Post-16 Funding: second technical consultation paper
http://www.uuy.org.uk/projects/post16/finplan/may2000/index.htm
The response of The Library Association
1) The Library Association is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposals for post-16
funding. As our comments are brief, we have also included our comments on the Learning and Skills Council (Funding flows and Business Processes) consultation document at the
end. In general we are impressed at the blend of idealism and pragmatism to be found in the proposals for post-16 funding and believe that they represent a firm basis on which to proceed. We make a few comments below.
2) National Formula - We welcome the simplified structure of the proposed national formula and believe that it will offer the flexibility required to support the convergence of five different sectors, as well as encouraging the raising of standards. The proposed deletion of the "entry" element in the formula and the ending of "units" are especially appreciated by our members in Further Education. We fully support the disadvantage element of the formula (paragraphs 2.27 - 2.32) but are concerned that rural deprivation should not be overlooked. We are pleased to note that the FEFC has acknowledged already the limitations of postcode analysis and fully support the proposal that the Learning and Skills Council should instigate a thorough review of methods of indicating disadvantage. We also welcome the statement, made on a number of occasions, that formal qualifications may not result from every learning package and that, therefore, the achievement element within the formula may not always be relevant. We make other comments relating to the informal end of the learning spectrum below.
3) Non-Traditional Learning Modes - We welcome the assurance (paragraph 2.37 and elsewhere) that the funding system will be able to cater for "bite-sized" pieces of learning as well as allowing students the choice of learning "anytime, anyplace, anywhere". Naturally some of the pilots involving the FEFC and UfI will be useful in teasing out potential problems. We welcome the proposal to provide a central steer in the first few years on the minimum amount that should be spent by LSC's on Learndirect students (paragraphs 4.21-4.29) as this should provide the necessary cushion whilst UfI develops its programme, and understanding increases as to the funding structures that are appropriate to it. Similarly we are pleased that a cautious approach is also being adopted in relation to adult and community learning (paragraphs 4.30-4.39). We support the need to establish a national knowledge base about the costs and range of Adult and Community Learning provision - such provision may not only take place in Adult Education Institutes, schools and further education colleges but also in public libraries and voluntary and community groups. At this more informal end of the learning spectrum there will often be heavy emphasis on widening participation and basic skills and less on the gaining of qualifications. It is therefore essential to get the funding structure right for this sector, as it is likely to be a key component in the growth of learning necessary to meet Government targets
4) E-learning - There is, of course, a large overlap between E-learning and non-traditional learning modes. However it is worthwhile noting specifically in terms of E-learning that:
a) There are significant costs involved in the development of online learning materials for which there are no obvious sources of funding outside of UfI
b) Libraries and librarians play a key support role in supporting the independent learner and E-learner. This is already true of learning resource staff in Further Education Colleges where the support will often be at a pedagogical level. It will be increasingly true of other libraries as well - staff in public libraries, voluntary and community organisation libraries or information services, and workplace libraries will all develop learner support roles, although probably not to the specialist level required by library staff in the formal education sector.
5) Information, Advice and Guidance Networks - We welcome the proposal that there should be a minimal level of non-discretionary funding from LSCs for Information, Advice and Guidance networks. However we note that the funding is predominantly for the disseminating of "free" information to the public. It does not cover the costs of collecting and collating information at a local level and, as TEC funding is withdrawn, there are examples of local databases being closed (eg Wakefield). The national database is not a replacement for local databases as it will not be able to collect all the information covering every type of learning opportunity available in all localities. In fact the national database will require the input of local databases. The LSCs should be encouraged to look at the collection of information on learning at a local level. The Library Association hopes to arrange a meeting with all interested parties to consider the development of a portal for learning information.
6) Other Points - A few other points:
a) There is little recognition, if any, about third age learning. Much of this will fall into Adult and Community Learning. However it is important to give formal recognition to the fact that an increasing percentage of the population are neither young nor either looking for work or in work
b) In the case of UfI funding (paragraph 4.26) consideration will need to be given to the fact that it is quite possible that a public library could be providing access to learning materials online without a charge for members of the public, but charging a fee to UfI students for the same service
The Learning and Skills Council: Funding Flows and Business Processes
7) Most of our comments have been made on the Post-16 Funding consultation paper. In general we are happy with the business processes proposed for the Learning and Skills Councils. However we believe the following observations are important:
a) Most of the consultation documents have been concerned with accredited courses. We believe that informal, or unaccredited learning is as important as more formal study in developing a learning society. Public libraries especially, but also voluntary and community organisations, cater for this demand and promote cross-overs between the informal and formal learning. The value of this work needs to be recognised. Therefore Learning and Skills Councils should consider the informal end of the spectrum when mapping learning opportunities in their areas and determining priorities. If, as seems probable, such provision cannot be supported from the national formula funding, then it should be a legitimate call on the discretionary funding of LSCs.
b) LSCs should also consider the accessibility and vitality of local learning infrastructures. In particular, once the initial investment in Community Grids for Learning has been made (normally with the support of the National lottery), then LSCs may well have to help fund the sustenance and renewal of these cross-sectoral networks to ensure that learners continue to have access to them. Similarly, in many localities, there are examples of library access agreements between libraries in all sectors (higher education, further education, private as well as public) giving users the right to use any library in a given district. Such cross-sectoral approaches to supporting learners may also require funding from LSCs and this should be available from the discretionary funds of LSCs.
c) We particular welcome proposals to widen the provision and availability of market intelligence (paragraph 6.2), although the previous competitive framework within which educational institutions worked may make this a difficult task.
The Library Association
July 2000 |
