A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement A

A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement 1. Introduction 1. 1 1.2 1.3 This paper attempts to summarise the findings of recent reports in the area of work-based learning and employer engagement. The intention is to provide an overview of the current issues and ideas in this area and the resulting recommendations. It is also an attempt to identify ways in which Linking London may be able to support the network should members wish to implement some of these recommendations. 2. Summary of Findings 2.1 2.2 On the following pages there is more detailed summary of several reports. This section attempts to identify some general themes. Baselines on how much work-based learning is going on and the extent to which employers are currently involved in HE and FE are difficult to establish. There are various reasons for this. For example, employers and institutions alike may regard this information as commercially sensitive. It is difficult, therefore, to establish the capacity of institutions to expand their work-based offer. Despite the difficulty in establishing baselines most estimates show that HEIs and FECs receive only a fraction of the amount of money employers spend on education and training. There are a number of reasons suggested for the low levels of current engagement from both the employer and institution side. Several reports have highlighted poor customer service as a reason why employers do not engage with HEIs. It has also been pointed out that employers are often not interested in qualifications and look for short courses that are delivered in the workplace and that are relevant to their immediate business needs. This is often not the model used by HEIs. Employers are confused and unsure about the nature of the workbased offer from institutions, a problem exacerbated by the use of different terminology and a lack of clarity about what employers and students can expect from work-based provision. This confusion is sometimes expressed in terms of a difference in cultures between education and employers. 2.3 2.4 2.6 Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement 2.7 There is little evidence of shared knowledge between HEIs (and sometimes between colleagues within the same organisation) about what works and what does not. There is little evidence to suggest that employers will significantly increase spending on HE if it remains in its current format and HEIs need to consider how to respond to the call for demand-led provision. 2.8 3. Recommendations Relevant to Linking London 3.1 Sharing Knowledge and Best Practice: Linking London could help to facilitate the sharing of knowledge within the network as to what works and what does not, so as to help network members build a better understanding of the pedagogy of work-based learning. Network members could explore issues such as the possibilities for increasing flexibility, customisation and responsiveness without compromising quality. This could perhaps be done through the formation of a workbased learning working party. Brokerage: Linking London could act as a broker between the institutions in the network and relevant employers. This could help facilitate a coherent offer from the network to employers. A brokerage service could also operate as one, client focused, point of contact for employers and address issues such as the perceived language and cultural barriers between education and work. Research: Linking London could consider commissioning research to identify what employers want in terms of education and training and where they would go to get it. This would serve to test current national policy assumptions on a local level as well as informing institutions of the preferences and expectations of employers for this type of education. Partnership: Linking London could help network members explore the extent to which they would like to work in partnership in order to increase current levels of work-based learning and employer engagement. Furthermore, consideration should be given to ensuring that links are forged with existing brokerage schemes, both locally and nationally, so that duplication of effort is avoided and that a sensible and coherent offer is presented to employers. 3.2 3.3 3.4 Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Work-based learning: illuminating the higher education landscape Iain Nixon, Kevyn Smith, Rob Stafford, Steve Camm (June 2006, The Higher Education Academy) http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/research/WBL.pdf This report summarises the current ‘state of play’ of Work-based learning (WBL) in HE, based on the findings of a study conducted by the Higher Education Academy. It focuses on ‘what we know’ and ‘what we don’t know’ about WBL and attempts to identify areas on which to focus attention in the future. The nature and extent of WBL: The nature and extent of WBL is variable. The report notes that ‘baselines are difficult to establish’ and that ‘there are varied levels of emphasis and extent of provision, which in some instances are driven by the institutional mission, while in others it happens as a by-product.’ In conducting the survey the authors found that WBL is still seen by some as belonging to ‘more vocationally oriented institutions’. HEIs are attempting to make information that is relevant to employers easily accessible. In a random survey of 26 HEI websites the author found that information relevant to employers is ‘reasonably accessible’. This is not, however, an indication of current levels of activity and it is ‘not clear…how much work-based learning is actually being provided by HEIs.’ Owing to the difficulty in establishing the current extent of WBL the report argues that ‘…better intelligence (including baseline data) on the nature and extent of work-based learning provision is required to ensure policy decisions are well grounded,’ and that ‘…we do not, as yet, fully understand whether there are capacity and capability issues in extending the breadth of workbased learning provision.’ Pedagogical approaches that work: The report highlights approaches to WBL that appear effective and successful through a collection of case studies and draws out some common elements that the different approaches share. Some of these common elements are noted below: ‘These approaches are distinctive in that they emphasise a process rather than a content-driven curriculum which is strongly student-centred and less derived from pre-set curricula.’ ‘Learning outcomes are identified and agreed upon by the learner, employer and academic institution, and these outcomes form the basis of a ‘contract’.” Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement ‘The curriculum is predominantly derived from context of application of the learning (ie the workplace) as well as learners’ current knowledge and experience.’ ‘A distinctive feature of these (WBL) solutions is that an element of learning arises through work. By “learning through work” we mean that learning outcomes are achieved through activities that are based on, or derived from, the context of work or the workplace’ ‘…the learning outcomes are identified and agreed between an individual student, a learning provider…and an employer’ Key issues and challenges Overcoming the language barrier: As is noted in most discussions about WBL the authors found that ‘everyone has a view on what work-based learning means and they use a wide range of terms interchangeably (eg workplace learning, work-related learning, vocational learning). This all goes to confuse the situation and undervalue the potential benefits of work-based learning as a mode of learning at a higher level.’ They argue, therefore, that ‘it is critically important to establish a shared understanding of the particular area of focus from both an institution’s and employer’s perspective, irrespective of the terms used. This will be the first step in establishing a common language.’ However, the report warns that ‘the terminology and definitions can get in the way of what really matters’ and argues for ‘an inclusive approach that accepts the variety of interpretations is a pre-requisite if we are to avoid overcompartmentalisation and straight-jacketing institutions by trying to shape an absolute definition.’ A better understanding of pedagogy is required: The authors found that ‘it is clear that the HE sector as a whole does not as yet fully understand the nature of ‘what works well in practice’ and how different factors (eg background of the student, nature of current role, sector of work and size of employer) impact on learning in the workplace.’ Employer engagement: The report found that ‘we do not, as yet, know enough about the demand from employers and the ability of HEIs to meet that demand.’ It is also noted that ‘there is an assumption that skills required by employers are best delivered through higher education and that the HE sector knows how best to develop these skills.’ However, the authors argue that no body of evidence exists to support this and that ‘research to substantiate or challenge these assumptions Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement in order to help the HE sector to build a better understanding of the pedagogy of learning at work is required.’ It is argued that HEIs need to build and sustain longer term, closer relationships with employers, warning that ‘overcoming cultural differences and language barriers to establish a shared strategic intent will require substantial time and effort on both sides.’ From an employer’s viewpoint the CBI (2003) highlighted poor customer service as a main barrier to effective collaboration. Employers often do not know what is available and do not always see HE as a natural provider for their workforce. HEI’s therefore need to build on ‘one stop shop’ models and develop a client centred approach. They need to decide on ‘how best, individually or collectively, they can package their offer in such a way that it means something to employers.’ NB: UVAC are currently leading on a study to explore how a credit rated system could recognise learning in the workplace and be matched against the HE qualifications framework. Costs: WBL is recognised as being more expensive to run than traditional provision. Funding levers are in place (ie LLNs) to encourage practitioners to innovate. The report acknowledges this but found that ‘even so, funding remains an important factor in influencing the behaviour of institutions and may militate against any further expansion in this area of provision.’ Recommendations: For HE sector agencies the report recommends considering: ‘How best to address a lack of a comprehensive understanding of the nature and extent of the HE sector’s work-based learning offer.’ ‘Establishing a credit-based system for learning at a higher level at a national level’ ‘Supporting and resourcing more effective HEI-employer engagement strategies’ ‘Research to substantiate or challenge the assumption that the skills required by employers are most cost-effectively delivered through HE and can be transferred into employment, and that HE knows best how to develop them…’ For HEIs the report recommends considering: Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement ‘The extent to which HEIs feel it is appropriate to develop joint working arrangements with partners at a regional level as a means to ensure participation and progression into higher education.’ ‘How HEIs can best present a more consistent and coherent picture of the breadth of their institutional offers in work-based learning.’ ‘Building a better understanding of pedagogy.’ For employers and employer reps the report recommends considering: ‘Directing more effort towards motivating employers and employees to see the value in higher level skills development.’ The strategic context: An economic analysis suggests that changing employment patterns mean that employees are expected to be more flexible and have a broader range of skills. Graduate level skills are seen as being increasingly important in the changing workplace. The resulting policy drivers would seem to be encouraging HE in collaboration with employers. However, the authors warn that ‘policy decisions to expand work-based learning provision in higher education need to be based on a solid body of reliable evidence and data. Developing a better understanding of the nature, extent and uptake by employers of the current level of provision and the capacity and capability of the HE sector to expand its offer should have precedence over intensifying the policy response…..such a body of evidence doesn’t currently exist and better intelligence is required to avoid over-supply and an over-investment in skills or underinvestment and skills shortages.’ Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Integrating Work-Based Learning into Higher Education: A Good Practice Guide Lynn Brennan, (2005, UVAC) This report attempts to explain what WBL is, why HEIs should engage with WBL, and how it can be integrated into HE. It demonstrates good practice with several case studies. What is WBL? Brennan notes, as do other reports, the current confusion around terminology. However, she does suggest some aspects of what it must entail and argues that it can be distinguished from other terms: ‘One thing is clear – there can be no single or simple definition of what work-based learning entails beyond the notion that it is about learning (not teaching) and occurs in the workplace (rather than on campus). As such, work-based learning can, and should be, distinguished from the notion of work-related learning’. Why should HE engage with WBL? Brennan argues that ‘…if higher education is to continue to have relevance, it must address the economic imperatives for the supply of workers with the appropriate skills and knowledge to equip them for the changing nature of work’. It is also noted that HEIs should consider ‘the potential to benefit from the funding streams associated with policy initiatives.’ Economic analysis: The report summarises the argument that HE has always been associated with preparation for work, particularly in relation to entry to the professions, and that in the past, once entry into work was achieved, the employee had a ‘job for life’. The model at that time was sufficient. However, employment patterns and the ways work is organised have changed significantly over the last thirty years leading to a need for different skills, such as problem solving, continuous learning and teamwork. These are the skills, it is argued, that are required by a modern, flexible workforce. Brennan goes on to explain that ‘this suggests that the remit of vocational higher education must include strategies for developing not only a much wider range of technical skills than before, but also address the development of cognitive abilities and personal attributes that are conducive to successful performance at work.’ Given that current wisdom suggests that these attributes and qualities are best acquired in the work place, Brennan argues that ‘there is a strong rationale for higher education to build on its existing strengths by engaging in work-based workforce development.’ Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Policy background: This recent trend in HE policy has been premised on the assumption that contemporary societies must invest in raising the skills of their workforces. Brennan argues, however, the idea that this should lead to overall up-skilling ‘should be treated with some caution.’ The reason for this caution is that there is a danger that this may not address actual skills needs in all employment sectors: ‘There is some evidence that there has been an increase in the numbers of workers who hold qualifications at a higher level than are required for the work they do, and that the number of jobs that require no qualifications is greater than the number of people without qualifications.’ Therefore policy interventions should look at individual employment sectors on an individual basis rather than treating them all the same. Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Workforce development: how much engagement do employers have with higher education? A review of the evidence on employer demand Madelaine King, (March 2007) http://www.cihe-uk.com/docs/PUBS/0702WFDEmployerEngagement.pdf This report attempts to review the extent to which employers are engaged with HE, explore the issues involved and to suggest possible ways forward. A summary of current policy: The report outlines the recent policy history in this area up to 2007 and states that ‘by the turn of the year, the general consensus with regard to higher-level skills was that they were a vital component in the fight to maintain a global trading position. There was in theory a clear market for HEIs, FECs and private providers who were able to meet the needs of industry, providing that employers were aware of the providers’ existence and that all parties could agree on costs and delivery methods.’ A review of the evidence of employer demand: After reviewing the existing evidence King concludes that ‘…we know little about current employer funding of higher-level learning let alone what is spent with higher education institutions (HEIs) or FE colleges (FECs). Neither do we know what the potential might be even if employers…appreciated that they needed to invest in staff development at HE level, and HEIs had the incentives, desire and ability to meet their needs.’ Furthermore King states that ‘this report has shown that we know little about the current amount of work-based learning being undertaken with HEIs, or even latent demand at higher levels. Neither do we know how best to increase employer demand even if the sector had the ability and motivation to meet that demand. There is little shared knowledge across the sector (or even within most institutions) as to what works and why.’ Existing attempts to identify skills gaps and shortages appear to have concentrated on lower level learning rather than skills that might be development by HE level learning: ‘Neither the Sector Skills Councils nor the Regional Development Agencies have focused on trying to gather estimates of employer demand at HE level, priorities being set at lower levels, and the LSCs National Employers Skills Survey does not differentiate between levels.’ The indication, however, is that there is relatively little existing employer engagement. A current estimate by the DfES of the value of higher-level learning states that ‘the market for employer expenditure on training that HE could potentially compete for is difficult to estimate but is likely to be worth around $5 billion. Currently it is estimated that the HE sector secures no more than £300 million of this potential revenue pool.’ Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Furthermore, King found that, according to the HE-BCI survey, just 12 HEIs account for 50% of the CPD revenue at all English HEIs and just 7 HEIs account for 50% of the total £18 million income from SMEs. Because of these issues the report warns that ‘there is a danger that the Government and English funding council could set targets on the sector that are not based on evidence of what is achievable and will not seek the radical changes needed to support the committed few.’ Explanations for the current situation: There are a number of possible explanations for the current lack of employer engagement with HEIs. For example, the report notes that businesses are generally ‘less interested in whole qualifications than in what could improve their economic performance’ and ‘…enable employees to meet legislative (eg health & safety) requirements’. Later the report states the finding that ‘business are, in the main, more focused on providing informal or on-the job training for employees…to meet the short term needs of their business, or not training at all, rather than looking to the longer term skills needs of the whole workforce and the need to up-skill.’ There are also issues from the HEI perspective. For example a CBI survey carried out in 2003 suggests that only 45% of respondents were satisfied with the location of HEI training and that they ‘place more emphasis on quality and relevance to business needs plus delivery method that suits the company (rather than the HEI) over price’. King also cites a CIPD survey, (2006) which states that ‘a system based on rigid qualification structures and targets does not always sit well with employees’ need for flexibility and responsiveness.’ There are also possible explanations for the lack of clear data and evidence of existing levels of employer spending on HE. For example, ‘many companies are reluctant to give a detailed breakdown of their spending on workforce learning as it is regarded as commercially sensitive information.’ Similarly, HEIs can regard employer links as commercially sensitive. Recommendations for improving employer engagement rates: King notes that, although more employers need to be made aware of what HEIs offer, ‘employer engagement will not just be brought about by better marketing’ and that ‘upskilling the workforce to the scale required will require a commitment from a broad range of HEIs. It cannot be undertaken as a “cottage industry”.’ HEIs are encouraged to ensure that ‘more of the work-based learning offered by HEIs is demand-led, and delivered at a time and quantity employers want Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement (i.e. small chunks not whole courses) with learning outcomes linked to business performance outcomes’. To support this King cites a CBI survey (2006) which states that ‘there is no one-size fits all model for delivering to employers – training…must be delivered at a time and a place and in a way that suits business needs.’ There needs to be ‘more customisation of learning or courses to businesses…’ and ‘greater shared language and a greater understanding of the different cultures in business and education is encouraged.’ Furthermore, the survey showed that, when asked about the factors that would promote greater use of HE provision, ‘for the majority who responded to this question, quality and relevance to business needs were more important (than costs), as was a delivery method that suited the company rather than the HEI.’ King concludes that ‘increasing the higher level learning of those in work from 29% to 40/50% by 2020 through closer engagement between business and HEIs is probably the greatest challenge facing businesses and the higher education sector in a generation.’ Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Market Failure in Skills Professor Ewart Keep (SSDA Catalyst – Issue 1) http://www.ssda.org.uk/pdf/060131%20D%20SSDA%20Catalyst%20no1%20 Market%20Skills%20Failure.pdf This report attempts to examine the widely held assumption behind current policy that market failure is responsible for skills shortages. The aim is to promote an understanding of the skills and productivity challenge and to engender constructive debate. The evidence for the incidence of market failure: Keep argues that it is ‘surprising to find the evidence base on the incidence of market failure to be extremely patchy, given the importance placed by policy makers on the concept of market failure in explaining many of the UK’s skills problems. It can be argued that policy is often founded on the assertion of market failure rather than any solid body of reliable data and analysis.’ Keep is critical of the tendency to use the attainment of qualifications as a measurement for skills and therefore an indication of skills gaps and/or shortages. He warns that ‘we need to be very cautious about using qualifications as the main or indeed sole proxy for skill, or for employers’ training efforts or levels of investment. It is clear that many employers do not share the passion for qualifications that is the hallmark of national policy makers’ thinking about VET.’ The report notes that ‘…as one UK call centre put it, “we recruit attitude”. These skills may be vital, but are usually uncertified and therefore hard to count.’ The report also states that ‘we know that much of even formalised employer provided training is uncertified, and the vast bulk of training that is informal is almost always uncertified. Qualifications achieved by adult workers therefore tell us about only a small part of employer provided training. Policy makers may therefore be under-estimating both the amount of training taking place and the stock of skills being created, and hence over-estimating the potential scale of market failure problems.’ Keep goes on to suggest that ‘many alternative reasons may underline our difficulties, and if we rely exclusively on market failure as an explanation we may end up misdiagnosing and therefore deploying inappropriate policy measures. For instance, many of our problems with skills stem from their poor usage once education and training is complete.’ Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Towards a strategy for workplace learning: report to HEFCE by CHERI and KPMG John Brennan, Brenda Little (2006) http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/rdreports/2006/rd09_06/rd09_06.doc This study attempts to devise a strategy for workplace learning and to give recommendations to HEFCE on existing and future policy initiatives. Employer perspectives: As with other reports this study notes that it is difficult to gauge the current extent of WBL and that ‘there are few general statements which hold across employment sectors and workplace contexts and are equally relevant to learners/workers at different stages in their life course and professional development.’ The authors therefore argue that ‘on the basis of this study (and other research) it seems that higher education and employer links are most productive at the level of the individual workplace and the individual academic department. The promotion and extension of such links poses considerable challenges at levels beyond this.’ Employer engagement/brokerage: The authors also emphasize the possibility of brokerage between HEIs and employers and the possible advantages of this approach: ‘Several studies have highlighted the need for brokerage functions to facilitate providers’ engagement with employers. Brokerage may be one way of starting to create more permeability in the boundaries between higher education and work, and hence to create the conditions under which workplace learning can develop more easily.’ Recommendations: The study concludes with a number of recommendations to HEFCE, some of which are outlined below: ‘HEFCE should expect institutions to have an agreed set of ‘rules of engagement’, so individual departments that seek to engage with employers and workplace learners can do so on the basis of an institutionally-agreed set of standards.’ HEFCE should also consider ‘increasing the links between existing funded initiatives (for example, Centres foe Knowledge Exchange, Lifelong Learning Networks) to ensure that opportunities are realised for effecting good brokerage relationships between learning providers and learners…in the workplace (and their employers).’ Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network A Summary of Reports on Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Additionally the report argues that ‘there is a need for some coherence and integration between the existing and emerging brokerage schemes, so that objective and appropriate advice is given to employers and effort is not duplicated.’ Work-Based Learning/Employer Engagement Report, Draft 02/05/07 James Chappell, Flexible Learning Co-ordinator – Linking London Lifelong Learning Network