DE LA UNIVERSIDAD Y LAS JUVENTUDES

We have seen that work-based training in Britain is skewed towards younger, full- time staff in professional and managerial jobs. Large sections of the workforce, particularly those in semi-skilled and un- skilled jobs, enjoy limited learning oppor- tunities at work. However, these jobs have been and are likely to remain in long- term decline. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the jobs that remain are likely to require a higher level of skill. Around half of those employed in skilled and unskilled manual occupations report an increased demand for skills (PSI, 1993). In particular there has been a growth in ‘multi-skilling’ with employees expected to carry out a range of higher and lower level tasks and be more self-reliant.

“Non-trainers – employers who provide limited if any formal training for their employees.”

“Ad hoc or informal train- ers – employers who pro- vide formal training to meet specific needs, (…)”

“Formal, systematic train- ers – these employers adopt a more formal, even strate- gic, approach to training (…)”

“Learning organisations – (…) organisations that provide their employees with a range formal train- ing and educational oppor- tunities (both vocational and non-vocational).”

CEDEFOP

“Encouraging further work-based education and training would appear to be a key element of any fu- ture policy.”

“(…) more recently, policy interest has centred on the development of ‘individual lear ning accounts’, to which individuals employ- ers and the State contribute and on which individuals can draw to fund approved training (…)”

The public policy response to the issue of current skill levels among the adult population has concentrated on three lev- els.

First the Government has reformed the system of vocational qualifications and is introducing National Vocational Qualifi- cations (NVQs). The new system is de- signed to increase the take-up of qualifi- cation-based training by making training more accessible with enhanced transfer- ability and progression between and within occupational skill areas. However, take-up by individuals within formal edu- cation and in the workplace has so far been slow.

Separately, training providers and further and higher education institutions have been encouraged to become more respon- sive to labour market demand from both employers and individuals and make their courses more accessible.

Second, the Government has pursued a policy of exhortation and exemplification through instruments such as:

❏ National Targets for Education and Training – including Lifetime Targets cov- ering the skill levels of the workforce in the Year 2000

❏ Investors in People – a national stand- ard for employers’ training and develop- ment activities

❏ National Training Awards – to recog- n i s e e x c e l l e n c e a n d i n n o v a t i o n i n workplace training

Finally, there are a number of limited market interventions by the State to cor- rect specific imperfections – these cover both employers, mainly small firms, and individuals, through the provision of sup- port mechanisms such as Career Devel- opment Loans.

The State can take some comfort in the improvements in Britain’s training per-

formance over the last ten years, with more training taking place and higher skill levels being attained. However, it is not clear whether progress is sufficient to make a significant impact on the coun- try’s overall competitive position, eg through meeting the National Targets set for the millennium and, in particular, ad- dressing the severe and perhaps increas- ing polarisation of learning opportunities and outcomes.

Encouraging further work-based educa- tion and training would appear to be a key element of any future policy. That means encouraging more employers to adopt a more formal/systematic, or even ‘learning organisation’, approach to train- ing. Evidence from the evaluations of In- vestors in People suggest that such an approach has a positive impact on the training of lower skilled groups (Spilsbury, 1995).

A number of ideas have been mooted (eg Layard, 1994, Senker, 1994). They tend to fall into three broad camps:

❏ first, a return to some form of training levy whereby employers are required to contribute towards a central training fund, perhaps determined sectorally

❏ secondly encouraging employers to achieve the Investors in People standard eg through tax breaks or levy exemptions etc.

❏ thirdly, and more recently, policy in- terest has centred on the development of ‘individual learning accounts’, to which individuals employers and the State con- tribute and on which individuals can draw to fund approved training (eg to achieve a vocational qualification.

In the absence of further improvements in the UK’s training performance it is likely that the next Government, of whatever complexion, will be examining at least some of these ideas.

CEDEFOP

Metcalf H, Walling A and Fogarty M, Individual Commitment to Learning: Employers’ Attitudes, Employment Department Research Series No. 40, Department for Education and Employment, Lon- don, UK

Policy Studies Institute (PSI), 1993 Employment in Britain Survey Policy Studies Institute, London, UK

Prais S, Jarvis, V and Wagner K, ‘Productivity, and Vocational Skills in Services in Britain and Germany: Hotels’, National Institute Economic Review No. 130, November 1989, NIESR, London UK

Public Attitude Surveys (PAS), 1995, Skills Needs in Britain 1995, PAS High Wycombe, UK

Ryan P, ‘How Much Do Employers Spend on Train- ing? An Assessment of the ‘Training in Britain’ Esti- mates’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4, Summer 1991

Senker P, Training Levies in Four Countries: Impli- cations for British Industrial Training Policy, report to the Engineering Authority, October 1994

Spilsbury M, Moralee J, Hillage J and Frost D,

1995, Evaluation of Investors in People in England and Wales’ Report No. 289 Institute for Employment Studies Brighton, UK

Steedman H and Wagner K, ‘Productivity, Machin- ery and Skills: Clothing Manufacture in Britain and Germany’, National Institute Economic Review No. 128, May 1989, NIESR, London UK

Training Agency, 1989, Training in Britain: A Study of Funding, Activity and Attitudes, Sheffield, UK

Williams M, Hillage J, Hyndley K, 1996, Employ- ment and Training in the Travel Services Industry, a report to the Travel Training Company from the Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton UK (un- published).

Abbott B, ‘Training Strategies in Small Service Sec- tor Firms: Employer and Employee Perspectives’, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, Winter 1993/94

Centre for Educational Research and Innova- tion (CERI), 1995 Education At A Glance: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris, France

Dench S, 1993, The Employers’ Manpower and Skills Practices Survey: Why Do Employers Train?, Employment Department Social Science Research Branch, Working Paper No 5, Department for Edu- cation and Employment, London, UK

DfEE, 1993, Training Statistics, 1993, Department for Education and Employment, London, UK

DfEE 1996, Labour Market and Skill Trends, De- partment for Education and Employment, London, UK

Felstead A and Green F, 1993, Cycles of Training? Evidence from the British Recession of the Early 1990s, University of Leicester, Leicester UK

Gallie D and White M, 1993 Employee commit- ment and the skills revolution, Policy Studies Insti- tute, London, UK

Guest D and MacKenzie Davey K, The Learning Organisation: Hype or Help?, Career Research Fo- rum, London UK

Industrial Society, 1995, Training Trends 15, July 1995, Industrial Society, London, UK

Layard R, Mayhew K and Owen G, 1994, Britain’s Training Deficit Centre for Economic Performance, Avebury

Manufacturing, Science and Finance (MSF), 1995, Experiences of Vocational Education and Training, MSF, London, UK

CEDEFOP

Own-initiative continu-