Will the emerging new arms-length body, Skills England be a big deal?
I hope so.
We need an influential, powerful and authoritative Skills England to help build a stronger, fairer, more inclusive and more productive economy across the whole of England and for communities and people who have been left behind in the last decade.
Of course, for those of us who have been working in post-16 education and skills over the last thirty years or so, we’ve experienced multiple skills bodies come and go. Indeed, only last week The Department for Education (DfE) announced that the Education and Skills Funding Agency would cease by March next year, alongside the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education which will be folded into Skills England itself. The prospect of yet another skills body can easily lead to raised eyebrows and a heavy dose of scepticism about its prospects.
Personally, though, I remain optimistic: partly because I think we need some hope to help make it work, and partly because I think a number of factors are in play today which give it more chance of success than many of its predecessors.
To explain my optimism, I will use the framework of the Five Ps of purpose, position, partnership, people and prospects.
Purpose
Put simply but grandly, Skills England has to lead to a cultural shift in the attitudes towards post-16 education and training, changing the mindset of Whitehall, employers, parents, students and workers as well as the national media.
A wide and deep culture of inclusive lifelong learning. That is a grand ambition. But I am sure that is what is needed.
For decades, skills have been too much of a sideshow for employers, government, the media and for large parts of the electorate.
For employers, they had ready access to skilled people, ‘oven ready’ for the jobs they needed to recruit into.
For government, growing numbers accessing higher education and big apprenticeship targets were enough to portray an illusion of a lifelong learning ambition for people and for the economy.
For the media, an obsession with how many poor people got into Oxbridge or Russell Group universities obscured deficiencies in investment elsewhere and for other people.
For the electorate, the only route to well-paid work seemed to them to be via a Bachelor’s degree.
Unsurprisingly, because of that, government and employer investment decisions have been skewed and partial. Governments have tried to please the vocal electorate and their children by opening up higher education, and employers have been able to reduce their spending on workforce skills because they can recruit graduates from the labour market.
Don’t get me wrong, this approach has worked and worked well for many of those able to access it, and for many employers, but it has not been anywhere near adequate in the past and will be even less so in the future.
Skills England therefore has to start with a conscious ambition not to undo what is good about our current systems and investment, but celebrate that whilst recognising how many people, communities and employers have not benefited from the focus on Bachelor’s degrees or level 6 and 7 apprenticeships.
Far too many people of all ages have been and are being left behind, without opportunities to acquire the skills that would equip them for good jobs and fulfilling lives.
That matters if you care about fairness and inclusion, but it also matters because it hinders economic growth and productivity gains and reduces the tax-take to pay for a better society.
It matters even more in a world in which technological, demographic and climate change all require new skills, longer working lives, lifelong learners and productivity improvements.
Skills England therefore needs to take a more holistic view.
It will need to understand the whole post-16 education and skills landscape and the education institutions that operate in it.
And it will need to examine where the current marketised system is failing to meet the current and future needs of employers, particularly in growth and high productivity sectors of the economy, and the needs of too many people.
It must find ways to stimulate demand in disadvantaged communities and parts of the country, and for people who will need persuading that investing in their own skills will pay off for them.
That’s why I describe it as a cultural shift, and why it will need to have a systems approach, with a vision for how the post-16 tertiary sector can support the new industrial strategy, the transition to net zero, the 1.5 million new homes target, the NHS and the opportunity mission led by the Education Secretary to ‘remove the class ceiling’.
Position
This is where the second ‘P’ - position - comes in because to do all of that, Skills England will need to have a unique and delicately poised position in the ‘system’.
It will need strong support from DfE, and from the Education Secretary, but in a nuanced way, to allow it to have its own voice and influence across Whitehall with a range of other government departments and agencies.
And ultimately, it will need to have the credibility and authority to be able to influence the Treasury and No.10 to be able to secure the investment needed to deliver its ambitious purpose.
Such a position has probably not been attained before in the skills sector in England.
Partnership
To be able to reach that position of authority and credibility, Skills England will need a range of strong partnerships.
The body itself will need to be a strong partnership between government, employers, trades unions and education institutions – much like we see in many successful countries that have a social partnership approach.
But it will also need to partner with others.
With DfE officials who will have to view it as an opportunity to gain more traction and resources in Whitehall, rather than as a threat to their power.
With the Office for Students so we have a comprehensive post-16 education and training strategy.
With colleges, universities and independent providers who will have to believe that Skills England can deliver more investment over the long term rather than more bureaucracy and interference.
With employers who will be able to plan their own investment in people, technology and capital more confidently because the long-term skills supply is clearer and more secure.
With unions who will need to see it leads to better jobs with better pay.
People
My next ‘P’ is the people at Skills England.
Skills England will need a board and staff who come together in a culture of humility and grand ambition. They will need to pull together a wide array of interests to agree a vision which is truly consensual because ultimately, Skills England will need to inspire everyone else to play ball, to come together, to join up.
Skills England will not have all of the resources itself.
It will rely on everyone else to bring their resources to the table. It will be a catalyst and a convenor not a delivery body, so it will need to show how every partner will be able to benefit from working together.
In that way, Skills England will ensure the post-16 education and skills system is greater than the sum of its parts.
Prospects
So, what are its prospects? Before it has even started, many will say it is doomed to fail.
I don’t agree.
I have not heard so many cabinet ministers talk before about skills as a cross-government issue nor about the skills needed to deliver the new government’s missions. We have ministers in DfE who are passionate about a more inclusive education and skills system.
They recognise how vital skills are to the five missions that the Prime Minister has put front of the nation.
Skills England is the organisation that can ensure skills supports the delivery of those five missions.
So let’s give it a go.
We have nothing to lose and so much to win.
David Hughes is the Chief Executive at the Association of Colleges
Our regular guest policy views are written by senior leaders and thinkers. They aim to stimulate discussion, identify issues and contribute to debate on post-16 education, skills and employment policy. The opinions expressed are the authors' own and do not necessarily express the views of the Campaign for Learning