CRITERIOS DE EVALUACIÓN.

Individual learners (and potential learners) and educational institutions operate within the context of broader national policy frameworks. Recognising differences in patterns of adult learning participation across countries, Boeren (2016, 148) therefore emphasises the importance of the national policy context as the third and final factor in her integrative model. She states that the

‘participation of adults in lifelong learning activities can be stimulated and constrained by a range of policy measures’, for example through the ways in which initial education systems are organised and financed, and the level of social protection, and labour market regulation. Government policy impacts both on the extent to which individuals are able to access support and opportunities to develop their skills, and on the nature of support and the extent to which the support available meets their needs (Wolf and Evans, 2011; Hamilton, 2012b).

A number of studies have documented the impact of national policy in adult education settings (Hamilton and Hillier, 2006; Bowl, 2012; Hamilton, 2012b), especially as adult education providers are required to make adjustments to the courses they offer in response to funding criteria (Barton et al., 2007, 13). Particularly since the early 1970s, with the ‘Right to Read’ campaign, UK government has introduced numerous initiatives designed to improve adult literacy and numeracy. Perhaps most important was the Skills for Life strategy (Hamilton and Hillier, 2006) which saw significant levels of state investment alongside the introduction of a core curriculum, national standards and qualifications. This was accompanied by a high profile media campaign. More recently however, Allatt (2016) has highlighted difficulties in pinning down current government policy as it relates to adult literacy and numeracy education. However, recent policy changes include the replacement of ‘Skills for Life’ with ‘Functional Skills’ qualifications, defined by Ofqual (2012) as ‘the fundamental, applied skills in English, mathematics, and information and communication technology (ICT) which help people to gain the most from life, learning and work’, and an emphasis on GCSE English and Maths (Allatt,

2016). Most of this support is delivered through further education colleges and private training providers who use the Adult Skills Budget (ASB) to offer maths and English courses to adults. Current policy should therefore result in provision being available for all adults who want to improve their basic skills and access employment, albeit in a narrowly defined and largely functionalist form. However, whilst funding commitments have been made, investments have received much less fanfare. There is no national campaign to promote learning opportunities to adults, which may limit awareness and take-up of available opportunities.

Analysis of the impact of government policy on adult literacy and numeracy education (and adult education more generally) has uncovered several key trends relevant to those seeking to understand many homeless people’s exclusion from mainstream provision. Given the focus of English policymakers and others subscribing to predominantly ‘skills-based’ conceptualisations of literacy and numeracy, it is this type of learning upon which their attention is typically focused. An emphasis on qualification-led skills funding and quantifiable targets has resulted in reluctance on the part of mainstream adult education providers to target or tailor their provision to those who have (or are perceived to have) lower chances of completing a course or achieving qualifications. Funding which is closely tied to learning outcomes shifts provision away from supporting learners with more complex needs (Hamilton and Tett, 2012). In addition, a focus on standardised curricula and testing frameworks has led to ‘one-size-fits-all’ provision which often does not reflect the needs or interests of adult learners (Hamilton and Hillier, 2006). Support for younger learners has also often been prioritised over that for adults with

complex and multiple learning needs (Hamilton and Pitt, 2011). This has implications for the extent to which homeless adults are able to participate in state sponsored learning opportunities – they often fall outside the target population for skills interventions, and where they are able to access provision, the individual barriers to participation described earlier in this chapter can make attending and achieving the outcomes required by government funding formulas difficult. Thus homeless learners are an unattractive ‘client group’ for mainstream adult education institutions (Dumoulin and Jones, 2014).

However, perhaps in a move which can be considered contradictory to the dominant thrust of adult education policy, Allatt (2016) has noted some focus on specific groups of learners, including homeless people. Homeless people were identified as a specific group in need of targeting through the Skills for Life strategy. More recently, additional government funding was provided, through STRIVE (Skills, Training, Innovation and Employment) pre-employment pilots, which took place in London in two national homelessness charities, jointly funded by the Department of Business Innovation and Skills and the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG / BIS, 2014). STRIVE was a small scale ‘pre-employment’ programme, providing an opportunity for homeless people to build their confidence and develop their basic IT, maths and English skills. Commenting at the pilot’s inception, the then Skills and enterprise Minister, Matthew Hancock, said:

‘It is wrong that until now excellent education projects led by St Mungo’s Broadway and others have been denied government funding – today we are putting that right. There is no doubt that charities like St Mungo’s

Broadway and Crisis are the best placed to reach those in need of help, but we are backing them in this vital task.’ (Vavarides, 2014)

However, despite policy rhetoric around the value of engaging homeless adults in education, the amount of statutory funding for learning and skills flowing into homelessness agencies has been minimal. According to a recent survey of homelessness organisations in England, only three percent of accommodation projects had received any ‘employment and education’ funding, for day centres this was seven per cent (Homeless Link, 2016). Beyond the STRIVE pilots, it is unclear what the current government’s commitment to this agenda involves. Three years after the pilot’s inception, no further statements have been forthcoming. In addition, following broader policy shifts towards ‘localism’, policy decisions relating to adult education are increasingly taken at a local level. Whether local decision makers will share the then Minister’s sentiments on adult education in homelessness services is yet to be seen.

Learning for work: Adult education as part of active labour market policy

As this thesis investigates literacy and numeracy provision specifically as part of the support provided to assist homeless people to access and sustain paid work, some attention is now given to the place of literacy and numeracy or ‘basic skills’ in the statutory employment support system. Helping adults to develop their literacy and numeracy skills has been a key part of government strategies designed to move people into employment, featuring more or less prominently in programmes for unemployed adults since the 1970s, and gaining more salience following Skills for Life in the early 2000s (Tusting and Barton, 2007). However, ‘evidence on take up of… skills interventions for unemployed

people in England’ showed ‘high levels of drop-out between referral from the Jobcentre and attending an initial provider interview or starting on the course’ (DWP/BIS, 2011, 7). This has led the government to pursue a policy of ‘mandated adult education’ (Cross, 1981, 32) also known as ‘skills conditionality’ (DWP/BIS, 2010), a ‘hotly controversial issue’ (Cross, 1981) whereby unemployed adults who are identified as having basic skills needs can be mandated by the benefit system to enrol on and participate in courses to improve their skills, or risk losing their unemployment benefit (Dwyer, 2004, DWP/BIS, 2010, 2011).Proponents of such policies point to the benefits of participation in learning and a high level of drop out in previous voluntary provision. Opponents argue that such an approach is unlikely to help adults to improve their skills, and may even have a negative impact on their desire to engage in subsequent learning opportunities. They argue that such policies ‘pose a threat to individual choice and substitute a negative image of education as punishment or threat for a positive image of education as an opportunity for personal growth and fulfilment’ (Cross, 1981, 32). Moreover, considering that individual motivation is considered a pre-requisite to successful learning engagement raises important questions about the appropriateness of mandated skills training for homeless people and others in receipt of unemployment benefits. In addition, research has repeatedly found that mainstream statutory welfare-to-work programmes underpinned by increasing levels of conditionality, typically fail to support homeless people (Batty et al., 2015). Particularly for those providers rewarded on a ‘payment-by-results’ basis, those with more significant barriers to work are ‘parked’ as efforts are

shifted to those perceived to have a better chance of moving into work with fewer resources deployed (Crisis et al., 2012; Dumoulin and Jones, 2014).