Agenda item

The Director for Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submits a report reviewing the 2019 Adult Education Service plan and to present the 2022-23 Adult Education self-assessment plan.

The Commission will also be consulted regarding the draft Accountability Agreement, which lays out planning priorities and targets for 2024-25 and will form the basis of the service’s Adult Education Budget contract with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).

The Director for Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment submitted a report reviewing the 2019 Adult Education Service plan and to present the 2022-23 Adult Education self-assessment plan.

The Commission were also consulted regarding the draft Accountability Agreement, which laid out planning priorities and targets for 2024-25 and would form the basis of the service’s Adult Education Budget contract with the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).

The Assistant City Mayor - Communities, Adult Learning, Jobs and Skills, the Director for Tourism, Culture and Inward Investment and the Head of Adult Education attended the meeting to assist with the discussion.

Key points included:

• The ESFA Accountability Agreement laid out priorities for use of funding for 2024/25.  It was currently in the planning stage, and this was an opportunity for members to learn about the developments and for comments and suggestions that could be incorporated into the Adult Education and Skills Boot Camp programmes for 2024-25.
• An additional £2 million of Skills Bootcamp funding was being applied for.
• Many of the objectives in the plan for 2019-23 had been achieved despite the disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
• The Self-Assessment report, as was required by Ofsted, highlighted the impacts post-Covid and had shown good progress with numbers of learners increasing by 28% and achievement by nearly 5%.  New funding was being sought in order to get more funding for the long-term viability of the service.  The Multiply programme had started and grants from Public Health to expand the service had been secured.  Key strengths included a diverse curriculum, the way funding was used, and how additional funding was brought in.  Partnership work was outstanding.  The team were looking to how they could support other departments’ agendas in adult education.
• Areas for improvement included a lower-than-expected attendance, which was partly explained by sickness and learners having conflicting commitments. Another area for improvement was a shortage of tutors.  A trainee tutor programme was under way as part of the Multiply programme, which was working well but was relatively expensive.
• Skills Boot Camps were being trialled.
• The Accountability Agreement that identified priorities was not due until June 2024, but had been brought to the commission well in advance.
• New key points in the Agreement included:
  • The Green Skills Agenda
  • The priorities set out in Leicestershire Learning and Skills Improvement Plan
  • Digital skills
  • The needs of small businesses
  • English as a Second Language (ESOL)
  • Healthy Living and Wellbeing as part of the Anti-Poverty Strategy
• Skills Bootcamps were short intensive courses with a minimum of 60 hours of learning over a maximum of 16 weeks.  These were at Level 3 or above (equivalent to A-Level).
• Slides were presented (attached).

The Committee were invited to ask questions and make comments. Key points included:

• Most funding came from national funding, the Community Learning Grant and Skills Budget Funding with was paid according to results.  Fees made up part of the funding but not the bulk.  Grants were also sought in partnership with other services.
• The Multiply programme provided a flexible way for people to get to GCSE level in mathematics, but the Functional Skills qualification was more relevant to adult needs and had a real-world focus. There was one more year of funding which would be used in ways to ensure that people who had an interest would go on to achieve.  Partner organisations were being worked with to engage people on that journey.
• A challenge to gaining skills in mathematics could be a lack of skills in English, as it was necessary for learners to understand the questions.
• Three training providers had signed up for the Boot Camps pilot.  The residency criteria was the same as for the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA).  There was not a requirement to be unemployed to take part.  All learners were self-referred.
• Where someone was listed as having no qualifications, it was possible that they had qualification(s) that might not be recognised in the UK.  A programme of qualifications was offered and it was aimed to see as much improvement as possible with what was available.  Part of the role of the service was to inform learners of how overseas qualifications become recognised, however this was an expensive process for individuals.
• Around 80% of students were female and many of them were from ethnic minorities.  This was often driven by the locations that the service worked out of.
• The Ofsted inspection was overdue, but it was not known when it would happen.
• The scheme for ex-offenders had become sub-regional and had its funding changed.  Ex-offenders were still worked with, but data on them was not captured.
• Regarding employability and digital skills, this was based on a referral partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).  There was a need to tailor the service so that people came on course.  One qualification had a new online exam system, this had not worked well and required improvement.
• Linking with the previous item, it was noted that there was a need for retrofit assessors and a Boot Camp based at Nottingham Trent University trained such assessors.  Boot Camps were free to the learner, although if they were employed then the employer made a contribution.  Bootcamps were aimed at getting people better trained so as to obtain better roles, ideally with a job ready for them to move into. It was possible for people to gain qualifications independently for personal use, the cost was around £3k.  A Boot Camp in retrofitting would be discussed.
• In terms of distinguishing between enrolments and learners, it was clarified that one learner could enrol on multiple courses.
• Regarding engagements with communities, there was a whole-city approach.  There was a Local Skills Improvement Plan to provide more provision and more engagement was being sought.  There were different providers in different locations, such as WEA, Leicester College and voluntary organisations.  It was acknowledged that the system could be difficult to navigate.
• There was a need to seek additional funding for ESOL so as to support refugees and asylum seekers and to provide informal engagement with communities.
• It was clarified that ‘surrounding areas’ referred largely to the county of Leicestershire.  Following the Covid-19 pandemic, there had been a decline in learners from the county coming to the city to learn.  It was thought that this was partly due to people working from home and not coming into the city as a result.   Statistics would be obtained.
• The service was delivering in more than 100 venues this academic year.
• The Local Skills Improvement Board was led by the Chamber of Commerce.  One meeting had taken place made up of people from the county, people from universities, employer representatives and organisations.  Under this came sector-focussed groups.  Employer voices were coming into the education system to shape the curriculum and a key part of this was to meet future needs.  The National Careers Service had involvement. There were no elected member representatives on the board, although a link to the plan would be circulated.

AGREED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That the comments of the Commission be noted.

The Chair agreed to an agenda variance, Informal Scrutiny Work was taken before EV Charging.