When will we ever learn?

Lord Dearing

How can it be that in a survey published in mid August, the Institute of Directors (IoD) reported that in spite of a fifty percent increase in real terms in public expenditure on education over the last decade, over half of its members are saying that the educational and skills base has got worse, and only a quarter think it has improved?

Whatever else we may be inclined to comment, it confirms the Leitch diagnosis that we have a first class problem over skills: a problem which was first diagnosed 150 years ago, and which, since then, has inspired successive reports and government initiatives; and yet, if this report is credible, it is still with us in a big way.

So, how can that be?

One possible answer is that employers in industry and commerce are always on the moan. I suspect that may be ten per cent of the explanation, but only a fool would say all this is no more than a tendency to blame your problems on someone else.

Another, much more plausible, part of the answer is that is we have not got the prescription right, and instead of producing what employers really need, at least to some extent, we have been investing in what our institutions are best qualified to teach. In short, the system has been supply rather than demand driven. That is in part what Leitch and the government have themselves concluded, and they want reforms that will be led by demand.

A third answer is the competitive challenge has been moving on faster than we have been running to keep up with it. Not just in skills but also in capital investment. It is obvious to us all that we can only hope to compete at increasingly high levels of skill and knowledge, and that the levels of skills required by employers to succeed in the market place have been increasing apace. And so it will continue.


So what is the answer? The government's reply to Leitch meticulously lists 74 actions, with whom is responsible for delivering them, and to what timetable. More money is being put on the table. Excellent! But based on experience over the last 20 years, I want to make three points to the government, even at the risk of being told this is what they have already said they want. I persist because, looking back, I know how hard it is to deliver them.

First, for goodness sake, go for simplicity and clarity in organisational structures. Especially with medium to small-sized firms and the low-skilled individuals we most need to reach, clarity and simplicity are of the essence. People in government offices know this intellectually but, since their lives revolve around their specific remits, it is easy to give priority to these and subordinate the reality: that where there is complexity only big firms have the time and resources to navigate their way through it.

Second, for the same reasons, once you have settled your organisational structures, stay with them for at least a decade. And remember that however good your intentions may be, we British tend to breed organisations like rabbits. Keep a good shotgun at hand throughout the decade.


Third, rationalise the vast number of qualifications. The Foster Review referred to 5,000 qualifications in the national framework, awarded by 115 bodies. When I looked in to this nearly 20 years ago for the then government, instead of attempting to get people to agree that their qualification should be scrapped or merged into another one, which is almost mission impossible, I came forward with a scheme for a small number of national levels for awards. This approach would have national certificates for each level, for all awards in the approved framework. This would mean that, without scrapping what we have inherited, the employer would have a clear statement of the level achieved, and know the qualification is one of recognised national standing. Maybe there is some mileage in such an approach.


My final word is to employers. Adam Smith wrote more than 200 years ago that the product of what was taught in schools and universities does not seem to be a proper preparation for business. The evidence of the IoD report is they are still saying that. If so, my respectful message to employers is: get stuck in with the government and help it to design something that meets your needs, and in doing so, remember every day, the needs of the small firms who are rarely at the negotiating table. Above all, stay with it.