C OMUNICACIÓN Y T RANSPARENCIA I NFORMATIVA

209. A total of 78 respondents provided evidence for this question. A large proportion of the qualitative responses outlined issues related to skills strategies, new provision and alignment with local need. Smaller numbers of responses highlighted access to equipment or facilities, links with registration conditions, having open dialogue and collaborative working, and having high quality qualifications linked to encouragement to develop new provision.

Skills strategies / new provision / aligning with local need (43 references)

210. Some respondents referenced that any linked grant or capital funding should be in line with regional priorities (strategic economic plans/Skills Advisory Panel

recommendations) and funding to support capacity building. Others mentioned the devolution of the adult education budget in particular areas and the importance of local influence around

74

such funding decisions. Some felt that funds should be routed through Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPs) to ensure they address sectors with identified skills gaps, replacement demand and/or growth potential.

211. Flexibility in any approach to funding was mentioned by respondents, particularly in relation to employers and local industry.

212. A few respondents felt that any application processes for grant funding would need to include evidence of local labour market shortages and/or endorsements from local councils, LEPs or combined authorities. One respondent suggested a local moderation process to ensure local bids are considered alongside the local context and other bids. Another felt that linking funding to meeting the current OfS conditions of registration could help enable provision to effectively meet local skills needs. Some explicitly mentioned that bids for additional funding should be through partnerships between employers and education institutions to show the genuine need.

213. There were also references to perceived complex funding systems and low funding levels. Some respondents referenced misalignment of supply and demand for people with technical qualifications and the importance of using funding to create a better balance with the skills demanded by employers (expressed through the Skills Advisory Panels).

214. There were differing views about the balance between allowing capital funding for new local centres versus national provision that can be “delivered locally in innovative ways….to ensure provision can begin while the market for the qualifications develops” (Education). Others felt that local-level models risked duplication.

“Whilst local skills needs are important, much delivery will be sub-regional, regional or national to make it financially viable, as a consequence both local and national needs must be accommodated. The allocation of capital via LEPs has led to questionable duplication of provision in some cases.” Provider (FE)

215. Some respondents wanted more detail on expectations on providers to deliver particular outcomes and how these might be measured. Others felt that quality within HTE providers was an important attribute that should feature in any bid assessment process. There were some concerns that better resourced providers might have an advantage in securing further funding which might not always be in the interest of high quality, innovative, STEM provision or

universal geographical coverage.

“If there is not sufficient funding available then provision will grow predominantly in providers who are already well-resourced (which does not necessarily correlate with high quality provision in specific technical fields)’. FE colleges in cold spots, and high cost STEM courses could therefore lose out.” Provider (FE)

75

Having open dialogue and collaborative working (14 references)

216. Collaboration between LEPs and other local bodies, described above, was mentioned extensively, and respondents thought that collaboration between local providers was important to avoid duplication.

217. Some respondents suggested that support for employer consultative groups would be helpful, particularly where accreditation by professional bodies requires formal consultation. 218. Sensitivity to local sector impacts (for example, healthcare) was also felt to be important where services can be destabilised through recruitment of staff to teaching positions.

Access to equipment or facilities (15 references)

219. While funding to support access to capital was acknowledged as important, many respondents mentioned the additional ongoing expenditure required to maintain quality in STEM subjects such as engineering and healthcare. This includes equipment for high- quality classroom-based simulation training. One education respondent felt that with strong employer links you can achieve access to specialist, up-to-date equipment without the need for upfront capital.

220. Other costs relating to equipment or facilities that were identified include: • _{Maintenance of specialist equipment received from employers which a donating}

employer will not cover.

• _{High insurance costs associated with specialist equipment.}

• _{Recurrent capital funding for replacement/upgrading of equipment.} Links with registration conditions (15 references)

221. There were a number of references to the positive benefits of linking additional investment with OfS additional technical registration. However, there were others that cautioned about the risks of this approach, asking how providers would be supported to meet the conditions, which requires the demonstration of human and physical infrastructure. This links to a tension raised earlier between OfS registration and focusing on high-quality and innovative or new-to-area approaches.

“To the extent that HTQs represent new qualifications with a different emphasis to 3-year degrees, the OfS registration process – that measures historic trend data – will need modification compared to the current

registration process for HE programmes.” Provider (FE)

222. Many respondents stressed the need to support a ‘range of providers’ to build their capacity to deliver new HTE provision.

223. One respondent felt that the weighting for registration conditions needed adjusting away from facilities and equipment, and more towards employer engagement, learner completion,

76

learner progression into employment/FE/HE, teaching staff technical competence and the quality of teaching materials (e.g. relevance to industry standards and customer requirements). 224. A few respondents supported the idea of drawing from the IoT assessment process to include evidence of support for regional economic growth and employer engagement.

High quality provision (7 references)

225. A small number of references were made to how providers could demonstrate quality (for example registering with OfS for regulatory purposes), the importance of investing in high-quality teaching staff (salary levels) and how employers are supported to overcome financial barriers of engaging in qualification development.

226. One employer representative organisation pointed out that submitting an existing

qualification for further accreditation would be time consuming and may not be worth the effort or costs. This may, they felt, act as a disincentive and lead to a lack of engagement.

Other comments (24 references)

227. Other comments covered cost barriers, locational disadvantages, the role of OfS and the need for additional investment to support the FE sector.

228. Some respondents felt that degree-level funding would not be sufficient to meet the costs of high-quality HTE in some sectors based on their broader experiences.

“The consultation declares that providers will receive the same amount of funding for approved qualifications as a bachelor’s degree. In the

manufacturing sector, the funding bands for engineering don’t go near to covering the true cost of a bachelor’s degree therefore, any funding incentive will make little difference to covering any cost.” Employer

229. Others were concerned about particular areas of the UK, such as the North East, where they felt higher inequalities could not be overcome by the funding incentives.

230. Some respondents highlighted the risks of minimum numbers of learners or contract sizes, working against the growth and development of smaller specialist technical provision. Similarly, others raised the importance of giving providers the time and support to develop and make the required improvements.

231. One respondent highlighted a finding of the Augar Post-18 Review that HE in FE providers have weathered significant and prolonged under-funding and, in their view, require additional support.

“…. despite these challenges, these [FE] providers have carved out a distinct role in developing and delivering technical qualifications. We urge the government to provide development funds to support HE in FE

77

providers to further participate in delivering technical qualifications and allow them to compete effectively with HEIs.” Provider (FE)

232. While another respondent raised concerns about their perception of the OfS role in the process.

“The proposed approach appears to be trying to centralise this approach and require the OfS to make what will likely be one-size-fits-all national judgements about regional skills needs when they lack a capacity to make such judgements. This may also be in contradiction to the duties in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to promote choice and to encourage competition.” Professional/business organisation