Presentation for leaders session on skills

1. Skills Devolution and Area
Reviews
Andrew Travers
3rd November2015

2. Trajectory for skills funding in London
• Reducing overall budget
• Reducing proportions
ASB and community
learning budget as part
of overall package
• Increasing emphasis on
loans and employer
contributions
• Increasing emphasis on
apprenticeships
£0
£100,000,000
£200,000,000
£300,000,000
£400,000,000
£500,000,000
£600,000,000
£700,000,000
12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20
Other SFA ASB

3. Devolution: London’s proposal
London’s Ask
• Devolved 19+ skills funding including
ASB, Community Learning and
discretionary funds – with flexibility
on entitlements pricing and outcomes
• Devolved loan and bursary facility
• Proportionate return on the
apprenticeship levy and funding to
incentivise SMEs to take on
apprentices
• Influence over 16-18 funding
• Devolved careers IAG offer
• Transfer of powers to Mayor over FE
college governing bodies and new
capital investment in 16 + skills
• A skills commissioner for London
• Open data by default on qualifications
and outcomes – including HMRC and
DWP data
London’s Offer
• Lead area reviews: deliver streamlined,
resilient, responsive sector with
greater specialisation
• Investment in LMI
• Skills strategies for London at regional
and sub-regional level (based on LMI)
• Excellence in professional and
technical education with a strong
Apprenticeships offer
• Delivering a London entitlement for
basic skills
• Joined up commissioning at sub-
regional level to support low paid / out
of work adults to develop skills to
move into and/or progress in work
• A sustainable and coherent careers
offer

4. Deal negotiations
HMG have suggested offering
• Block grants for colleges in 16/17 and 17/18
with sub-regions setting outcome agreements
in yr 1 and flexing allocations in yr 2
• Full devolution of ASB from 18/19
• Subject to readiness conditions
• Local skills strategy for 16+ post area reviews
– but no devolution of powers or funding for
16-18
HMG have asked for
• Greater clarity on “two-tier” skills
commissioning system in London
London Government has asked for
• Loan facility to be devolved
• Clarity on devolution of administrative funds
• SME incentives to take on apprenticeships
• Shorter timetable for full devolution (with
GLA offer of support to resolve legislative
barriers to this)
• MOU on data sharing with central
government to support the work on area
reviews and wider devolution.
• Clarity on resources to support area reviews
• Joint sign off of area reviews terms of
reference and, subsequently,
recommendations
• Further information on risk sharing on
financial liabilities of colleges

5. Funding blocks for two-tier commissioning approach
Increased
oversightand
accountability
London Skills Agency
Sub-Regional skills and employment boards
ASB
CLB S106 NHB
FSF WP+
ESF Match
ASB
ASB FSF
Directly commissioned holistic programmes focused on
skills development and removal of other barriers into work
PH
Target Cohorts (e.g.) Interventions offered
1. Complex JSA customers
2. Post work programme
• London Entitlement
• Short (>16 week) L2 and
L3 courses
• Access to apprenticeships
• 1-2-1 mentoring
• Jobs brokerage
FE
Capital
Loan /
Discret-
ionary
support
AGE
Levy
Outcome based block grants
allocated to providers according
to level of need and regional/sub-
regional strategies to providers
to deliver
Target Cohorts (e.g.) Interventions offered
1. 19-23 professional and
technical training
2. In-work low income 24+
3. 19-23 without L2
4. 19+ with learning
difficulties
5. 24+ Economically
inactive with health
barriers to work
• London Entitlement
• Subsidised L3 and L4
loans in key subjects
• Traineeships /
Apprenticeships
• Funded short L3 / L4
courses to support in
work progression
Sub-regional
strategy
WP
WPFSF
PH
PH
emplo
yer
invest
ment

6. Area reviews: proposed outcomes
• Increase the proportion of post-16 education and training in
London that is “good” or “excellent”.
• More responsive provision particularly through
– increased specialisation in technical courses at level 3, 4 and 5
– and greater collaboration between the sector and industry.
• Providers incentivised to support learners to progress in work
and/or education
• Resilient and financially sustainable institutions that can
deliver learning programmes successfully over next 10 years.

7. Area Reviews: proposed approach
Geographical areas
• Pan-London overview; sub-regional area reviews
• Where colleges cross boundary lines: considered actively in
one review but analysis considered as part of both reviews –
colleges should have the opportunity to feed in on both
• SDIs to be considered as part of the sub-region they are in
Timing (still in negotiation)
• Central/West March-June 2016
• South/East May – August 2016

9. Area Reviews: proposed approach
Scope
• FE and 6th Form Colleges plus community learning providers
• Initial analysis to cover school 6th forms (incl. UTC and studio schools) and private
providers
• Travel to learn patterns into and out of London need to be covered – with analysis of
what courses are being taken where, and the success rates of these courses
Resources
• GLA to provide pan-London analysis (supported by secondees from SFA and colleges,
and dedicated economist in GLAE) + secretariat for pan-London steering group.
• Sub-regions to provide economic analysis of projected skills demand and projected
demographic demand.
• JARDU to provide secretariat function for sub-regional reviews and analysis of
college curriculum offer and financial health.

10. Governance
Sub-regional steering group
Chair: Borough Leader from the sub-region
Membership:
• Local govt.: Chief Exec + skills director
representatives
• FE: JARDU have said all college principals and Chairs
of governors must be represented, plus other
providers who have opted in
• Business: representative from local business
• Central govt.: FE commissioner, JARDU
Advised by London Skills Commissioner
Function:
• Oversee the sub-regional review
• Ensure coherence of outcome for the sub-region
• Report into pan-London steering group
• All functions marked * of the pan-London group at a
sub-regional level
Issue to consider: Balancing comprehensive college
representation, influence and transparency, with the
need for workable, efficient steering groups. Options:
• Smaller reviews within each sub-region  more
steering groups (least preferred)
• Smaller working groups of college principals and
Chairs (based on emerging alliances) are engaged and
then feed into sub-regional steering group more
tiers (preferred)
Pan-London steering group
Chair: Mayor
Deputy Chaired: Borough Leader
Membership:
• Local govt.: Nominated borough Leaders covering all
sub-regions
• FE: Lead college principal and governor from each
sub-region + lead sixth form college representative
• Business: Pan-London business representative
• Central govt.: FE commissioner, JARDU, BIS, DfE.
Advised by London Skills Commissioner
Function:
• Lead, oversee and have overall responsibility for
London reviews
• Set overarching skills strategy for reforms and
London-wide stakeholder engagement strategy
• Ensure sufficient supply of post-16 skills provision is
available in London to meet demand and London’s
economic needs*
• Ensure findings and recommendations between sub-
regional reviews are considered London-wide
• Agree and publish final recommendations of all
reviews (by early 2017)
• Produce the London implementation plan for
reform*.

11. Key points for discussion
Skills devolution
• Response to HMT proposals
• Importance of link between area reviews and
devolution deal
Area reviews
• Will require political leadership and involve some
risk
• Proposed sub-regional geographies
• Sub-regional governance – leadership, size and
approach