Agenda item

Report of the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People

The Self-Assessment Report was a fundamental tool that Ofsted Inspectors used to judge the quality and effectiveness of an organisation in providing education opportunities to young people and adults.  The Select Committee considered and commented on the quality assurance and performance of the portfolio of the learning provision commissioned, in order to further improve quality, outcomes for learners and in remaining a good learning provider in Staffordshire.

Community Learning was an umbrella term describing a broad range of learning that brings together adults, often of different ages and backgrounds, to pursue an interest, address a need, acquire a new skill, become healthier or learn how support their children.  It was mainly non-accredited and could be undertaken for its own sake or as a step towards other learning or work.  It may happen in personal or work time and be delivered by providers in the public, private or voluntary community sectors across Staffordshire.  Community Learning supported wider government policies on localism, social justice, stronger families, digital inclusion, social mobility and upskilling English and Maths skills and preparing for employment.

The funding comes from the ESFA as part of a national scheme.  In 2015 Community Learning was re-commissioned and a decision was made to reduce the funding allocation of leisure programmes in order to focus on targeted provision.  Targeted provision includes family programmes, provision for learners with learning difficulties and disabilities and those with enduring mental ill health, programmes to support employability and English, Maths and IT skills and more recently the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) provision.  In the academic year 2014/15 the funding allocation for leisure provision was £577,000 and 60% of the total ESFA allocation and this decreased to £360,000 and 35% in 2016/17.  Targeted provision increased from £384,000 and 40% of the total ESFA allocation in 2014/15 to £670,000 and 65% in 2016/17.

The Select Committee were shown a video, in which learners explained how a particular course had been of benefit to them.  They were informed that the Community Learning offer aimed to target people who felt excluded from participating in society, and that 38.1% of learners were from wards of high levels of deprivation and a third of the learners had learning disabilities or difficulty with learning.  The aim was to enable these learners to have better lives and be able to do more for themselves.

A member commented that the offer covered a broad scope and queried how this was narrowed down and focused on the outcomes which were trying to be achieved.  The Cabinet Support Member referred to the programme areas outlined in the report and pointed out that there were a number of family learning schemes, which involved the whole family learning together and focused on core skills in English, Maths and Language.  In relation to Adults with learning difficulties and/or disabilities the focus was on improving independence and confidence.  In the area of functional skills and employability skills the focus was on equipping people with the tools to go on to work.  For the first time STEM had been identified in targeting in the 2017/18 contract to drive towards broader aims in terms of education and employability. 

It was queried what the driver was behind the suite of courses on offer, and whether this was that they offered the broadest scope for most people.  Members were informed that in moving from a leisure approach to a targeted approach in terms of commissioning for priority outcomes, there had been consultation with local stakeholders, community groups and Councillors about needs and priorities for their area, which was used to help shape and understand the pattern of need. 

A question was raised about the breakdown between courses which provided a practical life skill and those which related to improved quality of life and wellbeing.  In examining data on why learners engage on courses, around two thirds focus on health and wellbeing, and around a quarter are about learners improving their skills.  In relation to the question of payback on public investment it was queried how it was known that people on the courses were not able to afford to fund their learning.  The response was that this was largely down to course design and the communities and types of learner who were focused on.  However, it was intended that the courses provided open learning and consequently learners were not means tested. 

Members questioned the robustness of the self-assessment process and commented that the report was light on methodology and validity.  They were informed that the authority was an Ofsted regulated learning and skills provider so was regulated under the same framework for self-evaluation as that seen in schools and colleges, against a common inspection framework.  This was also supported by an annual review and peer reviews.  There was a re-inspection in March when Ofsted had confirmed that the authority remained a good provider, that the self-assessment process was robust and that they supported the authority’s findings.

In relation to the Family English, Maths and Language programme it was queried whether the objectives had changed around this, as there had been a 12.5% reduction in the target achievement figure.  Members were informed that there had been a specific issue last year in that the two biggest providers, Stafford College and South Staffordshire College, had withdrawn from the programme.  This was a reflection of a wider issue around Colleges not wanting to deliver teaching in Maths and English.  However, other providers were being sought and it was hoped to bring this figure back up. 

It was suggested that, given that the County Council is moving forward as a paperless organisation and much more was being done on-line, it was important to focus on IT training and increasing confidence in the use of IT.  The Cabinet Support Member agreed that every effort would be made to encourage learners to engage in Maths, English and IT.  One of the objectives of Community Learning was to capture people who were completely disengaged and lacking in confidence.  It was acknowledged that a number of schools were used to deliver courses, and questioned whether this could also be extended to libraries.  The Cabinet Support Member agreed that libraries represented an excellent resource and community hub, and it was important to get best value for the investment in keeping them open.  Another advantage was that people would go to a library who wouldn’t go elsewhere.  There were some excellent library volunteers, and it may be possible to involve some of these in training, particularly in IT.   It would also be important to encourage schools to open their doors after hours and make schools more visible in their communities.

Concern was expressed over the disparity between male and female learners, with 71% being female and less than a third male.  It was confirmed that work was being undertaken to balance this out more, and whilst the percentage reflected some women preparing to return to work after maternity leave this did not account for such a significant difference. 

A co-opted member of the Select Committee shared her experience as an adult learner in Staffordshire, and how this had increased her confidence, helped her to acquire skills which had led to employment and had had a big impact on her life.

In relation to the list of subcontractors, a member commented that the use of schools would keep costs down, as they are buildings already available in communities, and often have skills available in-house.  Consequently the more schools that could be involved, the better.  Given the size of Staffordshire it was felt that the list for third sector organisations was very light, and needed to be expanded.  With regard to the County Council column it was commented that Entrust was not the most economical way of delivering courses.  The Cabinet Support member endorsed these comments and agreed that more third sector organisations should be involved, together with libraries and schools. 

Concern was expressed that there were gaps in the report.  The figures were activity based, and there was not much evidence in the report to support outcomes.  With a £2.4m budget, the Select Committee was tasked with ensuring value for money.  It would be helpful to know how many learners achieved employment in six months, and how many were still in employment in twelve months, in a report which measured outcomes.  There was also no indication whether individuals were accessing multiple courses.   Whilst the report highlighted the fact that 38.1% of learners came from deprived areas, it would be helpful to have more data on the distribution of students to evidence that the right areas were being targeted for the right outcomes.  The Cabinet Support member agreed that he would like to see outputs that it was possible to measure, and the direction of travel was away from leisure towards areas which were measurable.  However, it was important not to push learners away in trying to measure their achievements.  For the future more evidence of specific wards which were being targeted would be included. 

In response to the question of how members can become more engaged in Community Learning, the Cabinet Support member suggested that they become a school governor, and be positively involved in pushing forward the agenda in terms of schools broadening their scope and community roles.

In relation to the increase of 0.6% in the target achievement on Employability Skills, it was queried whether how many people were in work as a result of this was measured.  The response was that a sample progression survey was conducted six months after a course is completed, based on the learning outcome, not a job outcome.  This had shown that 27% of learners had moved into work having completed their course.  The Cabinet Support member assured the Select Committee that this was an area he was keen to examine closely for the future.  There would also be more explicit detail in the report on the follow-up action taken.        

RESOLVED – That:

a)    The performance and quality assurance of Community Learning and the findings of the 2016/17 annual Self-Assessment Report be noted; and

Future reports on this matter provide the additional detail requested by the Select Committee.