Collaboration, coherence and communication -making the system work, for all
Post 16 – Back to the Future Part III
This week was both inspirational and insightful, a reminder of how established collaborative working is in Greater Manchester and how we can learn much from what works, and has worked well, in building a coherent education and skills system.
On Wednesday I attended an event hosted by the Greater Manchester Learning Provider Network (GMLPN), a dynamic network of post 16 learning providers (apprenticeship providers, colleges and higher education providers) who have been working together across the city region, for 25 years. Despite increased competition and fragmentation of the system, this dynamic network continued and thrived, driven by strong leadership and dogged determination to continue to work collaboratively to benefit the communities of Greater Manchester. The GMLPN is successful because it is built on the foundation of strong relationships and trust created over many years of working together, with a focus on impactful “on-the-ground” activity.
The network takes a place-based approach, supported by providers across the sector and wider stakeholders, including the Chamber of Commerce and the GM Combined Authority, and so has the agility and strategic vision to retain its influence to continue to shape and inform education and skills policy.
Buildings may have crumbled and sometimes new ones built changing the physical landscape, but the strong relationships across GM, developed over many years, have been sustained and underpin other collaborative projects such as the Institute of Technology. This hasn’t been easy and it is a testament to the sheer determination of all stakeholder partners to retain this level of collaboration, whatever the project or initiative, and to keep these dynamic strong relationships alive and kicking, even through the most challenging of times.
From 2010 to now – what did we lose and who lost most?
Looking back to 2015, after then attending a network event for post 16 providers and schools, I wrote a prophetic blog post reflecting on the impact of changes in our education system on young people. This was written pre-COVID(and pre-social media) and highlighted growing concerns about the impact of fragmentation of the system on the mental health of young people. The title of it was “ Is our education system broken and if so – where is the glue?” and this paragraph in particular struck home:
“Before the financial crisis of 2008 Greater Manchester was creating a coherent view of education and skills through world leading local services, networks and projects such as Aimhigher Greater Manchester, the Greater Manchester Strategic Alliance and the Manchester Challenge. We were joining things up, bridging the gaps through the “crazy paving” of education and raising aspirations for all to achieve. We were creating pathways from primary education through into work, higher education and higher skilled jobs. Clearer routes that we could communicate to parents, young people and teachers through integrated networks and skilled advisors [Connexions]. In the aftermath of the crisis it seems that our education system was dropped and broken into pieces, with each institution standing alone as a separate entity within a market led system, each with a set of targets to improve outcomes for learners that increasingly put them in competition with each other.” Gill Scott 11th October 2015
It is clear that post 2008 much of the glue that joined-up the system was discarded, and has not yet been replaced. However we now have the opportunity and the expertise to build on where we are, what we learned from the past and to design a more coherent system that works for all.
So where are we now and what do we have to build upon?
Institutes of Technology – collaborative model and potential for development
Over the past six years there has been significant capital investment in Institutes of Technology. A place-based and national project that has the potential to be further developed to be a more impactful and coherent network of place-based collaboration, aligned to regional and national skills priorities.
Institutes of Technology have some of the key characteristics of previous successful networks and collaborative partnerships, working across FE, HE and employers. There are however some fundamental gaps in the current model that undermine the potential of this initiative to deliver sustained cultural change and to further support the growth of higher level skills.
What is working well in IoTs?
Where there is a considered and strategic place-based approach, IoTs are flexing the project to build relationships, expand their network and collaboratively develop activity. IoT partnerships are now maximising on their employer partnerships and widening their partnerships and strategic influence in addressing regional skills priorities. However there are significant barriers to maximising the potential of IoTs to be more impactful in delivery of a regional and national framework model.
What could be further developed to make IoTs more impactful?
Investment in human capital (resource funding)
The significant investment in IoTs has been on buildings and equipment, equipment which will not stay “state of the art industry standard” for long.
The investment in human resource, relationship development, has been minimal, and there is an expectation that the resource needed for collaborative working will somehow be integrated into business as usual. The human resource challenges across providers in both FE and HE, and our market driven education system with competition for employers as well as students, undermines collaboration. In this provider focused model, there is no neutral voice of the learner to ensure a clear focus on best outcomes for learners. For example, why would an HEI recruit to a L4/5 programme when they can enrol a learner onto a three year degree programme?
Evaluation of change and the long term impact on learners, providers and employers
Across the IoTs, and other DfE funded projects, there is a focus on short term KPIs (e.g. student numbers on specific courses). Evaluation of stepped change (a theory of change model or research into long term impact outcomes for students, providers or employers) is not sufficiently considered. There is little opportunity, from this KPI focus, to identify how IoTs are impacting on the wider education and skills landscape and to develop the learning culture to ensure IoTs continuously improve what they do and to be sufficiently agile to stay relevant at a time of rapid technological change.
Growth of L2/3 Pathways towards higher level learning – widening and growing the talent pool
Similarly the focus on growth of L4/5 (key KPI) does not reflect the need to grow the pool of talent at L3 (able to move to higher level learning), through an increasing progression into and through L2 and L3.
Technical Excellent Centres – building on best practice but…is this too narrow a focus?
This new initiative, initially for Construction, is focused on the developing the skills needed to meet the short term needs of employers across this sector. The focus on construction is for domestic building and relevant provision to meet those needs across localities. There is much to commend the focus on communities of practice, to build capacity across a region however the remit is limited (does not include other aspects of construction such as infrastructure/civil engineering and commercial building or higher level job roles). There is limited alignment with wider strategic planning and/or joined up in approaches to employer engagement.
So Back to the Future – Learning from previous models, what worked well?
When we look back at previous models of collaboration, there was strong collaboration across the whole system, from primary schools through to post graduate and higher level job roles, with step-on and step-off points throughout the system.
In Greater Manchester(GM) through GM Aimhigher, data sharing agreements with data on achievement at ward level across all stages(primary onwards), and close connections with local authorities, enabled resource and activity to be carefully targeted to address the gaps. GM Aimhigher significantly impacted on widening participation in HE, achieving the target increase to over 50% of young people progressing into HE. For example, in the city of Manchester(with some of the most deprived wards in the region) between 2003 and 2009 applications to HE increase by 90.3%.
The Aimhigher project was overseen by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), with robust and ongoing evaluation that considered a range of both quantitative and qualitative data. Central resource was limited, with funding devolved through focused projects and specific roles within institutions to long term impact on cultural change. With a simple target to increase participation in higher education there was careful consideration of the step-changes needed to achieve this and a framework that joined-up the dots with other organisations such as Connexions and community services.
Similarly the HEFCE funded Lifelong Learning Network for GM, aligned with Aimhigher but had a focus on growth of Foundation Degrees (L4/5) to meet the higher technical skills needed across key sectors. The infrastructure of the Lifelong Learning Network had a similar model, a small central team to enable and facilitate collaboration, with resource funding for roles and project activity integrated into and across providers. Cross-stakeholder Sector Development Groups were created to ensure a strategic approach to developing L4/5 provision, with representation from Sector Skills Councils, Employer Networks, key employers, professional bodies as well as all providers across FE and HE. Across the universities and colleges of GM over 10,000 learners enrolled on Foundation Degrees over the lifetime of the LLN three year project.
The Greater Manchester Strategic Alliance Board, representing all providers, oversaw the LLN project, and aligned this with their own institutional priorities to both widen participation and grow higher education pathways into higher level jobs. A research project into course information in HE (across 12 regional HEI providers) was initiated through the LLN project, and led to coherent student and course information that underpinned UCAS online application system.
In the work on the 14-19 Reform (2008/2009) across Greater Manchester and within local authority areas we developed a coherent common application system for post 16. This then adopted by UCAS as UCAS Progress. This was pre-big data LLMs and built upon the approach developed for HE. This has the potential to be re-developed into a coherent application and information system for learners, to join up the information system and support the Young Person’s Guarantee. This was ahead of its time, thwarted by 6th form colleges who wanted to retain their paper based application process but that was then and this is now.
The greatest challenge now however is not quality of information, as we have the big tech and data analytic tools to make this work, it is the support and guidance that is currently so under resourced.
So, where do we focus our energy and our limited public resource?
It is human capital not technology or kit that is central to the success of education. Investment into the future needs to be in human resource, the people who have the expertise and skills to shape our education and skills system.
We have so much to learn from what works (and worked) well but as we move forward we need to ensure that limited public funding goes into the long term investment into those who make it work, and the glue so needed for long term system change. Yes we need to have high quality environments but buildings and equipment does not stay cutting edge for long, however our investment in resources (humans) will last for generations. Networks such as the GMLPN and the IoTs can do some of the joined-up thinking but to make this work we need investment in on the ground activity that is carefully targeted to widen opportunity, address gaps and support progression through learning into work.
Is it now time to take the long term view on what works, what worked previously and the glue needed to join things up and sustain investment in collaboration for the long term?
By Gill Scott, Director and Senior Consultant at Gill Scott Consultancy Ltd
Responses