working, job insecurity, zero hours contracts and a general devaluation of much employment. As a result employers invest less in training and skills development, do not plan or strategise for the long term, and focus on short term profits rather than long term benefits that would accrue to business owners and employees.
High added value, higher skills, and higher returns is in everyone’s interest. Targeting post 18 education at one small part of the population is not the answer to the wider needs of employers, the economy or society. Raising general skill levels, providing job security and encouraging greater ownership and autonomy in work would.
Everyone can raise their skills, qualifications and effectiveness. The opportunity, support and incentives to do so are what this review should be focusing on.
Skills and qualifications are the cogs of training and development, the ‘bread and butter’ of change in the workplace and change means improvement. Whether its better language skills, better maths and English, greater technical knowledge, specific training for a technique or piece of equipment, it all adds up and improves productivity. The more productive people are the more they produce, more wealth is created and if the tax and business culture is in place, is shared. This is predicated on everyone, not just 18 year olds, gaining more education, training and skills and at all levels not just undergraduate.
I use ‘effectiveness’ to cover the range of personal skills also referred to as ’employability’ (but only for those not in work), ‘soft skills’ or ‘personal effectiveness’ that describe the ability of an individual to conduct themselves in the workplace, to intuit what is required, to respond to situations, to work with others, communicate and do all the things that an employer and fellow employees want to take for granted and that actually make a real difference to getting things done and pleasing customers. Typically it is these skills that employers say is lacking in graduates.
To have an effective workforce that adds value and can earn the rewards of that value requires investment in skills and personal development. It needs the workplace culture to expect that. Government has a responsibility to set the example and the conditions that encourage the culture and expectation of high added value. The post-18 education review presents such an opportunity to go down this road and gain many wider benefits, social and economic, that the present debates about funding universities and students do not. The spotlight is being shone on (or by) the treasury and appears to be a debate about the spreadsheet rather than the policy aim.
Some of you may be puzzled by the ‘autonomy’ argument. An example of this comes from the Netherlands. The Buurtzorg model of social care where the social and health care for an area is handed over to a team of care professionals who then decide what is to be done who will do it and who operate as an autonomous unit with their own budget. This model has produced better care, better outcomes and up to 40% cost savings. The model has resulted in higher skills and rewards for the team members and an immeasurable increase in job-satisfaction. Team skills and work culture had to be developed to enable this and a small team of coaches support the district teams and their development. Whilst this is far removed from the contract and procurement model of social care we operate in the UK that is top down and prescriptive – removing the opportunity to provide the care actually needed rather than prescribed. The lessons to be learnt are plain to see and transferable to many places of work and have echoes of other proven productivity initiatives such as ‘Kaizen’ (which also placed emphasis on teams and autonomy).
My argument is that the review of post 18 education should be a review of all post 18 education and training, should take account of all levels not just undergraduate, should include all forms of education and training, all learning providers, and all modes of delivery and learning. If there is to be a genuine debate then it must take account of the landscape for post 18 learning and not just tinker with bits of it regardless of the consequences for the rest. Yes there are some questions that do need to dealt with, particularly careers information advice and guidance for young people but that is to address a deficit in the current situation and should not steer the debate away from the main issues of how to support the UK economy and its current and future workforce.
Sardonnick's View 