We frequently hear the word ‘skills’ tossed about, as in ‘there’s a skills shortage’ or ‘a skills mismatch’, but put a bunch of people in a room, and ask them to discuss skills, and – with no additional qualifying words – people will head off in a myriad different directions. Having been involved in two very different round tables recently, with skills as the topic of discussion, I can vouch for the diffuseness of the ensuing conversation, meaning that it is hard to drill down into any specific aspect of the challenge.
There is no doubt this topic is a challenge, something recognized by the Government in myriad ways. Skills England – charged with ‘bring[ing] together key partners to meet the skills needs of the next decade across all regions’, no small task – is about to spring into existence as soon as the snappily titled Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. Imminent, we are told. Then, if you read the Industrial Strategy Green Paper back in the autumn you would have seen skills mentioned as a key barrier (indeed, the first in the long bullet point list of barriers). It is encouraging to note that the February minutes of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council (ISAC) identify that Members noted that ‘people and skills cuts across all workstreams and growth-driving sectors, requiring a focused join-up between the ISAC, Skills England and the Department for Education.’ And that Phil Smith, the new Chair of Skills England, is ex officio a member of the ISAC. Continuing on the theme of how skills transcends Government departments and that the Government fully recognizes this, they feature in both the Growth Mission and the Opportunity Mission.
However, as I say, my experience of a bunch of people sitting over a nice dinner with skills as the topic of discussion shows just how multi-dimensional the problem is. To different people it might mean (in no particular order):
- What is AI going to do to jobs and hence the skills people will need in the future?
- How can NEETS be best supported?
- Are we producing the right number of doctoral students in the right fields?
- What should happen to the apprenticeship levy as it morphs into the Growth and Skills Levy?
- What would lead to an optimum form for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement when it finally takes effect?
- What should be done to make sure graduates leave university with the ‘soft’ or transferable skills employers seek?
- How should regional variations in skills needs be handled?
- What can philanthropy do to help socio-economically disadvantaged students?
- What should be done to upskill adults whose jobs are disappearing?
You can see the list is long and varied and, in a couple of hours discussion while the food is served and wine consumed, it is impossible to come up with any in-depth solutions to any, let alone all, of them. But, the length of the list illustrates the scale of the problem, even before one starts worrying about the finances of any potential solutions one might dream up.
To reflect some of the issues I’m currently involved with in the Cambridge area, let me turn to one specific issue, that of asking what should be done to ensure that the well-recognized problem of an ageing technician workforce is addressed,. Even focussing just on this specific topic can be a minefield. Who is a technician? Are we talking about those with PhDs who go on to join research groups and make a significant contribution through a detailed understanding of a crucial and complex piece of kit, or are we talking about an animal house technician who may have left school at 16 with few qualifications under their belt?
Recently, there has been more attention focussed on technicians in the HE workforce by the work Kelly Vere has led at Nottingham University: the TALENT Commission and the accompanying Technician Commitment. More than 120 organisations have now signed up to the latter, demonstrating a determination to treat this part of their employee base with more care and attention. But that doesn’t in itself address the technician pipeline. Who becomes a technician and what qualifications do they or should they possess? It’s back to skills. I have previously argued that universities should play a more substantial role in training young people for these roles, whether or not they are going to stay in the HE Sector, as part of their ‘civic duty’. Universities should be in a better position to train school leavers, for instance, than a small start-up in a region, but these people may go on to make a substantial contribution to the regional economy through their ability to translate new ideas (‘diffusion’) and contribute to absorptive capacity.
Some of these could easily enter this technician pathway through an apprenticeship. Although it has been stated that there will be changes made to the current Apprenticeship levy, possibly including the removal of Level 7 (Masters) courses from its remit, the full shape of the changes is yet to be revealed. The changes to convert the current system into a future ‘Growth and Skills Levy’ need to ensure that employers invest more productively into the training of their workforce, to counter years of decline. Alison Wolf has persuasively argued that a clear distinction should be made between investment in apprenticeships for those first joining the workforce, and upskilling existing employers through degree apprenticeships (levels 6 and 7, corresponding to degree and masters’ courses), something that essentially amounts to CPD. Both are clearly important, but also significantly different and should be formally recognized as such.
No one should be in any doubt that the issue of skills is a problem. However one drills down into the question, the challenges are manifest. But, in order to make progress, it really is important to know which part of the question one is addressing, rather than lump everything together in one large basket of headaches labelled ‘skills’.
